Restore the Vote is here to stay

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

•••

For the second time in less than two months, a law that restores voting rights to non-incarcerated felons has withstood a legal challenge — and rightly so.

Last week, an Anoka County judge dismissed a conservative group's lawsuit that challenged the ability of the Legislature to change the terms for a restoration of voting rights for felons who have served their prison terms. The law, passed earlier this year by the House and Senate and signed by Gov. Tim Walz, restored voting rights to an estimated 55,000 Minnesotans who are no longer incarcerated but are still on probation.

District Judge Thomas Lehmann ruled that the Minnesota Voters Alliance failed to prove that the Legislature violated the Constitution in moving to expand voting rights. Before the change passed, felons were required to serve their entire prison sentence and complete probation — which in Minnesota can last years — before becoming eligible for restored voting rights.

In his ruling, Lehmann noted that Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution states that a person convicted of a felony could not vote in an election unless "restored to civil rights." He said that the state Supreme Court typically has interpreted such restoration to require an "affirmative act" that could include such things as a full pardon or an act of the Legislature.

Citing previous case law, Lehmann correctly noted that "The challenger of the constitutional validity of a statute must meet the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional." The Alliance, he said, did not meet that burden of proof and further lacked the legal standing to sue.

"The reality is, these are people who don't want Minnesotans to vote," Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison told an editorial writer. "They are anti-democratic, in my view, and we are going to continue to defend the right to vote at every turn." What actually motivates the group, he said, "is reducing the electorate to a small number that will be easier to control. As determined as they are to suppress the vote, we are more determined to expand it, because we function better when everyone has a stake in our democracy."

In a Star Tribune story on Lehmann's ruling, James Dickey, who represents the Alliance, said the organization would appeal and seek an accelerated review with the state Supreme Court before the 2024 election.

"We think it's important enough that the court should decide this now and end any uncertainty about whether the Legislature had the authority to do what it did," he said.

Restore the Vote also survived a recent and somewhat incredible challenge in October from Mille Lacs County Judge Matthew Quinn, who went on a bit of rampage while declaring on his own authority that the recently passed state law was unconstitutional. In a series of sentencing orders for at least a half-dozen individuals, he proceeded to specifically bar them from "registering to vote, or voting or attempting to vote" while on probation.

To do so, he wrote at the time, "is a criminal act which can be investigated, charged, and prosecuted in the normal course." That, of course, is nonsense. A single district judge cannot declare on his own a state law to be void.

As the Star Tribune Editorial Board wrote at the time of the law's passage, the steps taken to re-enfranchise tens of thousands of Minnesotans who have paid their debt through prison sentences will benefit the state as a whole and move those still on probation closer to full participation in society.

That fact is well recognized by the more than 20 other states that already allow felons to vote after being released from incarceration.