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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less