In recent years, the country’s discourse around felon disenfranchisement has gained significant attention. Around the country, courts have addressed this issue in various forms. In nearly every case, felon disenfranchisement laws have been upheld. This Paper joins the discussion regarding t constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement. While much of the litigation to date has centered on rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, this Paper focuses on the Minnesota Constitution. In a recent Minnesota district court case, Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Minnesota Secretary of State, Steve Simon, arguing that Minnesota’s felon disenfranchisement statute violates the Minnesota Constitution. The Ramsey County court dismissed the case on August 19, 2020. This Paper argues that the district court erred in dismissing the case. In its order, the court relied on a narrow definition of fundamental rights, a selective historical analysis, and a national rather than international legal comparison. The court ultimately held that the power to regulate felon disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement lies exclusively with the legislative branch. While this may be true to an extent, this Paper argues that the legislature’s ability to regulate enfranchisement cannot go unconstrained. Indeed, it is the court’s job to ensure that the legislative branch operates within its constitutional limits.
Section II of this Paper outlines the history of felon disenfranchisement in ancient Greece and the United States, where these laws have been adopted and expanded upon. Section III provides an overview of felon disenfranchisement today, paying close attention to the current trends in Minnesota. Section IV introduces Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State, detailing the procedural posture of the case, the facts, and a brief overview of the legal arguments on each side. Finally, Section V provides a critique of the court’s decision. The court interpreted the Minnesota Constitution as granting the legislature virtually unchecked power over felon disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement. This Paper analyzes the court’s order and offers a more judicious interpretation of article VII of the Minnesota Constitution.