Appeals court throws out right-wing bid for Minnesota’s voter rolls

A federal appeals court Friday dismissed a conservative legal group’s challenge to Minnesota’s exemption from the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), ruling that the group lacked standing to sue.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) sued Minnesota after the state refused to turn over its voter rolls to the right-wing legal group, citing its exemption from the NVRA. PILF argued the state’s exemption from the federal law was unconstitutional. 

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that PILF failed to show it suffered the kind of concrete injury required to bring its lawsuit in federal court. The unanimous three-judge panel vacated a lower court ruling that had rejected PILF’s constitutional claims on the merits and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

“As the Supreme Court made clear in TransUnion, ‘no concrete harm, no standing,’” the court wrote. Because PILF failed to establish a concrete injury, the Eighth Circuit said it did not need to consider the group’s challenge to Minnesota’s exemption from the NVRA.

Congress enacted the NVRA in 1993 to expand voter registration opportunities and establish requirements for maintaining accurate voter rolls. But the law exempts states that continuously allowed Election Day registration beginning in 1994. 

Minnesota is one of six states currently exempt.

PILF, a Virginia-based organization, requested Minnesota’s registered voter list in 2024 under the NVRA. 

Minnesota rejected the request because the federal law does not apply to the state.

PILF also sought the records under Minnesota law, which makes the public information list available to registered Minnesota voters. But no Minnesota voter joined PILF’s request. That fact proved notable. 

PILF conceded during oral argument that it could obtain the information by recruiting any registered Minnesota voter to join its request.

PILF nevertheless argued that withholding the records caused an “informational injury” and harmed its voter roll research, educational work and organizational resources. The Eighth Circuit rejected those theories, finding that a purely informational injury was insufficient and that PILF had not identified a concrete downstream harm. 

The court also held that an organization cannot manufacture standing simply by spending resources to oppose government action.

The ruling comes days after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a similar PILF challenge involving Wisconsin, another NVRA-exempt state. Unlike the Minnesota case, however, the Seventh Circuit actually reached the merits. 

The Seventh Circuit ruled that Wisconsin’s exemption did not violate the constitutional principle of equal state sovereignty.

Together, the decisions leave PILF without relief in two challenges to states that Congress expressly exempted from the federal voter registration law.