Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Push to expand felon voting rights newly focused on Minnesota

An estimated 5.2 million Americans were unable to vote in 2020 due to felony convictions, according to the Sentencing Project.

Minnesota, which takes pride in posting the biggest turnout numbers year after year, is now the newest home for the debate over a more hot-button aspect of elections: voting rights for convicted felons.

The law is the same in Minnesota as 20 other states: The franchise is automatically restored to felons once they finish probation or parole. But the American Civil Liberties Union maintains such a waiting period violates the state constitution. A judge this summer dismissed the group's lawsuit, and on Monday the ACLU asked the state Court of Appeals to revive its claim.

Bolstering the political power of ex-convicts, who are disproportionately Black and Latino, has become a major goal of civil rights groups. The number of felons at issue in Minnesota is 53,000, an estimated three in eight of them Black men in a state with a 6 percent Black population.


Voting rights for about 2 million felons nationwide have been eased in the past decade through a mix of litigation, legislation, ballot measures and gubernatorial decrees. Californians voted last month to make their state the 17th where felons can register as soon as they get out of prison, which is what the ACLU is suing to achieve in Minnesota.

Proponents say democracy is enhanced, and a bit of racial justice achieved, when political power is given back to people who have paid their debt to society. Opponents say rewarding criminals too soon is an injustice to their victims. The fault lines generally fall along party lines, since the felon vote is reliably Democratic.

The Minnesota appeal says the state's rules violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the state Constitution. The suit was filed in October 2019 after the Legislature deadlocked on bills that would have allowed felons to vote right after their incarceration ended.

The lawsuit argues the waiting period is unfair because probationary periods vary widely. One plaintiff is on probation for 40 years for a drug possession conviction that led to a year in county jail, while another is on probation for just eight years after serving 17 years for murder. (Since the suit was filed the state has capped most future probationary periods at five years.)

Judge Laura Nelson dismissed the suit in August, ruling the plaintiffs had not shown that convicts have a fundamental right to vote and that the racial and regional disparities in sentencing were something to be addressed by the Legislature, which will be the only one in the country with divided control next year — Democrats in charge of the House and the GOP of the Senate.

Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, both Democrats, have backed a change in the rules.

The switch could propel turnout statewide even higher. It was 80 percent of eligible voters this fall, No. 1 in the country for the fifth consecutive presidential contest.

The Sentencing Project estimates that of the 5 million Americans without voting rights due to felony convictions, three-quarters have done their time.

The attorneys general of 14 states and the District of Columbia have urged the appeals court to rule in favor of the ACLU. "The disproportionate impact of felon disenfranchisement laws on voters of color raises serious state constitutional and democratic concerns," their brief said, adding that Minnesota's law "is out of step with these important interests."


Read More

Alaska Is Voting on More Than Ranked Choice Voting. It’s Voting on Who Gets to Vote

Alaska voters will once again vote on a measure to repeal its nonpartisan election system. Those fighting to preserve the system have gone to the courts to make a simple case: It’s only fair that voters know exactly what is on their ballot.

Specifically the consequences of Ballot Measure 2, which would give parties the ability to shut out 60% of Alaska voters registered as independents. This is what attorney Scott Kendall argued before the Alaska Supreme Court last week.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less
Android portrait, Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence Background

1,200 AI agents broke isolation, self-organized, and hacked Hugging Face — then covered their tracks. An argument for international AI controls, now.

blackdovfx/Getty Images

AI As a Darth Vader Menace

The enemy is in our midst, but the enemy is not us; it's AI. Whatever negative thoughts I had about AI—how it is being misused, how that use would weaken America, and how it should be regulated—were naive (see my article, "AI - Its Use, Misuse, and Regulation").

AI is instead showing itself already, in its infancy, as a three-headed gorgon that could one day destroy us. Yes, as I acknowledged in my article, AI does have positive uses, but the negative potential far outweighs the positive.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less