Background
Minnesota requires absentee voters to have an eligible witness sign the ballot’s certificate of eligibility. For voters registering when they cast an absentee ballot, the witness must certify that the voter provided required proof of residence and identify the type of proof shown. For registered voters, the witness certifies ballot-handling procedures, including that the ballot was displayed unmarked and marked privately.
The Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund and two absentee voters sued Secretary of State Steve Simon. They alleged that the witness requirement unlawfully requires unregistered absentee voters to prove their qualifications through another person’s “voucher,” contrary to the Voting Rights Act, and allows rejection of registered voters’ ballots for immaterial witness-certification errors, contrary to the Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision. The district court denied dismissal in part, but the court of appeals reversed and directed dismissal. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. It held that the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on requiring voters to prove their qualifications “by the voucher of” another applies when another person personally assures or guarantees the voter’s eligibility. Minnesota’s witness for an unregistered absentee voter certifies only that the voter displayed a residency document; the witness does not personally attest that the voter satisfies Minnesota’s eligibility or residency-duration requirements. That certification therefore is not a prohibited voucher.
The court also held that the Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision covers records or papers related to an application, registration, or another act involving determination of voter qualifications. The registered-voter witness certifications concern ballot-handling mechanics, not voter qualification. Because the signature envelope is not a paper relating to an act requisite to voting within the provision’s scope, the court did not reach whether any witness error or omission would be material.
Key Takeaways
- An absentee-ballot witness does not “vouch” for a voter under the Voting Rights Act merely by confirming the voter displayed residency documentation.
- The Materiality Provision does not extend to every mandatory paper in the voting process.
- Witness certifications concerning how a registered voter handled an absentee ballot do not relate to determining voter qualifications.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves Minnesota’s absentee-ballot witness-certification system against these federal statutory challenges. It adopts a narrower reading of both the Voting Rights Act’s vouching prohibition and the Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision, distinguishing eligibility determinations from ballot-handling requirements.