Stephen Emery

Stephen Emery ran for election as Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He lost in the general election on November 5, 2024.

Biography

Stephen Emery was born in Bloomington, Illinois and lives in Montevideo, Minnesota. Emery earned an associate degree in animal science from the University of Minnesota-Crookston, a bachelor's degree in agriculture education from North Dakota State University in 1985, and a J.D. from the University of North Dakota in 1995. ^[1]His career experience includes working as a county agent, a sales representative for American Cyanamid, and a medical representative for Lederle Laboratories. He also has experience in the legal field. ^[2]

Elections

2024

General election

General election for Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice

Incumbent Natalie E. Hudson defeated Stephen Emery in the general election for Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice on November 5, 2024.

	Candidate	%	Votes
✔	Natalie E. Hudson (Nonpartisan)	63.4	1,529,063
	Stephen Emery (Nonpartisan)	36.2	872,720
	Other/Write-in votes	0.4	9,023

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 2,410,806
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Nonpartisan primary election

The primary election was canceled. Incumbent Natalie E. Hudson and Stephen Emery advanced from the primary for Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Campaign finance

Endorsements

Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Emery in this election.

2020

Minnesota's 7th Congressional District election, 2020 (August 11 Democratic primary)

Minnesota's 7th Congressional District election, 2020 (August 11 Republican primary)

General election

General election for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Michelle Fischbach defeated incumbent Collin Peterson, Slater Johnson, and Rae Hart Anderson in the general election for U.S. House Minnesota District 7 on November 3, 2020.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Michelle Fischbach (R)	53.4	194,066
		Collin Peterson (D)	39.8	144,840
	Submit photo	Slater Johnson (Legal Marijuana Now Party)	4.9	17,710
	Submit photo	Rae Hart Anderson (Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party of Minnesota)	1.8	6,499
		Other/Write-in votes	0.1	362

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 363,477
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Incumbent Collin Peterson defeated Alycia Gruenhagen and Stephen Emery in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7 on August 11, 2020.

	Candidate	%	Votes
✔	Collin Peterson	75.6	26,925
	Alycia Gruenhagen	16.7	5,956
	Stephen Emery	7.7	2,734

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 35,615 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Thaddeus Laugisch (D)

Republican primary election

Republican primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Michelle Fischbach defeated Dave Hughes, Noel Collis, William Louwagie, and Jayesun Sherman in the Republican primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7 on August 11, 2020.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Michelle Fischbach	58.8	26,359
		Dave Hughes	22.2	9,948
	Submit photo	Noel Collis	15.1	6,747
	Submit photo	William Louwagie	2.2	989
		Jayesun Sherman	1.7	757

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 44,800 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Joel Novak (R)

Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party of Minnesota primary election

Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party of Minnesota primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Rae Hart Anderson defeated Kevin Shores in the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party of Minnesota primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7 on August 11, 2020.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔	Submit photo	Rae Hart Anderson	67.4	215
	Submit photo	Kevin Shores	32.6	104

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 319 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Legal Marijuana Now Party primary election

Legal Marijuana Now Party primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Slater Johnson advanced from the Legal Marijuana Now Party primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7 on August 11, 2020.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔	Submit photo	Slater Johnson	100.0	592

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 592 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

2018

See also: United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2018

General election

General election for U.S. Senate Minnesota

Incumbent Amy Klobuchar defeated Jim Newberger, Dennis Schuller, and Paula Overby in the general election for U.S. Senate Minnesota on November 6, 2018.

	Candidate	%	Votes
✔	Amy Klobuchar (D)	60.3	1,566,174
	Jim Newberger (R)	36.2	940,437
	Dennis Schuller (Legal Marijuana Now Party)	2.6	66,236
	Paula Overby (G)	0.9	23,101
	Other/Write-in votes	0.0	931

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 2,596,879 (100.00% precincts reporting)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for U.S. Senate Minnesota

Incumbent Amy Klobuchar defeated Steve Carlson, Stephen Emery, David Robert Groves, and Leonard Richards in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate Minnesota on August 14, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Amy Klobuchar	95.7	557,306
		Steve Carlson	1.7	9,934
		Stephen Emery	1.2	7,047
	Submit photo	David Robert Groves	0.8	4,511
	Submit photo	Leonard Richards	0.6	3,552

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source 1 Source 2	Total votes: 582,350
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for U.S. Senate Minnesota

Jim Newberger defeated Merrill Anderson, Rae Hart Anderson, and Roque De La Fuente in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate Minnesota on August 14, 2018.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Jim Newberger	69.5	201,531
		Merrill Anderson	15.7	45,492
	Submit photo	Rae Hart Anderson	8.9	25,883
		Roque De La Fuente	5.9	17,051

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source 1 Source 2	Total votes: 289,957
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Robert Barnheiser (R)

Campaign themes

2024

Ballotpedia survey responses

Stephen Emery did not complete Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.

Campaign website

Emery’s campaign website stated the following:

“

Private Corporations

Just eight men own as much wealth as 3.6 billion people–about half of the world population. In the United States, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than half of everyone else. The wealth of the top 1 percent surpasses $100 trillion which is more than the global GDP and all central bank balance sheets. Amassing this kind of wealth, and therefore power, in a few hands could not occur apart from the private corporation.

This kind of accumulation of wealth and power seems inequitable to many people, but it is not new. It would have seemed inequitable to the Founders of this nation too. They recognized that the corporation essentially is a tool to enslave the masses. They fought the Revolutionary/American War, in part, to free themselves from the private corporation—the East India Tea Company. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade. The company subjugated the colonists economically and the Colonists’ response to it was the Boston Tea Party and then the War.

After the War, the Founders of this nation addressed this issue, and others, through the Title of Nobility Clauses (anti-nobility clauses ) in the Constitution to prevent economic slavery from reoccurring through the private corporation. The nobility of the British empire also were aware of the excesses of the private corporation and big government. Lord Acton captured the sentiment of the Founders in his statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History supports his claim.

Government needs to be decentralized and economic/business activity needs to be decentralized too. The private corporation is a fictional creation of the government to limit liability, provide for a perpetual existence, and provide a mechanism that allows wealth, and therefore power, to concentrate in a few hands. Each of those characteristics works counter to individual liberty and the proper purposes of government. The proper purpose of government is to hold people accountable for their actions, not to control entire industries or allow people to escape responsibility for their misconduct through use of the corporate form. The private corporation essentially is mind control on steroids for redistribution of wealth and power to the elite through the misuse of governmental power. Redistribution of wealth to the elitists, or even the poor, is not a proper function of government.

President Eisenhower warned us of the oppressive nature of the “military-industrial complex.” It couldn’t exist but for the private corporation. It demands to be fed massive amounts of money from the federal treasury and it advocates for war. It is a threat to the well-being of this nation’s citizens and people throughout the world.

I have observed that catastrophic environmental damage occurs through the private corporation where it otherwise would not have. If the “bottom line” favors polluting, corporations pollute due to the limitation-of-liability shield. Much legislation, including that which allows for H1-b visas and O-1 visas that give our jobs to foreigners, is passed to promote the interests of the corporation.

President Eisenhower also warned us of the oppressive nature of the “scientific-technological elite.” We are nearly in “full flower” now. They have combined with the media to push a false narrative to support these “shelter in place” orders that have destroyed our civil rights, including our First Amendment right to associate and our rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to earn a living. Karl Procaccini, who now is an associate justice and is up for election this cycle, was Walz’s staff attorney who drafted many of the COVID-19 orders. He must be held accountable by voting him out of office. Vote for his opponent.

Currently there is no such thing as a “free press” as referenced in the Constitution—at least not as the Founders understood that term. Just six companies control more than 90 percent of the news media. This is a relatively recent phenomenon. The “press” used to be extremely decentralized, and that is the way it should be. Essentially, only the unelected decision-makers in the private media corporations currently have a “free press.” Even though they, along with the legal profession, are not elected, they effectively are arms of the government and have as much, or more, influence as any elected official.

Many years ago, Congress provided at least a partial remedy by passing the Sherman Antitrust Act to address the excesses of the “robber barons” of the mid to late 1800s, but the federal courts, which are in favor of big government and big corporations to expand their power, refuse to enforce it as written. The courts enforce other Acts of Congress as written; in fact, judges openly state that they must enforce statutes as written unless it would be illogical to do so. Judges do not claim that enforcing the Sherman Act as written would be illogical. Judges say only that they don’t want the Act to have the expansive affect that it would have if they did so. Congress has the prerogative to determine the affect of legislation, not judges. History has repeated. The Judiciary and the Executive must be compelled to enforce the Sherman Act as written to address the modern day “robber barons.”

Enforcement of the anti-nobility clauses would be an effective remedy to address the economic slavery of today through the corporation and government. I would advocate and vote for the courts to be directed to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act as written to diminish the mega multi-national corporation, which ships American jobs overseas, imports foreign workers under H-1b and O-1 visas, and is a hindrance to economic growth, and for an economic structure that favors individuals and families having their own businesses.

Federal Courts

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Mr. Hammond in 1821: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in … the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states.” In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” It seems to me that he was prophetic! He was not alone. Alexis De Tocqueville, a disinterested observer of early American government, wrote in Democracy in America that “. . . if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent or bad men, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.” We have had imprudent and bad people in the federal courts which led to the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, and therefore we had civil war. We most certainly will have civil war again and even more anarchy than we have now unless the issue with the federal courts is addressed immediately. The degeneration of the nation is largely due to the federal courts. De Tocqueville also said, “When the American republics begin to degenerate, it will be easy to verify the truth of this observation by remarking whether the number of political impeachments is increased.” He hit the proverbial “nail on the head” in making that comment nearly two hundred years ago!

I would advocate and vote to repudiate Marbury v. Madison, a decision issued many years ago by the United States Supreme Court that was used to establish federal courts as the ultimate decision-maker in government. Even though the Constitution itself provides a mechanism for amendment, and it has been amended many times, federal judges are so pompous that they say they can change it as they wish. To take this ultimate power is tyrannical and despotic (anti-nobility clauses ).

In issuing the Marbury decision, the United States Supreme Court did not have the support of the Constitution, the Executive, or the Congress to do so. The very structure of the Constitution establishes Congress as preeminent to the courts, which is eminently logical because they are closest to the people in that they are elected and judges are appointed. For Congress to make a decision, it takes 269 votes in favor of it. With the United States Supreme Court, it only takes five votes, and many times a binding decision circumventing the will of Congress and the President rests on the vote of one Justice. What’s worse is that one unelected federal district court judge circumvents the will of Congress and the President, and therefore the will of the people. That is outrageous! At the time the Constitution was formed, for the courts to declare something “unconstitutional” would have been completely foreign to the Founders.

According to the Constitution, the existence of lower federal courts is completely discretionary. It doesn’t make any sense to consider them superior to Congress and determine that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional. Congress can, and maybe should, repeal the Judiciary Act of 1789 and terminate the existence of the lower federal courts unless they can be put into their proper role under the Constitution.

In shaping the Constitution, the Founders were extremely concerned about preventing tyranny and despotism through application of government power to anything but basic morality. Thomas Jefferson, who was President when the Supreme Court issued the Marbury decision, had the view that it was illegitimate, as did Andrew Jackson when he was President. Early observers of the American way of life and government warned that the structure of the courts was the weak link of our system of government and would lead to civil war. History has proven them correct at least once, i.e., Dred Scott v. Sanford. This tyranny must be addressed.

Governmental power must be returned to the people. One way is to limit the federal government as understood by the Founders. This would include empowering the people by requiring the courts to have the jury determine the facts and the law before the coercive power of the government can be applied to any person or situation. As it is now, the jury is rarely used, and then only to determine a few facts. I will advocate and vote along these lines. Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf page 310.

Judges, federal and state, are responsible for making it practically impossible to defend yourself. They have created doctrines that punish the victim if a firearm is used in the slightest way against their criminal-friendly rules. This is another reason why judges’ role in society must be completely revamped to limit them to administrative functions only and the jury reestablished to make all decisions on the application of the law. Federal judges, trial lawyers and bureaucrats, though not elected, have far more influence on the direction of government than elected officials or even bodies of elected officials. That has to end if the nation is to survive. ^[3]

”

—Stephen Emery’s campaign website (2024)^[4]

2020

Stephen Emery did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.

Campaign finance summary

Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.

Stephen Emery campaign contribution history
Year	Office	Status	Contributions	Expenditures
2024*	Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice	Lost general	$0	$0
2020	U.S. House Minnesota District 7	Lost primary	$0	N/A**
2018	U.S. Senate Minnesota	Lost primary	$0	N/A**
Grand total			$0	N/A**
Sources: OpenSecrets, Federal Elections Commission *This product uses the openFEC API but is not endorsed or certified by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
* Data from this year may not be complete
** Data on expenditures is not available for this election cycle
Note: Totals above reflect only available data.

External links

Search Google News for this topic

Candidate

Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice

Website

Personal

Facebook

Footnotes

↑ VoteSmart, "Steve Emery's Biography," accessed July 26, 2024
↑ Stephen A. Emory, "Home," accessed July 26, 2024
↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
↑ Stephen Emery’s campaign website, “Stephen A. Emery,” accessed July 26, 2024

[bio1-1] VoteSmart, "Steve Emery's Biography," accessed July 26, 2024

[bio-2] Stephen A. Emory, "Home," accessed July 26, 2024

[quotedisclaimer-3] Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[4] Stephen Emery’s campaign website, “Stephen A. Emery,” accessed July 26, 2024

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

	v • e State of Minnesota St. Paul (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? \| Elections in 2025 \| How to vote \| How to run for office \| Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? \| U.S. President \| U.S. Congress \| Federal courts \| State executives \| State legislature \| State and local courts \| Counties \| Cities \| School districts \| Public policy

Stephen Emery

Biography

Elections

2024

General election

General election for Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice

Nonpartisan primary election

Campaign finance

Endorsements

2020

General election

General election for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Republican primary election

Republican primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party of Minnesota primary election

Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party of Minnesota primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

Legal Marijuana Now Party primary election

Legal Marijuana Now Party primary for U.S. House Minnesota District 7

2018

General election

General election for U.S. Senate Minnesota

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for U.S. Senate Minnesota

Republican primary election

Republican primary for U.S. Senate Minnesota

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Campaign themes

2024

Ballotpedia survey responses

Campaign website

2020

Campaign finance summary

See also

External links

Footnotes

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION