Minnesota Law Prohibiting Election Disinformation and Voter Intimidation Upheld by Federal Judge
A federal judge yesterday denied a right-wing group’s request to invalidate provisions of a Minnesota law that combat election disinformation and voter intimidation.
In concluding the challenged law passes constitutional muster, federal Judge Nancy E. Brasel — a Trump-appointee — wrote that “Minnesota undoubtedly has a compelling interest in reducing misinformation aimed at preventing someone from voting.”
The ruling puts an end to a lawsuit filed last year by the Minnesota Voters Alliance and voters seeking to strike down a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly disseminate election-related information that is false or intended to impede another’s right to vote within 60 days of an election.
The law — which is part of the state’s 2023 Democracy for the People Act — also imposes criminal prohibitions on voter intimidation via threats of force, coercion or violence.
The conservative organization alleged the contested provisions are overly “broad” and “vague,” thus violating the First Amendment right to free political speech. The group also said the law runs afoul of the 14th Amendment right to Due Process and parts of the Minnesota Constitution.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) pushed back on these claims, asserting in a court brief that “plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to threaten voters.” In defending the law, Ellison added “the only speech prohibited by the election-disinformation prohibition is speech intended to fraudulently impede voting rights,” which he said is not protected by the First Amendment.
The conservative plaintiffs specifically took issue with the fact that the statute could subject them to criminal liability for telling prospective voters that “felons still serving their sentence do not have a right to vote in Minnesota.”
But according to the Anoka County Attorney’s office — another named defendant in the suit at issue in today’s ruling — “those are verifiably false statements of Minnesota law, as Plaintiffs well know” and are merely an “effort to deter eligible citizens from voting.”
The Minnesota Voters Alliance repeatedly raised this particular example in light of its separate legal challenge to a 2023 Minnesota statute that restored voting rights to over 50,000 Minnesotans with felony convictions following release from incarceration. In that lawsuit — which the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected in August — the group argued individuals convicted of felonies can only regain voting rights after the completion of their entire sentence, including parole, probation or community release.
The Anoka County Attorney’s office suggested that while the plaintiffs can “challenge the policy, impact, or wisdom of re-enfranchising voters,” they cannot “fraudulently tell enfranchised voters they are, in fact, disenfranchised voters.”
Today’s ruling ensures the Minnesota Voters Alliance and others will not be able to make false statements regarding Minnesota voters with past felony convictions and preserves the statute’s other provisions that protect voters from intimidation and disinformation.