Minnesota’s Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case that may determine whether continuing to disenfranchise voters on parole or on probation violates the state’s constitution. The case turns on the fact that, under the Minnesota precedent, statutes and policies that have a racial disparate impact must meet heightened scrutiny to survive a constitutional challenge.
“It seems to me when you were disenfranchising just huge swaths of the population, particularly when that population are primarily people of color, who the Equal Protection Clause was a design to the very people it was designed to protect,” Hudson said. “How is that the tight fit that Russell [the Minnesota precendent] requires?”
50,000 Minnesotans with active felony records will be affected by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision.