Case: Schroeder v. Minn. Secretary of State

Complaint.

On October 21, 2019, the plaintiffs, four citizens of Minnesota denied the right to vote while completing their felony sentences on probation, parole, or supervised release, as appropriate, brought suit in state district court challenging a Minnesota state law disenfranchising individuals convicted of a felony who are subject to terms of probation, parole, or supervised release. Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that the Minnesota scheme for restoring voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony violated the equal protection and due process rights guaranteed under the Minnesota Constitution, as well as the constitutionally protected right to vote. Represented by the national ACLU, the ACLU of Minnesota, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought the following forms of relief:

• a declaration that the state’s denial of the right to vote to individuals who live in the community while subject to parole, probation, or another form of supervised release violates the Minnesota Constitution;
• a declaration that individuals are restored to civil rights and possess the fundamental right to vote guaranteed by Article VII of the Minnesota Constitution by virtue of being released or excused from incarceration following a felony, if otherwise eligible to vote; 
• a declaration that Minnesota state law shall not be read to preclude restoration of voting rights prior to discharge and shall not be interpreted in any manner inconsistent with the court’s order;
• an order enjoining the secretary of state to immediately and permanently take steps to ensure that all individuals who have been convicted of a felony but live in the community shall have their right to vote restored; and
• an order enjoining the secretary of state to immediately and permanently take all necessary measures to restore the right to vote to individuals who have been convicted of a felony but live in the community, including communication, registration, training, and any other administrative tasks necessary to ensure that the fundamental right to vote is restored and secured.

The case was initially assigned to District Judge Robyn A. Millenacker. However, on October 28, one of the defendants filed a notice to remove Judge Millenacker pursuant to Rule 63.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the case was reassigned to District Judge Richard H. Kyle, Jr.

Minnesota Voters Alliance Attempted Intervention.

On November 18, 2019, Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA), a self-proclaimed election integrity 501(c)(3) organization, filed a notice of limited intervention to assert that the complaint’s claims, which are all based on violations of the Minnesota Constitution, should be dismissed for lack of a private cause of action under the Minnesota Constitution and the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act. Judge Kyle convened a hearing on the proposed intervention on January 30, 2020. On February 12, Judge Kyle entered an order denying the motion for limited intervention, holding that MVA had not met the requirements to intervene as of right or permissively. That same day, the case was again reassigned, this time to District Judge Laura Nelson. MVA appealed the denial of their motion to intervene on February 20. On May 19, the appellate court denied a motion to expedite MVA’s appeal. A three-judge panel consisting of Carol A. Hooten, James B. Florey, and Lucinda E. Jesson issued an opinion on September 8 affirming the district court’s ruling. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied MVA’s appeal of the ruling on November 25 for a lack of timely service and lack of timely proof of service. 

District Court Proceedings.

Meanwhile, back in the district court, both parties filed a motion for summary judgment on February 25, 2020. In their motion, the defendant asserted that the court should find that the state constitution expressly authorizes disenfranchisement and that the plaintiffs have no fundamental right to an earlier restoration of rights. The defendant also argued that the challenged provision of state law governing the restoration of voting rights is race-neutral and thus should be subjected to, and be upheld under, rational basis review. Conversely, the plaintiffs argued in their motion that the law should be reviewed and struck down under strict scrutiny review because of the fundamental importance of the right to vote and the disparate impact of the law on communities of color. 

Judge Nelson issued an order on August 11, 2020, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant’s motion, In doing so, she held that persons with felony convictions do not have a fundamental right to vote in Minnesota based on the plain language of the Minnesota Constitution, which states that persons convicted of a felony are not “entitled or permitted to vote at any election in [the] state” unless they have had their rights otherwise restored. Accordingly, the claims underwent mere rational basis review. Judge Nelson found that a rational basis for the challenged statute did exist–“promoting the rehabilitation of persons convicted of felonies.” Concluding her opinion, she stated that the court was “aware of, and troubled by, the fact that the criminal justice system disproportionately impacts Black Americans and other communities of color in Minnesota, and the subsequent effect this impact has on those communities' ability to vote.” This, she held, was a matter best addressed by the legislature, however. The case was officially dismissed with prejudice on August 19th.

Appellate Court Proceedings.

Following the district court’s ruling in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on September 30, 2020. Oral argument in the appeal occurred on February 24, 2021, before a panel of Judges Carol A. Hooten, Matthew E. Johnson, and Randall J. Slieter. The three-judge panel issued their decision on May 24, 2021, holding that the challenged statutory provision is not unconstitutional on any of the three grounds asserted. 962 N.W.2d 471.

Supreme Court Proceedings.

Following defeat in the appellate court, the defendants filed a petition for further review to the Minnesota Supreme Court on June 22, 2021. The court granted the petition on August 10 and held oral arguments en banc on November 30. The court issued its opinion on February 14, 2022, ruling in favor of the defendant 6-1. 985 N.W.2d 529. The majority subjected the law to rational basis review, rather than a heightened standard of review as the plaintiffs requested, and ultimately held that the law was rationally related to the goals of fostering rehabilitation and removing stigma–thus not violating equal protection.

Legislative Changes.

Despite losses in the state judiciary, the plaintiffs’ cause found champions in the state legislature as legislators passed HF 28 in February 2023, which restored the right to vote to individuals convicted of a felony upon completion of any term of incarceration imposed. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed legislation in March 2023 and it went into effect June 1, 2023. The legislation restored the right to vote to an estimated 55,000 formerly incarcerated Minnesotans. In August 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the law by MVA, citing a lack of standing.