A Fight Over Felon Voting Prompts a Free Speech Debate

For years, Andrew Cilek and the tiny alliance of election integrity activists he leads have been locked in what he calls “an interpretation battle” over voting rights for felons.His group, the Minnesota Voters Alliance, believes that the U.S.Constitution forbids voting by felons before the end of their sentences — including parole or probation terms.

Minnesota law begs to differ: Since 2023, a criminal record does not affect a citizen’s right to vote in the state unless he or she is incarcerated for a felony conviction.The disconnect, according to Mr.Cilek, put his group on a collision course with Minnesota’s law prohibiting deceptive practices around elections — part of a surge of rules proposed or passed by states to curb the intentional spread of falsehoods that could suppress the democratic process.

Concerned that publicizing its views could trigger the law, Mr.Cilek’s group sued, claiming a First Amendment violation.The case, Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al.

v.Ellison, joins a growing push to govern election-related speech through the judicial system, rather than legislation.

A federal appeals court recently ruled in the group’s favor, but Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s attorney general, has vowed to “continue to evaluate next steps.”The case reflects a time of great confusion and distrust around voting.And with a contentious midterm election just weeks away, it could have major implications for how far states can go to control political expression — what can be articulated at election time, and by whom and where.The court’s decision conveys to other states that legislating speech is very difficult, said Lawrence R.

Jacobs, who runs the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times acco...