This has arguably been the most contentious Mayoral race in Minot's history. 1982 saw long time incumbent Chet Reiten lose an incredibly narrow race to Thomas Lee (who then resigned in 1984) by just 13 votes. Reiten quickly returned to office in 1984 when Lee resigned halfway through his term, and with a mayoral resignation this year it bears an Interesting parallel to today, but with a major caveat: Reiten ran unopposed, and today we see a crowded 4-way race between very different people.
With election day just days away, the Minot mayoral race has effectively reached a boiling point, becoming one of the most bitter and contentious local campaigns in recent memory. A series of personal attacks, legal threats, and revelations about candidates' criminal histories have dominated headlines, overshadowing meaningful policy discussions and leaving voters uncertain and frustrated. This friction and frustration has gone beyond campaign boundaries, with debates on social media and in community forums showing up almost daily, it further shows how deeply divided residents have become over Minot’s future.
The race remains genuinely wide open, despite outside speculation, adding even greater intensity to the political drama unfolding across the city. Allegations of negative campaigning and questionable legal maneuvers, coupled with confrontational exchanges between candidates, have only heightened the stakes. With each candidate facing both hurdles and viable paths to victory, and undecided voters holding substantial sway, the closing days promise increased tension and unpredictability. This article aims to provide undecided voters with a clear breakdown of the race’s current standing and the potential path to victory for each candidate.
Josiah Roise has run the most unconventional and ideologically distinct campaign in the 2025 Minot mayoral race. A self-described “constitutional mayor,” Roise has embraced a platform centered on limiting government overreach, protecting individual liberties, and restoring what he believes are founding American principles. He has often pointed to the "constitutional sheriff" model as a guiding philosophy for his vision of executive leadership, positioning himself as a candidate who would resist enforcing local, state, or federal mandates he sees as infringing on constitutional rights. This includes his hope to return to what he calls "Common Law" and his vocal opposition to laws like seatbelt mandates or tinted window restrictions, which he claims have no victim.
Roise’s campaign has been defined by its outsider tone and populist messaging, positioning him as the candidate for those disillusioned with entrenched power in city government. He’s cultivated a liberty-minded, anti-establishment base, shown by events like his “Constitutional Rally” with Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association; and has used both the debate and the Chamber/EDC forum to consistently steer policy discussions back to themes of personal freedom and limited government. His most memorable line, calling for elected leaders “to be shepherds, not rulers,” captured the core of his appeal to voters who feel City Hall has grown too bloated or out of touch. While this approach has earned him a loyal following, it has also alienated more moderate and traditionally minded residents who see his rhetoric as extreme or impractical for the responsibilities of local governance.
Josiah Roise’s candidacy has not been without controversy, particularly due to his criminal history and an ongoing lawsuit against the Ward County Sherriff and Minot Police Department. According to public records, Roise has multiple past convictions, including offenses in Florida. More recently, Roise filed a federal lawsuit against the Minot Police Department and Ward County Sheriff’s Office, alleging civil rights violations stemming from a 2019 search of his residence. In his suit, Roise claims the incident was part of a broader effort to harass him, asserting that authorities acted without proper justification. The case remains ongoing and has become another sticking point in the wildest race Minot's seen.
Roise’s path to victory hinges on mobilizing a quiet but motivated base of anti-establishment, small-government voters who see his status as the lone non-council candidate as a bonus. His campaign appeals to those disillusioned with City Hall, distrustful of institutions, or frustrated by perceived government overreach and dysfunction. If we see low-turnout (under 3,000 voters) Roise’s energized base could punch well above its weight, giving him a real shot in a fractured four-way field. However, his outsider identity could be a double-edged sword: while it sets him apart, it may also cap his broader appeal. For Roise to win, he’ll need low turnout, high enthusiasm among his supporters, an effective Get Out the Vote operation, and a split vote among the other candidates.
Mark Jantzer is the most veteran figure in the race, being a long-serving alderman of 18 years, council president, and longtime Minot resident. Jantzer has built a reputation for being knowledgable, diplomatic, and process-oriented. Throughout the campaign, Jantzer has positioned himself away from the other council in-fighting, which could allow him to be seen as a stabilizing presence who understands how to work within the city’s structure and avoid the drama that has defined Minot politics this past year.
Jantzer’s campaign has emphasized his commitment to steady leadership. At both the forum and the debate, he came across as calm and composed, favoring substance over "buzzwords". He often invoked his past knowledge on flood recovery, budget negotiations, and the Air Force base to underscore his familiarity with the city’s long-term challenges. While he was the least confrontational of the four candidates, that approach could appeal to voters craving stability amid a race marked by conflict. His appeal lies in experience and trust, he seems to want voters to feel that he’s the only candidate who can keep the city on track without unnecessary disruption.
Yet Jantzer’s quiet, traditional style could be his greatest liability in a race that has become deeply polarized and unusually personal. With other candidates dominating headlines and social media chatter, Jantzer has struggled at times to break through that noise. His measured tone may come off as overly cautious or even disconnected, especially to voters who want bold action or visible pushback against dysfunction. Critics of the current council, particularly those who view City Hall as too willing to tax residents, or slow to act in general, may see Jantzer as the catalyst of the very system they want reformed.
Despite the challenges of a crowded and chaotic race, Jantzer remains firmly in contention thanks to a strong base of support among Minot’s civic leaders and “old guard” voters who prioritize stability over a shake up. With long-standing experience in budgeting, infrastructure, flood control, and defense-related initiatives like Task Force 21, he brings a depth of institutional knowledge unmatched by his opponents. His path to victory depends on whether voters want a reset or a steady return to normalcy. In a field split by ideological and stylistic contrasts, Jantzer may not generate excitement, but he could be seen as the most reassuring option. If enough Minoters are turned off by the drama and crave a familiar, competent hand on the wheel, Jantzer’s low-key, drama-free campaign might just be the one that prevails on election night.
Paul Pitner’s candidacy is grounded in economic development, collaboration, and a distinctly local vision. A Minot native and small business owner, he returned during the oil boom and has served on the City Council since 2018. His campaign focuses on building long-term opportunity in Minot by fostering partnerships between city staff, developers, and community stakeholders. Pitner has framed his platform around a strategy of investment, infrastructure, and collaboration, aimed at shaping Minot into a place where families and businesses can grow and stay.
He’s positioned himself as a steady, dependable leader who gets results through consensus rather than conflict. During the June debate, Pitner also emphasized his desire to enter the race was fueled by Fuller's entrance and his distaste for how he operates. His support for initiatives like the facade improvement and Renaissance zone programs tie into his broader vision of revitalizing Minot through targeted enhancements. His policy approach leans practical and methodical, prioritizing growth management and infrastructure maintenance over cutting across the board.
Running a finance-independent campaign, Pitner has publicly released financial disclosures showing zero campaign contributions, the only of the 4. However, some critics have raised concerns about perceived favoritism regarding programs like the facade initiative, where family members could be indirect beneficiaries. Pitner has maintained that he has never personally profited and rejects the notion that his policy positions are self-serving. This financial transparency is part of his effort to present himself as a responsible, accountable leader who separates personal interest from public service.
Still, his 7 year tenure on the council presents challenges. Opponents have labeled him part of the Minot “establishment,” pointing to his past support for city budgets, property tax increases, and projects some see as controversial. In a race fueled by frustration with City Hall, those associations could prove costly. Yet his path to victory lies in consolidating the center, appealing to voters seeking younger leadership rather than disruption and a knowledge of how the City functions. If turnout reflects a desire for continuity over big change, Pitner’s steady hand and experience may resonate enough to carry him through a splintered four-way contest. His success will largely depend on whether voters view him as a part of the problem, or part of the solution.
Rob Fuller entered the Minot mayoral race as a first term alderman known for his sharp tone, banking background, and willingness to challenge the status quo having effectively run on a "ticket" with fellow Aldermen Mike Blessum and Scott Samuelson. Early in the campaign, he positioned himself as a reformer unafraid to “hold staff accountable” and challenge city policies he believes are mismanaged or bloated. His main messaging has focused on ending what he calls “rubber-stamping” in City Hall, cutting property taxes, stronger leadership, and a more business friendly city. That message, at its core, speaks to voters frustrated by bureaucracy and perceived heavy-handed local decision making.
However, Fuller’s campaign has recently been overshadowed by controversy. Media reports revealed a 2009 domestic violence incident in Colorado, which Fuller acknowledged and attempted to explain. The situation escalated further when he sent a cease-and-desist letter to opponent Paul Pitner, demanding Pitner retract social media posts referencing the situation after a billboard in town came to light criticizing Fuller and Roise. That legal threat, especially against a fellow candidate, sparked criticism, raising concerns about Fuller’s temperament. These actions have led many to view Fuller as combative and litigious, traits that could either energize or repel voters depending on their view of his motives.
In both the debate and the forum, Fuller projected confidence and discipline in articulating his views. He frequently spoke about transparency, eliminating waste, and increasing public input into city processes. He was particularly pointed in his critiques of the city’s budgeting and administrative decisions, arguing that current leadership has allowed costs to spiral out of control. His strongest moments came when he challenged his opponents directly, especially during moments where he framed himself as the lone candidate willing to “tell it like it is.”
Rob Fuller’s path to victory relies on consolidating voters disillusioned with current city leadership, business figures desiring a more assertive executive, and residents drawn to a candidate willing to "ask the tough questions." His image as an aggressive outsider with council experience may resonate with those who view recent controversies as overblown or politically motivated. However, those actions could present a liability. For many voters, his legal threats, public disputes, and heated rhetoric suggest instability, something Minot's dealt with a good deal the past year. To win, Fuller needs to convince undecided voters to look past his confrontations and focus instead on his promise to take on entrenched interests. That’s why Fuller may have the widest range of outcomes. He could win in a landslide if he successfully taps into Minot’s “silent majority,” or finish near the bottom if the surrounding controversies overshadow his message
Overall, this race’s dynamics remain fluid and unpredictable. So many factors will contribute to voter turnout, which will likely be the deciding factor. Controversies and personal issues have clouded many voter perceptions and swayed voters across the board. Candidates now face the task of shifting voter attention back to substantive issues: property taxes, economic growth, infrastructure improvements, flood control, and passing a budget for 2026.
Ultimately, voter turnout and enthusiasm in the final days will likely determine the outcome. I'm going to take the cop out with my prediction by saying: Each candidate has a realistic path to victory, provided they mobilize their base and get out the vote, capturing late-deciding voters. Then, we wait for voter turnout to fall as it may and see if Minot can eclipse our recent elections, or if turnout will once again disappoint. In the end, this 10 month audition will be an incredibly advantageous set up for the full term that begins with next June's election.
