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

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
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