Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Second suit challenges limits on helping others vote in Minnesota

Disabled voting

The suit challenges state-imposed limits on how much help people are allowed to give to disabled voters, including the visually impaired and people who do not speak English.

Scott Olson/ Getty Images

Four Hmong-Americans are challenging Minnesota's restrictions on who may assist voters in casting their ballots.

It is the second lawsuit this year claiming state law discriminates against disabled and non-English-speaking voters who need the help of others when they vote. Three weeks ago the Democratic Party's House and Senate campaign committees brought a similar claim. Both were filed in state court in St. Paul.

The claims are part of a surge in varied litigation by progressive groups and Democratic operatives seeking to win advances in voting rights via the courts in advance of Election Day. Most suits are being filed in presidential or congressional battleground states where the legislatures are not inclined to ease access to the ballot box.


The Minnesota statute being challenged says candidates for office may not help people vote, and others may not help more than three voters complete in-person or absentee ballots. The intent of the law is to prevent efforts by partisan agents to unwittingly manipulate the votes of elderly, disabled and non-English-speaking voters.

Tuesday's suit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, argues the law places a particular burden on the large communities of Somalis and Hmong people from Southeast Asia who have settled in Minnesota — in violation of both the federal and state constitutions and the Voting Rights Act.

One of the plaintiffs, St. Paul City Council member Dai Thao, was running for mayor in 2017 when he was arrested for helping a neighbor, a Hmong woman who had trouble seeing, cast her ballot. He was later acquitted.

"Voting is a fundamental right in our democracy, and it's disgraceful that state law makes it more difficult to vote for people who have a disability, cannot read or write, or face language barriers," ACLU attorney David McKinney said in a statement.

The Twin Cities has the nation's largest Hmong population. In addition, about 11 percent of Minnesotans have a disability, according to the ACLU.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less