Loading...
The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the state’s law prohibiting convicted felons from voting while on probation or parole in a 3-1 ruling. The law, Minn. Stat. § 609.165 (2022), states that a felon’s right to vote is only restored upon completing their probation, parole, or supervised release. This means that felons cannot vote in Minnesota until they have been discharged from their sentence.
The appellants, two convicted felons, argued that the law violates Article VII, Section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution, which grants most adult US citizens the right to vote in the state and prohibits felons from voting “unless [they are] restored to civil rights.” They claimed that felons’ civil rights are restored if they are not sentenced to imprisonment or upon release from imprisonment.
However, the court rejected this argument, stating that “the words “unless restored to civil rights” are compatible with the notion that rights are restored only following a mechanism established by the government.”
Justice Paul Thissen wrote in his opinion that “The felon voting prohibition turns on an act of government. It is also the only exception that allows for the restoration of civil rights. A reasonable conclusion from these textual features is that an affirmative act of government is required to restore what the government has taken away by its affirmative decision to prosecute and convict a person of a felony.”
Justice Thissen also held that the statute did not create the racially disparate impact of felony disenfranchisement. He stated that the law was passed to remove the stigma of a felony conviction for felons who had served their sentences. As a result, he ruled that the law does not violate the state constitution’s equal protection requirements.
However, Justice Natalie Hudson dissented from the decision, arguing that the statute creates racial disparities and is, therefore, unconstitutional. She asserted that section 609.165 acts as a gatekeeper to the franchise, determining who will have a voice in the democratic process and who will continue to be relegated to political marginalization. Justice Hudson used a higher standard of review than Justice Thissen to come to this conclusion.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
This latest ruling is part of a broader wave of legislation and litigation surrounding felony disenfranchisement. In October 2022, the US Supreme Court was asked to review Mississippi’s felony disenfranchisement provisions due to their racist origins. In 2021, New York and Virginia restored the voting rights of felons on parole, and in 2020, Iowa restored the right of felons who completed their sentences to vote, making it the last state to bar felons from voting for life.
The decision has significant implications for Minnesota’s voting rights and criminal justice reform. The state’s felony disenfranchisement law has been controversial and has faced challenges from activists and civil rights groups. Advocates of reform argue that disenfranchising felons disproportionately affects communities of color and undermines the principles of democracy.
This ruling reinforces the idea that the government can determine when and how a felon’s civil rights are restored. It also highlights the ongoing debate about the racial impact of felony disenfranchisement and the need for criminal justice reform to ensure that disenfranchised individuals have a voice in the democratic process.
REFERENCES:
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds felony disenfranchisement law
