Minnesota Supreme Court: Barring felons from voting not unconstitutional

The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that barring felons from voting doesn't violate the Minnesota Constitution, a long-awaited decision that arrived as the DFL-controlled Legislature is on the verge of changing the law.

DFLers are seeking to restore voting rights to felons as soon as they're no longer incarcerated. Under current law, those released from jail or prison must wait until they're off probation and have paid their fines to regain their voting rights.

Elizer Darris, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by the ACLU, vowed to continue the fight. "I am not going to go back into the recesses of darkness," he said at a news conference where he and ACLU leaders expressed extreme disappointment with the decision.

Supporters of restoring felon voting rights say that disenfranchising the roughly 50,000 felons on parole or probation violates the core U.S. principle of no taxation without representation. They argue that many of the formerly incarcerated hold jobs, pay taxes and want to be involved in their communities and that disenfranchisement of felons is an enduring systemic racial disparity.

Opponents argue that those who commit crimes, especially felonies, must face penalties.

The case had been pending at the state Supreme Court for an extraordinarily long time. The court heard oral arguments in December 2021 on the lawsuit seeking to restore felon voting rights after the lower courts rejected it.

Justice Paul Thissen, who wrote the decision affirming the lower courts' actions, said every member of the court agrees that the right to vote is fundamental.

"But the people of Minnesota have the power to define in the constitution who can and cannot vote—who has the right to vote," he wrote in an opinion also signed by Justices Margaret Chutich, Anne McKeig and Gordon Moore.

The opinion recognized the "troubling consequences, including the disparate racial impacts" of the current law, but pointed out that the Legislature has the power to change it to address the public policy concerns raised in the lawsuit.

"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," Thissen wrote.

Justice G. Barry Anderson wrote a concurring opinion signed by Chief Justice Lorie Gildea.

Justice Natalie Hudson, the only Black justice on the court, wrote in a dissent that the law is unconstitutional because it disenfranchises Black and Native American voters at much higher rates. She included graphics detailing how the law impacts racial minorities, who are incarcerated at higher rates than white Minnesotans.

"The court effectively sanctions a pernicious statutory racial classification regime that maintains the disenfranchisement of large swaths of Minnesota's communities of color, thereby diminishing their political power and influence in this state," Hudson wrote. "We are better than this."

She noted there is broad consensus that re-enfranchisement of felons "is critical for rehabilitation, in part, because voting is the ultimate act of civic engagement."

Finally, Hudson quoted the late Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Wahl's writing in a previous decision. "There comes a time when we cannot and must not close our eyes when presented with evidence that certain laws, regardless of the purpose for which they were enacted, discriminate unfairly on the basis of race," Hudson wrote.

The Minnesota House already passed a bill 71-59 to allow felons to vote once they're no longer incarcerated.

Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic and President of the Senate Bobby Joe Champion, both Minneapolis DFLers, say the Senate is ready to take up the cause. "We in the Senate are prepared to take swift action to debate and pass this important legislation to allow all of our voices to be heard when it comes to voting," Champion said in a statement.

Gov. Tim Walz has indicated he will sign what's known as "Restore the Vote" legislation.

Craig Coleman, a Minneapolis lawyer who worked on the case with the ACLU, said "democracy is an ongoing commitment" and judicial support for voting rights is important. Had the court ruled in the ACLU's favor, Coleman said, "We would still be calling on the Legislature to do the right thing."

The Minnesota and national ACLU filed the initial lawsuit in 2019 against Simon's office on behalf of Darris and Jennifer Schroeder, who said she was angered by the decision.

"The voices of those who are struggling should be heard, not silenced," she said.

Schroeder was convicted of first-degree sale of a controlled substance. The court stayed her sentence but put her on probation for 40 years. She did not appeal and under current law won't be eligible to vote until 2053.

The ruling noted that since Schroeder's conviction, she has earned a degree and works as an addiction counselor, pays taxes and is active in her church and community.

Darris was convicted of second-degree intentional murder. He was released from prison in 2016. He has worked as an organizer at the ACLU, mentored youth and volunteered in the community, the court said. Darris is on probation until 2025.

States vary widely in their approaches to voting rights for felons. In Maine, Vermont and the District of Columbia, felons never lose the right to vote even while incarcerated. In 21 states, felons can't vote while locked up, but they regain the right immediately on release, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

In 16 states, including Minnesota, felons lose their voting rights while locked up and during their parole or probation and often until they've paid fines or restitution. In 11 states, felons lose their voting right indefinitely for certain crimes or require a governor's pardon for the right to be restored, the NCSL reported.