A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Minnesota cannot criminalize statements made by an advocacy group regarding felon voting rules, determining that the state’s election disinformation law violates the First Amendment as applied to the group’s speech.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision denying the Minnesota Voters Alliance a preliminary injunction.
The Alliance, an election integrity group, along with individual plaintiffs Mary Amlaw and Tim Kirk, filed a lawsuit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson to prevent the enforcement of Minnesota Statute § 211B.075.
Under Minnesota law, individuals convicted of a felony regain their voting rights upon release from prison. However, the Alliance argues that under the state constitution, voting rights are only restored after a full sentence ends, excluding individuals placed on supervised release or probation.
The state’s election disinformation statute makes it a crime to knowingly transmit materially false information within 60 days of an election with the intent to impede or prevent someone from voting. The prohibition covers details about voting eligibility, procedures, and polling locations, carrying criminal misdemeanor penalties as well as civil enforcement options.
Circuit Judge David R. Stras, writing for the panel, rejected the state’s position that the group’s claims were unprotected false statements.
“A group of Minnesotans want to express their belief that certain felons cannot vote. Can the state criminalize their speech? In denying a preliminary injunction, the district court thought so. We disagree,” Stras wrote.
The court noted that speech concerning government and public policy sits at the core of First Amendment protections. Stras pointed out that the Alliance bases its opinion on the Minnesota Constitution, while state officials point to state statutes.
“The government cannot endorse one view and criminalize the other without implicating the First Amendment,” the opinion stated.
The appellate panel found that the statute failed the strict scrutiny standard required for content-based speech restrictions. The court ruled that the law was not narrowly tailored, pointing out that the state had less restrictive ways to address confusion, including voter education efforts directed at individuals on supervised release.
“The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true,” Stras wrote, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The court also held that provisions allowing officials or private parties to obtain civil orders to “prevent or restrain” speech before an election amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint lacking adequate procedural safeguards.
While the court sided with the Alliance on the speech restrictions and reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction, it rejected the group’s argument that terms within the broader statute were unconstitutionally vague. The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for the entry of a preliminary injunction.
READ: DHS Calls On Virginia Governor To Block Release Of Park Murder Suspect
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
