Politics & Government

Keith Ellison Wins Suit Against MN Judge Who Banned Felons From Voting

Passed last spring, the "Restore the Vote Act" states that felons not in prison have the right to vote. A Minnesota judge ignored it.

In at least six cases last month, Judge Matthew Quinn sentenced people convicted of felonies to probation.
In at least six cases last month, Judge Matthew Quinn sentenced people convicted of felonies to probation. (Rachel Barnes/Patch)

ST. PAUL, MN — The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Thursday sided with Attorney General Keith Ellison against the Mille Lacs County Judge who tried to rule the "Restore the Vote Act" unconstitutional and bar two felons not in prison from voting.

In at least six cases last month, Judge Matthew Quinn sentenced people convicted of felonies to probation. Along with those sentences, Quinn issued orders that declared the Restore the Vote Act unconstitutional and barred the felons from exercising their right to vote.

Passed by Democrats last spring, the Restore the Vote Act states that a person with a felony conviction "has the civil right to vote restored during any period when the individual is not incarcerated for the offense."

Find out what's happening in Saint Paulfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

Previously, non-incarcerated felons could only receive their voting rights back in Minnesota once they completed probation.

"As your Attorney General, it’s my job to help Minnesotans live with dignity, safety, and respect, and voting is an exercise of dignity," Ellison said in a statement Thursday.

Find out what's happening in Saint Paulfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

"I am pleased the Court of Appeals ruled against one judge’s unjustified and unprompted attack on the right to vote and the dignity of Minnesotans. Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and our entire judicial system."

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals found that "the district court exceeded its lawful authority by independently raising and deciding an issue involving the constitutionality of a statute without the issue being raised by a party."

According to the ruling, the district court's actions "violated the principle of party presentation, which recognizes that parties raise the issues that matter to them, and courts perform ‘the role of neutral arbiter’ and ‘should not’ look 'for wrongs to right,' but 'wait for cases to come to [them].' Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244 (Minn. 2008)."

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.