Minnesota Voters Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202957982
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- St Paul, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6129902533
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Citizen Participation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $423,088
- Expenses
- $211,645
- Assets
- $1,296,586
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANDY CILEK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ANDY CILEK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $115,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mva comprises citizens, volunteers and experts committed to protecting the liberty interests of americans by improving election transparency and accountability through legal action. The mva also educates citizens on election matters, advocates for increasing voter participation and encourages citizens to serve in the various election judge positions.
What it reported doing in 2025
On january 5, 2025, the Minnesota voters alliance (mva) initiated legal action against governor tim walz over issuing an illegal and premature writ of special election. (Minnesota voters alliance v. Walz)in a major victory for election integrity, the supreme court granted mva's petition, cancelled governor walz's writ and the planned january 28, 2025, special election for the vacant seat. Walz was forced to call another special election. This victory not only ensured a lawful special election but also set an important precedent for future electoral disputes. Advocated for citizens to become election judges, ballot board members and poll challengers, and encouraged voter participation in school board elections.the mva was asked to provide analysis of house and senate election omnibus bills and provide written input to the conference committee on elections. Mva filed lawsuit challenging a new elections provision in federal court that restricts free speech around election related issues. Our appeal to the 8th circuit was heard in october 2025. By defending the right to speak freely about elections, mva aims to preserve an open marketplace of ideas and support informed participation in the democratic process.mva was invited to several speaking engagements across the state that focused on educating citizens improving election transparency and accountability. Continued research on the various laws/rules regarding early voting to educate the public on how Minnesota's early voting systems are being administered.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 76
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 41.1%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 50%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.13; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 54.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 41.1% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $153K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $116K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.