Opinion ID: 1036305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wards’ Voting Rights

Text: The Minnesota Constitution provides that “a person under guardianship” is ineligible to vote. Minn. Const. art. VII, § 1. Minnesota statutes, however, provide that “unless otherwise ordered by the court, the ward retains the right to vote.” Minn. -6- Stat. § 524.5-313(c)(8); see also id. § 201.014, subdiv. 2(b) (revoking the right to vote of any individual “under a guardianship in which the court order revokes the ward’s right to vote”); id. § 524.5-120(14) (stating that wards retain “all rights not restricted by court order[,]” including the right to vote). As recounted above, Voters challenge the constitutionality of the Minnesota Constitution’s categorical ban on voting rights for persons under guardianship. They also challenge the adequacy of notice afforded by Minnesota’s statutory procedures for adjudicating wards’ voting rights. Voters lack standing to raise these claims. As the district court correctly explained, “The Amended Complaint fails to allege that any Plaintiff has been denied the right to vote by any constitutional provision barring persons under guardianship from voting.” D. Ct. Order of Aug. 17, 2012, at 14. Indeed, the only party under guardianship in this case, James Stene, retains his right to vote. See Appellants’ App. 40. Voters did not allege that Officials will deny their or any of their members’ voting rights based on this constitutional provision. Nor did Voters allege in their amended complaint that they have been or will be injured by the allegedly deficient statutory notice provisions. See Spirit Lake Tribe of Indians ex rel. Comm. of Understanding & Respect v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 715 F.3d 1089, 1091-92 (8th Cir. 2013) (“‘[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing’ requires that ‘the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)); see also Nolles, 524 F.3d at 898 (“Federal courts lack the authority to review legislative acts merely because they are allegedly unconstitutional. Rather, the courts are limited to considering the constitutionality of a legislative act only when it is said to result in or threaten a direct injury to the party challenging the act.”). -7-