Minnesota Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in challenge to felons' voting rights
MINNEAPOLIS — The Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday over a challenge to the state's restoration of voting rights for felons.
The law passed last year restored the voting rights of 55,000 Minnesotans on probation, supervision and work release. Before the change, they had to complete their probation before they could regain their eligibility to vote.
An Anoka County judge overruled a challenge to that law filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance. The alliance argued that the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says felons cannot vote "unless restored to civil rights." The group argued that the language means all their civil rights, not just some.
Anoka County Judge Thomas Lehmann ruled that the alliance lacked the legal standing to sue and failed to prove that the Legislature overstepped its authority when it voted to expand voting rights for the formerly incarcerated.
The group's appeal of that decision will now be heard by the state's Supreme Court.
Advocates for the change argued that disenfranchising felons disproportionately affects people of color because of biases in the legal system.
Twenty-two other states have laws similar to Minnesota's in which felons automatically have their right to vote automatically restored upon release.
ACLU members and advocates say their fight isn't over.
"We are here asking the court to protect the fundamental right to vote," ACLU attorney David McKinney said.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals in November rejected a different attempt to void the law along similar grounds, ruling that a lower court judge overstepped his authority when he declared the law unconstitutional.
"That language begs two questions, how can that be restored and what order," Minnesota Voters Alliance attorney James Dickey said.
The group argues the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says felons cannot vote "unless restored to civil rights," saying the language means all their civil rights, not just some.
"It's our view that the law doesn't accomplish what the constitution requires, plain and simple," Dickey said.
Advocates on the other side, say there's a lot at stake.
"It's really disheartening to know that there are people out there with special interests that are fighting so hard to take away civil rights of so many people who have been disenfranchised for years," Restore the Vote Coalition member Tierre Caldwell said.
"We think they're made in good faith, we think that they have a different interpretation of the law," Dickey said. "And I think that it's important that we look at these types of situations, what is really important to our clients is the rule of law."
During Monday's court proceedings, the state asked the Supreme Court to make a decision by the end of June.