Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Minnesota's constitution allows probationers to vote, lawsuit says

Minneapolis, Minnesota

In Minneapolis and across the rest of Minnesota, more than 50,000 felons are being denied the right to vote, according to the ACLU.

Claire Gentile/Getty Images

Minnesota is wrongly denying voting rights to more than 52,000 convicted felons who are on supervised release or probation, the American Civil Liberties Union alleges in a new lawsuit.

The state's rules are similar to what's on the books in a plurality of states. But the suit, filed Monday, maintains Minnesota's policies violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the state Constitution.

Legislation to restore voting rights to felons as soon as they get out of prison failed this year in the state, one of only two in the country (with Alaska) where the two chambers are currently controlled by different parties. But the measure was endorsed by the top three Democrats elected statewide — Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Secretary of State Steve Simon — who are now be in the awkward position of being called on to defend the voting policies in the lawsuit.


The lawsuit notes that the state Constitution adopted 160 years ago gave all Minnesotans the right to vote, including felons when "restored to civil rights." But a state law enacted 56 years ago says the franchise is returned to felons only by court order or after the completion of a sentence, including post-incarceration obligations such as parole or probation — similar to what's on the books in 20 other states.

The ACLUsaid the constitutional provision should grant voting rights for felons on probation after their incarceration, or who were sentenced to probation without jail time.

"The current system denies Minnesota citizens the fundamental right to vote with no valid justification," it says. "Indeed, it ignores the criminal justice system's interest in reformation, redemption, and reintegration. It ignores the role of voting as a fundamental right."

The lawsuit says the current rules disproportionately disenfranchise Latinos, Native Americans and especially African-Americans — who account for 4 percent of the state's population but 20 percent of the felons unable to vote.

While the suit is a civil rights matter on the surface its political importance is unavoidable. People from racial minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and allowing more of them to go to the polls in November 2020 would give the party some measure of breathing room. The Democratic nominee has carried the state in 11 straight presidential elections, but President Trump came within 2 points (45,000 votes) of breaking that string in 2016 and has vowed to compete hard for the state's 10 electoral votes next year.

Read More

Independent Voters Just Got Power in Nevada – if the Governor Lets It Happen

"On Las Vegas Boulevard" sign.

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash. Unplash+ license obtained by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.

Independent Voters Just Got Power in Nevada – if the Governor Lets It Happen

CARSON CITY, NEV. - A surprise last-minute bill to open primary elections to Nevada’s largest voting bloc, registered unaffiliated voters, moved quickly through the state legislature and was approved by a majority of lawmakers on the last day of the legislative session Monday.

The bill, AB597, allows voters not registered with a political party to pick between a Republican and Democratic primary ballot in future election cycles. It does not apply to the state’s presidential preference elections, which would remain closed to registered party members.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voter registration

In April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape.

SDI Productions

The SAVE Act: Addressing a Non-Existent Problem at the Cost of Voter Access?

In July 2024, I wrote about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act when it was first introduced in Congress. And Sarah and I discussed it in an episode of Beyond the Bill Number which you can still listen to. Now, in April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape. It's time to revisit this legislation and examine its implications for American voters.

Read the IssueVoter analysis of the bill here for further insight and commentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries
person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash

Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries

With the stroke of a pen, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham enfranchised almost 350,000 independent voters recently by signing a bill for open primaries. Just a few years ago, bills to open the primaries were languishing in the state legislature, as they have historically across the country. But as more and more voters leave both parties and declare their independence, the political system is buckling. And as independents begin to organize and speak out, it’s going to continue to buckle in their direction.

In 2004, there were 120,000 independent voters in New Mexico. A little over 10 years later, when the first open primary bill was introduced, that number had more than doubled. That bill never even got a hearing. But today the number of independents in New Mexico and across the country is too big to ignore. Independents are the largest group of voters in ten states and the second-largest in most others. That’s putting tremendous pressure on a system that wasn’t designed with them in mind.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections

President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Keep ReadingShow less