Minnesota Statutes § 200.54 VOTER SUPPRESSION AND VOTE DILUTION PROHIBITED
Statute Text
Subdivision 1.
Voter suppression.
(a)
A political subdivision or any other government official or entity responsible for election administration must not adopt or apply a qualification for eligibility to vote or other prerequisite to voting; adopt or apply any law, ordinance, rule, standard, practice, procedure, or policy regarding the administration of elections; or take any other action or fail to take any action that results in, is likely to result in, or is intended to result in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote by a member of a protected class.
(b)
A violation of this subdivision may be established if it is shown that the challenged qualification, law, ordinance, rule, standard, practice, procedure, policy, or action results in a disparate burden on members of a protected class and the burden is, under the totality of the circumstances, related to social and historical conditions affecting members of the protected class.
Subd. 2.
Vote dilution.
(a)
A political subdivision or any other government official or entity responsible for election administration must not adopt or enforce any method of election, or cause an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a political subdivision, that has the effect of impairing the equal opportunity or ability of members of a protected class to nominate or elect candidates of their choice as a result of diluting the vote of members of that protected class.
(b)
A violation of paragraph (a) exists when it is shown that:
(1)
either:
(i)
elections in a political subdivision exhibit polarized voting resulting in an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice; or
(ii)
based on the totality of the circumstances, the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice is impaired; and
(2)
one or more new methods of election or changes to the existing method of election exist that the court could order pursuant to section
200.58
would likely mitigate the impairment.
(c)
To the extent that a new method of election or change to the existing method of election that is presented under paragraph (b), clause (2), is a proposed district-based plan that provides protected class members with one or more reasonably configured districts in which the protected class members would have an equal opportunity or ability to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice, it is not necessary to show that members of a protected class comprise a majority of the total population, voting age population, voting eligible population, or registered voter population in any such district or districts.
(d)
The fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact does not preclude a finding of a violation of this subdivision but may be a factor in determining whether an appropriate remedy exists that would likely mitigate the impairment.
(e)
For claims brought on behalf of a protected class, including one consisting of two or more racial, color, Tribal, or language minority groups that are politically cohesive in the political subdivision, the court shall consider only the combined electoral preferences of those racial, color, Tribal, or language minority groups in determining whether voting by the protected class is polarized from other voters. It is not necessary to demonstrate that voting by members of each racial, color, Tribal, or language minority group within a protected class, or by any subgroup within a racial, color, or language minority group, is separately polarized from other voters.
(f)
Evidence concerning the causes of, or the reasons for, the occurrence of polarized voting is not relevant to the determination of whether polarized voting occurs, or whether candidates or electoral choices preferred by a protected class would usually be defeated. Evidence concerning alternate explanations for polarized voting patterns or election outcomes, including but not limited to partisan explanations, must not be considered.
(g)
Evidence concerning projected changes in population or demographics may only be considered when determining whether an appropriate remedy exists that would likely mitigate the impairment.
History
Added by 2024 Minn. Laws, ch. 112 , s 3-4 , eff. 5/18/2024 .