Background
Minnesota Voters Alliance and several members contend that the Minnesota Constitution bars felons from voting until they complete their sentences, including supervised release. They sought to continue publicly advocating that position after losing a state-court challenge for lack of standing.
The Alliance sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson, challenging a Minnesota statute that imposes criminal and civil liability for knowingly transmitting materially false election information within 60 days of an election with intent to impede or prevent voting. Anoka County counterclaimed for damages and an injunction restraining the Alliance from violating the statute. The district court dismissed the Alliance’s complaint and denied a preliminary injunction, but the pending counterclaim made only the preliminary-injunction ruling immediately appealable.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit held that the Alliance had standing because defending against the county’s counterclaim was an actual injury and the threatened possibility of damages, an injunction, or prosecution created an imminent First Amendment injury. The state’s refusal to disavow enforcement, combined with the counterclaim and the Alliance’s expressed trepidation about speaking, established a credible threat.
The court concluded that the Alliance was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim. Its statements about felon voting eligibility were protected political speech even if false, and the statute’s election-related restriction was content based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Although protecting voters from confusion and undue influence may be compelling, the provision was not narrowly tailored: counterspeech and direct voter education were less restrictive alternatives, private enforcement invited abusive litigation, and the law regulated speech discouraging eligible voters while leaving comparable speech encouraging ineligible voting untouched.
The court also held that the statute’s authorization of suits to “prevent or restrain” intended violations permitted unconstitutional prior restraints without adequate standards, time limits, or procedural safeguards. It affirmed rejection of the Alliance’s facial vagueness challenge, declined to reach its overbreadth challenge, reversed in relevant part, and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction in favor of the Alliance and its members. The court left the intimidation and interference provisions, as well as remedies other than prior restraints, for further consideration.
Key Takeaways
- Knowingly false political speech about voter eligibility does not fall outside the First Amendment merely because it may impede voting.
- A content-based election-speech restriction must satisfy strict scrutiny, including proof that less restrictive measures such as counterspeech would be inadequate.
- A statute authorizing courts to prevent anticipated speech based only on a “reasonable basis” and without prompt-review safeguards creates a constitutionally suspect prior restraint.
Why It Matters
The decision limits states’ ability to combat election misinformation through criminal penalties, private damages actions, and preemptive injunctions. Even when the government seeks to protect voting rights, it generally may not suppress one side of a political dispute without satisfying the First Amendment’s most demanding review.
The ruling is preliminary rather than a final merits judgment because the county’s counterclaim remains pending. On remand, however, the district court must enter a preliminary injunction protecting the Alliance and its members while the litigation continues.