A formal request submitted to the Oregon Secretary of State is drawing attention to the intersection of election oversight, legal accountability, and public trust, following allegations of potential violations of Oregon election law involving two individuals connected to the state legislature.
On March 15, 2026, William H. Minnix filed an Elections Division Investigation Request with the Secretary of State’s office, asking for a review of actions involving Representative Ed Diehl and Jodie Fleck, who serves in dual roles as Constituent Services Manager to Representative Rick Lewis and Legislative Assistant to Representative Diehl. The nature of the alleged violations was not detailed in the initial filing, but the request signals concerns significant enough to warrant formal review at the state level.
One day later, Minnix submitted a follow-up letter directly to Secretary of State Tobias Read, raising an additional issue that could complicate how the matter is handled. Minnix is currently the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, Minnix v. Read, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In that case, Secretary Read is named as a defendant in his official capacity, creating what Minnix describes as a potential conflict of interest in overseeing the Elections Division complaint.
In his letter, Minnix formally requested that the Secretary of State appoint independent counsel or designate an outside investigative authority to handle the complaint. He emphasized that the request is rooted not in criticism of the Elections Division itself, but in the need to preserve the integrity of the process. “This request is made to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest and to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the investigative process,” Minnix wrote.
The letter outlines a concern about maintaining public confidence in government institutions, particularly when overlapping legal and administrative responsibilities could create the appearance of bias. Minnix noted that Oregon law and established principles of public administration support the use of independent review mechanisms when impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
“The existence of pending federal litigation involving the Office of the Secretary of State creates a situation in which the appointment of independent counsel would help ensure transparency and public confidence in the investigative process,” he stated.
Minnix further clarified that his request should not be interpreted as a challenge to the professionalism or competence of the Elections Division staff. Instead, he framed the request as a precautionary step intended to remove any doubt about the fairness of the investigation and to ensure that all findings are viewed as credible and unbiased by the public.
In addition to seeking independent oversight, Minnix also invoked whistleblower protections under both Oregon and federal law. He formally notified the Secretary of State’s office that he is asserting those protections in connection with the information provided in his complaint. The letter requests that any investigation be conducted with safeguards in place to prevent retaliation or reprisals.
“I respectfully place the Office of the Secretary of State on notice that I am asserting whistleblower protections under applicable Oregon and federal law,” Minnix wrote, adding that he expects appropriate measures to be taken to protect his rights as a reporting party.
The Secretary of State’s office has not yet publicly responded to the request or indicated whether independent counsel will be appointed. It also remains unclear how the Elections Division will proceed while the federal case involving Minnix and the Secretary of State is still active.
The situation highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations that can arise when election oversight responsibilities intersect with active litigation. At its core, the issue centers on ensuring that investigations into potential election law violations are conducted in a manner that is both impartial and perceived as such by the public.
As Oregon continues to navigate questions surrounding election integrity and accountability, the outcome of this request could set an important precedent for how similar conflicts are addressed in the future.