The Minnesota Supreme Court Wednesday upheld a state law prohibiting convicted felons from voting while on probation or parole in a 3-1 ruling. The law at issue, Minn. Stat. § 609.165 (2022), restores a felon’s right to vote upon the “discharge” of their sentence, meaning that a felon is only able to vote in the state after completing their probation, parole or supervised release.

The appellants, two convicted felons, argued that the law violates Article VII, Section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution. They also contended that it violates the state constitution’s due process guarantee because it creates disparities in rights restoration between white felons and nonwhite felons.

Article VII, Section 1 grants most adult US citizens the right to vote in the state and prohibits felons from voting “unless [they are] restored to civil rights.” The appellants claimed that, under this section, felons’ civil rights are restored if not sentenced to imprisonment or upon release from imprisonment.  

The court rejected this argument. It held that “The words ‘unless restored to civil rights’ are compatible with the notion that rights are restored only in accordance with a mechanism established by the government.”

Justice Paul Thissen wrote in his opinion that:

The felon voting prohibition turns on an act of government. It is also the only exception that allows for restoration of civil rights. A reasonable conclusion to draw from these textual features is that an affirmative act of government is required to restore what the government has taken away by its affirmative decision to prosecute and convict a person of a felony.

Justice Thissen’s opinion also held that the statute did not create the racially disparate impact of felony disenfranchisement. Instead, Thissen said, the law was passed to remove the stigma of a felony conviction for felons who had served their sentences.  Accordingly, he ruled that the law does not violate the state constitution’s equal protection requirements.

However, Justice Natalie Hudson said in her dissent that the statute creates racial disparities and is, therefore, unconstitutional. Relying on a higher standard of review than Thissen, Justice Hudson asserted that:

section 609.165 is not blameless, and the court misapprehends its impact by portraying it as a charitable “automatic restoration” statute. In reality, section 609.165 acts as a gatekeeper to the franchise, determining who will have a voice in the democratic process and who will continue to be relegated to political marginalization. In its gatekeeper role, section 609.165 channels and gives effect to the racial disparities generated from Article VII’s felony disenfranchisement provision.

This latest ruling is part of a wave of legislation and litigation surrounding felony disenfranchisement. In October 2022, the US Supreme Court was asked to review Mississippi’s felony disenfranchisement provisions because of their racist origins. New York and Virginia both restored the voting rights of felons on parole in 2021. Iowa, the last state to bar felons from voting for life, restored the right of felons who completed their sentences to vote in 2020.