Inside Minnesota Supreme Court oral arguments over felon voting law
Zeke Caligiuri, who was released from prison in 2022, voted for the first time on Nov. 7 at the Powderhorn Recreation Center in Minneapolis.
Ben Hovland | MPR News 2023
For about 75 minutes on Monday morning, the Minnesota Supreme Court discussed the right of felons to vote.
Justices heard oral arguments in a challenge to the state law that allows people convicted of a felony to vote after they complete their time behind bars.
MPR News reporter Dana Ferguson was in court and joined MPR News host Cathy Wurzer us now to discuss the hearing.
Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation.
Subscribe to the Minnesota Now podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
We attempt to make transcripts for Minnesota Now available the next business day after a broadcast. When ready they will appear here.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
Audio transcript
[MUSIC PLAYING] CATHY WURZER: But here's our top regional story. For about 75 minutes this morning, the Minnesota Supreme Court discussed the right of felons to vote. Justices heard oral arguments this morning in a challenge to a new state law that allows people convicted of a felony to vote after they complete their time behind bars. Reporter Dana Ferguson was in court, joins us now to discuss the hearing. Thanks for joining us.
DANA FERGUSON: You're welcome, Cathy.
CATHY WURZER: Tell us about this case. What's the root of the controversy.
DANA FERGUSON: The Minnesota legislature last year passed a law that lets people with a felony conviction vote once they've left custody. That's even if they're on probation or supervised release, barriers that kept them from voting before. That change took effect in June. And a conservative group, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, sued. The group argued that election officials shouldn't be able to use state funds to raise awareness about it because the group considers the law unconstitutional.
CATHY WURZER: So they consider it unconstitutional. How are they challenging that law? How do they make that case in court?
DANA FERGUSON: Yeah, they argued that lawmakers improperly passed the law because it restores the right to vote, but not other civil rights. And they said that breaks with Minnesota's Constitution. James Dickey, the lawyer for the Minnesota Voters Alliance, contended that lawmakers were too selective in what rights they gave back to those with felony convictions. Here he is in a back-and-forth with Justice Karl Procaccini.
KARL PROCACCINI: Where in the Constitution does it say that you can't have one right that's contingent on another, that you can't-- that the legislature can't say, this class of people are eligible to vote, and therefore, in our other statutes, they can also petition for a recall, and they can also hold office, and they can also do all the other things that I listed before? Why does the Constitution prohibit the legislature from acting in that way?
JAMES DICKEY: The Constitution says that a person may not be enabled or permitted to vote in Minnesota election unless their civil rights are restored. So the only way that happens is if the legislature actually does restore the civil rights that they lost upon conviction.
DANA FERGUSON: Aside from questions over the ability of the group to sue here, justices and lawyers on both sides also went round and round over the way the legislature crafted the law.
CATHY WURZER: What did the attorneys representing the state have to say about this?
DANA FERGUSON: They argued that the legislature has the authority to decide when someone can vote after being convicted of a felony and that the law they passed was in line with the Minnesota Constitution. Here's attorney Nathan Hartshorn who represented the state. He pointed back to a Supreme Court ruling that was issued just last year.
NATHAN HARTSHORN: This court in Schroeder, over and over and over again, referred to the right to vote as a singular thing and not something that needs to be bundled with other things.
CATHY WURZER: So usually, justices, as you know, Dana, in oral arguments, ask some pretty interesting questions. What about this case? What were they curious about?
DANA FERGUSON: That they do, and it was a flurry of questions from the get go. Why didn't lawmakers have authority to change the law? How does this case compare with one from about a year ago, when justices ruled the legislature did have power to decide when voting rights are given back? Do other rights, the right to hold office, participate in a recall petition, or even serve on a jury piggyback on the restoration of voting rights?
It's important to note that sometimes questions get asked just to play devil's advocate. And other times, it's a sign of how justices are working their way to a consensus with each other. A lot of that could be seen with the most active questioners, Justice Paul Thiessen among them, frequently adding follow-ups onto other justices questions.
CATHY WURZER: What else can we glean from the arguments?
DANA FERGUSON: It was pretty interesting, Cathy. Not only were justices concerned with the issue at hand, they were also trying to be aware of how this case could affect other legal challenges. They said if the group is allowed to sue because the state spent money-- in this case it was about $200,000-- that could open the door to a range of lawsuits over other laws. It's possible that justices could decide the group lacks what's known as standing to sue. If they do that, they might not even decide on the merits of the underlying challenge here.
CATHY WURZER: We should say that there's a fair amount at stake here with this decision.
DANA FERGUSON: Yes, that's right. It could potentially impact about 55,000 Minnesotans who were previously unable to vote, but had that right restored by the law. And attorneys representing the state said that number is expected to grow, as more people leave prison. Several people who have advocated for the change and who've been able to vote because of the law change were in court today. And they said it's important that the court decide soon to clear up any confusion out there about who can vote in upcoming elections.
CATHY WURZER: Yeah, good point. How soon might we expect a ruling because of those upcoming elections?
DANA FERGUSON: The Supreme Court doesn't have a hard timetable for a ruling. But a lawyer for the Secretary of State's Office asked that at least they resolve this by June 28, the day before early voting for the state's primary begins. He says that will clear up any doubt or fear among those affected that they might be doing something that could get them in trouble. In the past, the court has handed down its election-related rulings and then months later explained its rationale in an expanded opinion. And so we could see that here.
CATHY WURZER: Dana Ferguson, thanks so much.
DANA FERGUSON: Thanks, Cathy. Have a great day.
CATHY WURZER: You too. Dana is one of our senior political reporters.
DANA FERGUSON: You're welcome, Cathy.
CATHY WURZER: Tell us about this case. What's the root of the controversy.
DANA FERGUSON: The Minnesota legislature last year passed a law that lets people with a felony conviction vote once they've left custody. That's even if they're on probation or supervised release, barriers that kept them from voting before. That change took effect in June. And a conservative group, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, sued. The group argued that election officials shouldn't be able to use state funds to raise awareness about it because the group considers the law unconstitutional.
CATHY WURZER: So they consider it unconstitutional. How are they challenging that law? How do they make that case in court?
DANA FERGUSON: Yeah, they argued that lawmakers improperly passed the law because it restores the right to vote, but not other civil rights. And they said that breaks with Minnesota's Constitution. James Dickey, the lawyer for the Minnesota Voters Alliance, contended that lawmakers were too selective in what rights they gave back to those with felony convictions. Here he is in a back-and-forth with Justice Karl Procaccini.
KARL PROCACCINI: Where in the Constitution does it say that you can't have one right that's contingent on another, that you can't-- that the legislature can't say, this class of people are eligible to vote, and therefore, in our other statutes, they can also petition for a recall, and they can also hold office, and they can also do all the other things that I listed before? Why does the Constitution prohibit the legislature from acting in that way?
JAMES DICKEY: The Constitution says that a person may not be enabled or permitted to vote in Minnesota election unless their civil rights are restored. So the only way that happens is if the legislature actually does restore the civil rights that they lost upon conviction.
DANA FERGUSON: Aside from questions over the ability of the group to sue here, justices and lawyers on both sides also went round and round over the way the legislature crafted the law.
CATHY WURZER: What did the attorneys representing the state have to say about this?
DANA FERGUSON: They argued that the legislature has the authority to decide when someone can vote after being convicted of a felony and that the law they passed was in line with the Minnesota Constitution. Here's attorney Nathan Hartshorn who represented the state. He pointed back to a Supreme Court ruling that was issued just last year.
NATHAN HARTSHORN: This court in Schroeder, over and over and over again, referred to the right to vote as a singular thing and not something that needs to be bundled with other things.
CATHY WURZER: So usually, justices, as you know, Dana, in oral arguments, ask some pretty interesting questions. What about this case? What were they curious about?
DANA FERGUSON: That they do, and it was a flurry of questions from the get go. Why didn't lawmakers have authority to change the law? How does this case compare with one from about a year ago, when justices ruled the legislature did have power to decide when voting rights are given back? Do other rights, the right to hold office, participate in a recall petition, or even serve on a jury piggyback on the restoration of voting rights?
It's important to note that sometimes questions get asked just to play devil's advocate. And other times, it's a sign of how justices are working their way to a consensus with each other. A lot of that could be seen with the most active questioners, Justice Paul Thiessen among them, frequently adding follow-ups onto other justices questions.
CATHY WURZER: What else can we glean from the arguments?
DANA FERGUSON: It was pretty interesting, Cathy. Not only were justices concerned with the issue at hand, they were also trying to be aware of how this case could affect other legal challenges. They said if the group is allowed to sue because the state spent money-- in this case it was about $200,000-- that could open the door to a range of lawsuits over other laws. It's possible that justices could decide the group lacks what's known as standing to sue. If they do that, they might not even decide on the merits of the underlying challenge here.
CATHY WURZER: We should say that there's a fair amount at stake here with this decision.
DANA FERGUSON: Yes, that's right. It could potentially impact about 55,000 Minnesotans who were previously unable to vote, but had that right restored by the law. And attorneys representing the state said that number is expected to grow, as more people leave prison. Several people who have advocated for the change and who've been able to vote because of the law change were in court today. And they said it's important that the court decide soon to clear up any confusion out there about who can vote in upcoming elections.
CATHY WURZER: Yeah, good point. How soon might we expect a ruling because of those upcoming elections?
DANA FERGUSON: The Supreme Court doesn't have a hard timetable for a ruling. But a lawyer for the Secretary of State's Office asked that at least they resolve this by June 28, the day before early voting for the state's primary begins. He says that will clear up any doubt or fear among those affected that they might be doing something that could get them in trouble. In the past, the court has handed down its election-related rulings and then months later explained its rationale in an expanded opinion. And so we could see that here.
CATHY WURZER: Dana Ferguson, thanks so much.
DANA FERGUSON: Thanks, Cathy. Have a great day.
CATHY WURZER: You too. Dana is one of our senior political reporters.
Download transcript (PDF)
Transcription services provided by 3Play Media.