Tuesday marked the first time roughly 55,000 Minnesotans with a convicted felony were able to go to the polls after having their voting rights restored in June.

The monumental day comes despite two legal challenges that attempted to undercut it. Last Thursday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a legal challenge by Mille Lacs County District Court Judge Matthew Quinn against Restore the Vote. Quinn had barred at least six defendants from voting as part of their sentences and argued the voting law was unconstitutional.

In an order, Chief Judge Susan Segal wrote that Quinn had no authority to declare the law unconstitutional. And Segal said Quinn’s actions were “unauthorized by law.”

Another lawsuit by conservative voter’s group Minnesota Voters Alliance is pending in Anoka County before District Court Judge Thomas Lehmann. A first hearing was held on Oct. 30, but Lehmann has not issued a ruling on the case yet.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    They committed a crime and they served their time. That’s what jail is for.

    You know you can be labeled a pedo if you drunkenly peed in a bush near a daycare? Or if you’re a dumb teen sending nude photos to another dumb teen?

    • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      I am very aware of that, and the law needs to be reformed to reflect reality. We know those aren’t pedophiles. I’m not addressing the outliers. What about the real pedophiles, the real rapists? I don’t respect their judgment or voice. Why should we allow them to vote?

      • FreeFacts@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        1 year ago

        There are people who don’t respect the judgement or voice of people who have abortions, or provide them. The former probably ask about the latter “why should we allow them to vote” too. That just emphasizes the fact that personal feelings are not good enough reason to limit a right. The right to vote should be the basis. As a right it needs no justification, on the contrary, any limitations to it are the ones that need to be justified. And justified better than “I don’t respect this and that”.

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough, but I also want to point out a bit of a false equivalence. Rape & abortion. While there is plenty of debate about abortion, its legality & justification, there is no such debate that I’m aware of about rape. Except maybe among, you know, rapists. 😂 There is no pro-rape coalition; virtually everyone is in agreement: rape is a terrible act & is never justified.

          • FreeFacts@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            While there is plenty of debate about abortion, its legality & justification, there is no such debate that I’m aware of about rape.

            There actually is, but it is not on the same level. It’s on the definition level, as in what constitutes as rape. And believe me, there are lots of people who will be in agreement that rape is a terrible act, but will also defend a rapist because the legal definition of rape doesn’t match what they perceive as rape.