People in prison should be allowed to vote • Minnesota Reformer

The Minnesota Supreme Court deserves praise for its recent decision upholding the state law that restores the right to vote to convicted felons after their prison sentences expire.

The unanimous decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt upheld an Anoka County District Court ruling earlier this year — and a parallel appeals court ruling in a similar case last year — rejecting a challenge to the Re-enfranchisement Act, which was passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Tim Walz last year.

There is a growing movement in nearly two dozen Republican and red states to restore voting rights under various conditions following conviction and punishment. However, in some Republican-dominated states, these measures are facing some resistance from the courts.

The ruling by Chief Judge Natalie Hudson in Minnesota did not address the merits of the measure, but dismissed the case on the grounds that the right-wing advocacy group Minnesota Voters Alliance did not have standing to bring the case. Its mission in this case was to suppress the right to vote, particularly for black Minnesotans and other people of color who are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. While the court did not endorse the content of the voting rights restoration bill, it clearly indicated that it was a proper exercise of legislative power.

As a result of this measure and the court ruling confirming it, around 55,000 former prisoners are allowed to vote and a large number of them are expected to exercise their new-found right in the autumn.

Not far enough

What is so puzzling, however, about the issue of felons voting is the question of why there should be a restriction at all.

Anyone convicted of serious crimes is sure to lose many rights, such as freedom of movement, the right to housing and even the choice of clothing and other daily activities.

But why should they be denied the opportunity to vote for those who make the laws to which they and everyone else are subject and which they themselves have violated?

There is no reasonable basis for the centuries-old restriction, and some jurisdictions – Vermont, Maine and the District of Columbia – allow people to vote while incarcerated.

Why not?

It is easy to set up a voting precinct and set up voting machines in a prison. Inmates have plenty of time to get to these polling places; there is no excuse that they are too busy to vote. Mail-in ballots are also not required.

It is quite possible that candidates would like to campaign in these establishments.

Some of them might even be residents there.

Perhaps Minnesota will lead the way in more states by ensuring that voting rights for convicted felons and prison inmates are maintained and expanded.

Given that former President Donald Trump was hit hard by the justice system, this idea is sure to be attractive to Republicans.