The Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC), a legal group that tries to fight government overreach, is filing a federal lawsuit Monday, challenging an election speech law in Minnesota, the Daily Caller has learned.
UMLC is filing a lawsuit against Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson. The group is challenging a law penalizing individuals who make “materially false” statements “within 60 days of an election” in order to “impede or prevent another person from exercising the right to vote,” according to a copy of the UMLC complaint obtained by the Daily Caller. The law became effective in June. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Cori Bush Campaign Threatens Attorney Who Filed Complaints About Payments To Husband)
READ THE FULL COMPLAINT:
“Plaintiffs intend to continue to speak—both through their First Amendment right to petition the courts with their state-court lawsuit, and also in the public square—as to their view of the Minnesota Constitution: felons who have not served their full sentences, or otherwise had their sentences discharged, cannot legally vote,” the complaint reads.
“However, a new Minnesota law, Laws of Minnesota 2023, chapter 34, article 2, section 2, effective June 15, 2023, to be codified at Minnesota Statutes, section 211B.075 (the ‘Speech Code’), threatens anyone who utters such a phrase, or other like phrases, with criminal and civil penalties,” the complaint continues.
“To make matters worse, not only is the Speech Code enforceable by the Attorney General and County Attorney—elected political officials—but it is also enforceable by ‘any person injured,’ allegedly, by such speech. Those potential plaintiffs in such a lawsuit—who could be any Minnesotan claiming supposed ‘injury’ from speech—are entitled, if they prevail, to recover damages, costs of investigation, and attorney fees.”
Minnesota passed the election speech law in May 2023 as part of HF 3, a legislative package overhauling the state’s election laws. The speech restrictions are included in the legislation’s section on deceptive practices designed to intimidate and interfere with the voting process.
Under the new law, individuals can face penalties for knowingly spreading false information within 60 days of an election if it is intended to prevent another person from voting, the legislative text says. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit assert that felons cannot legally vote in Minnesota and believe this speech could be penalized by the “speech code” provision.
Information covered by the election speech law includes “the time, place, or manner of holding an election; the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility at an election; and threats to physical safety associated with casting a ballot.”
Minnesota’s legislation does not provide specific examples of speech that could potentially violate the election law. A person who violates the law is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and civil action can be brought by the Minnesota Attorney General, county attorneys or “any person injured” by the speech in question. Actions must be brought within two years of when the alleged violation took place.
UMLC’s complaint describes how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution protect people who express their views on elections and who should be able to vote. The lawsuit is asking the court to declare the election speech law unconstitutional and prevent the defendants from enforcing it.
“Given what Minnesota’s lawmakers have openly said, and given the text of the Speech Code, any person of ordinary firmness would think twice before speaking on this issue. The Speech Code chills Plaintiffs’ speech by giving them reasonable cause to fear prosecution based on their intended course of action,” the complaint adds.
The Minnesota Voters Alliance, an election integrity group, and multiple grassroots activists are plaintiffs in the case, which is being brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Liberty Justice Center, a Constitutional law group, is working alongside UMLC as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
“This law violates the First Amendment because it tells people what they can and cannot say in political debate. Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment, and our clients should be able to speak their minds on political issues without fearing a lawsuit from a political opponent who falsely accuses them of lying,” UMLC Senior Trial Counsel James Dickey said in a statement.
“We seek to ensure that Minnesotans can exercise their constitutional rights freely without fear of criminal or civil penalties for simply expressing their opinions.”
The Minnesota Attorney General and Anoka County Attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.