District judge errs on voting rights

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

The Minnesota Legislature in the last session managed to pass a dramatic expansion of voting rights, finally allowing an estimated 55,000 Minnesotans on probation to participate in this most fundamental of citizen rights. It was a hard-won victory, the culmination of years of effort, and one with broad support. The bill was passed by the DFL-dominated House and Senate and signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz.

But now District Court Judge Matthew Quinn in Mille Lacs County has taken it upon himself to decide that the law is unconstitutional and that he need not recognize it. He has begun attaching orders to probation cases he hears that go out of their way to prohibit probationers from "registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to vote."

Chillingly, Quinn states that "To do so is a criminal act which can be investigated, charged and prosecuted," resulting in possible reimposition or even expansion of the original sentence.

This is a grave matter, and Attorney General Keith Ellison is right to intervene by supporting two of the probationers. Since the first two orders, Quinn apparently has issued four more. Ellison is intervening to support a writ of prohibition from the Minnesota Court of Appeals that would stop Quinn from issuing further orders restricting voting.

Ellison in his filing argued that Quinn abused his authority. "Judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers are essential principles of our justice system," Ellison said. "When either of those principles is violated, Minnesotans lose trust in the system — and Judge Quinn has violated both principles."

Quinn's actions earlier prompted a rare — and appropriate — joint statement by Secretary of State Steve Simon and Ellison.

Ellison told an editorial writer that typically if a judge were going to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute, he would not only inform the attorney general, but would give the prosecution and defense a chance to be heard.

"It was pretty shocking," Ellison said. "Never before, no judge I have ever dealt with, has done something like this. Some have their own unique approach, but the basic article of judging is that you follow the law. This is a dramatic and, I have to say, weird departure from everything we know. You just don't decide that you don't like a law that just passed and decide not to uphold it."

Minnesota is a state with a relatively low rate of incarceration, but a high rate of probation. Those convicted here can spend years or even decades on probation.

Simon told an editorial writer that, "Minnesota is not a trailblazer here. Once someone is no longer incarcerated, they should get the right to vote. It means a judge has determined that someone is safe enough, worthy enough to be out in the community. That means they should have a say in what happens to them, their families and communities by helping to choose who represents them." Simon said studies have also shown that probationers who vote are far less likely to reoffend.

"I don't believe in my entire time in office I have ever issued a joint statement with another public official," Simon said, "but I feel very strongly about this. We don't want anyone else to copy this."

Shortly before the Legislature passed the law, the state Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of the probation ban, Simon said, "based on existing law." But, he said, the court also noted that a change in state law could restore a probationer's right to vote. "They said explicitly that the Legislature had that power," Simon said. "That's why I'm so surprised that this judge would think it's his place to make that kind of decision. To just freelance a declaration that a statute is unconstitutional is something we just can't let stand."

"We want to let all those people know," Simon said, "that these orders have no statewide impact, and should not create fear, uncertainty or doubt."

This is not Quinn's first brush with controversy. In March 2021, he received a public reprimand by the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards for violating the judicial code of conduct regarding overtly political positions he took, including a prohibition against publicly supporting or opposing candidates for elected office.

Quinn's departure from judicial norms, his refusal to recognize existing state law and his arbitrariness when dealing with such fundamental rights, would be bad in any scenario. Timed this close to another election cycle, his actions may give tens of thousands of Minnesotans pause when they should have been looking forward to once again exercising this right.

Probation is intended to reintegrate former prisoners back into society. These are individuals who live, work and pay taxes in our communities. It is only reasonable that they be allowed a say in who represents them. A district judge should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule state law and negate that right by fiat.