Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill March 3 that will restore voting rights to some 53,000 Minnesotans currently serving probation, parole or supervised release for a felony conviction. (Mark Vancleave, Star Tribune/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

On March 3, Gov. Tim Walz signed a historic bill that will restore voting rights to some 53,000 Minnesotans currently serving probation, parole or supervised release for a felony conviction. The bill, passed in an evening vote to beat an impending blizzard, is the culmination of years of advocacy by the Restore the Vote coalition, which built support for the bill, even at times when progress seemed unlikely under divided legislatures.

Per Minnesota's Constitution, a person convicted of a felony cannot vote "unless restored to civil rights." The new law redefines "restored to civil rights" as meaning release from prison or jail, instead of completion of probation or parole.

This law is a key step forward, but Minnesota voters can — and should — go further, by ending the practice of disenfranchisement altogether and restoring voting rights to incarcerated citizens.

A constitutional amendment would be the strongest way to end disenfranchisement in Minnesota. The state Constitution has remained unchanged in its language surrounding felony disenfranchisement since it was drafted in 1857. Over time, the number of crimes classified as felonies have increased drastically (from 75 to 375), disenfranchising people for an ever-expanding array of conduct, now ranging from check forgery to intentional murder.

Most Minnesotans would agree that those two offenses deserve different punishments. And in Minnesota, we do reflect the difference in the gravity of these offenses through mandatory sentencing guidelines in an effort to make punishment "match the crime." Disenfranchisement, on the other hand, is a blanket punishment that is seen as purely "collateral" to any felony sentence.

Minnesotans, who frequently lead the nation in voter turnout, know the right to vote is a sacred and foundational tenet of democracy, not simply "collateral."

Our nation's history warrants a hard look at any policy that restricts voting for a specific group of people. Across the country, the expansion of crimes classified as felonies was used as a tactic to suppress Black voters and this impact persists today. Minnesota has stark racial disparities in disenfranchisement: In 2018, 9.2% of Native American Minnesotans and 5.9% of Black Minnesotans were disenfranchised, compared to 1.1% of white Minnesotans. Over the past few years, more Minnesotans have become aware of the many racial disparities in our state. By ending disenfranchisement, Minnesotans have the power to correct one of them.

Though it would be the first to do so through constitutional amendment, Minnesota wouldn't be the only state to allow incarcerated citizens to vote. In Maine and Vermont, for example, incarcerated citizens have always been able to vote. In contrast, in Virginia and Kentucky, people with a felony permanently lose the right to vote unless pardoned.

In many countries the right to vote is not tied to convictions at all: 21 countries, including Canada, permit incarcerated citizens to vote. Overall, the United States has some of the most widespread and lengthiest disenfranchisement provisions of any democracy.

People with felony convictions are still citizens — citizens who in fact are experiencing, most closely and concretely, the impacts of legislation enacted by officials they can't elect. It is easy to point to a person convicted of a specific crime and ask — "do you really want them to vote?" And, as uncomfortable of a shift as it might be, Minnesota's answer should be a resounding yes.

By reframing our assumptions around who "deserves" the right to vote, Minnesotans can acknowledge that people convicted of felonies already serve the sentence that matches their crime and the "collateral" consequence of disenfranchisement is not only unnecessary, but also unjust. Hard-won history tells us the right to vote should not be conditioned on a literacy test, poll tax, race or gender. Yet, disenfranchisement continues our nation's history of voter suppression.

Through constitutional amendment, Minnesota voters can lead the way, affirming that a citizen's right to vote is not conditional, strengthening voting rights for all Minnesotans and restoring voting rights to incarcerated citizens in the process. In a recent opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court, acknowledging the power Minnesotans have to lead on this issue, wisely said: "We should all take care that persons not be deprived of the ability to participate in the political process out of fear of our fellow citizens."

McKayla Murphy Zelaya is a law student at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.