A federal appeals court has halted enforcement of a Minnesota law that made it a crime to spread false information about voting eligibility, specifically targeting statements about whether convicted felons may vote. The decision, issued by a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, found the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Background and parties
The lawsuit was brought by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, an election‑integrity organization, together with individual plaintiffs Mary Amlaw and Tim Kirk. They sued Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson, seeking to stop the state from applying Statute § 211B.075, which criminalizes knowingly transmitting materially false information within 60 days of an election with the intent to impede voting.
Under Minnesota law, individuals convicted of a felony regain their voting rights upon release from prison. The Alliance argues that, according to the state constitution, voting rights are not restored until a full sentence—including any supervised release or probation—has been completed. The state’s disinformation law was intended to curb misinformation about voting procedures, eligibility, and polling locations, imposing misdemeanor penalties and allowing civil enforcement.
Court’s reasoning
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge David R. Stras rejected the state’s claim that the Alliance’s statements were unprotected false speech. He emphasized that speech concerning government and public policy lies at the core of First Amendment protection. “A group of Minnesotans want to express their belief that certain felons cannot vote. Can the state criminalize their speech? In denying a preliminary injunction, the district court thought so. We disagree,” Stras wrote.
The court applied strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review for content‑based speech restrictions. It concluded that the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The judges noted that Minnesota could address voter confusion through less restrictive means, such as targeted voter‑education campaigns aimed at individuals on supervised release.
Stras quoted Supreme Court precedent, stating, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.” The panel also found that provisions allowing officials or private parties to obtain civil orders to prevent or restrain speech before an election amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint lacking adequate procedural safeguards.
Outcome and next steps
The appellate panel reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, effectively blocking enforcement of the disinformation statute as it applies to the Alliance’s speech. However, the court did not find the broader statute unconstitutionally vague, and the case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for entry of the injunction.
This ruling underscores the tension between state efforts to protect election integrity and the constitutional guarantee of free speech. It also highlights the importance of narrowly tailored laws that address misinformation without infringing on protected expression.
Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.
