Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Ellison

Case Attorney: Nicholas Nelson

What counts as “misinformation” during an election—and who gets to decide?

That question is at the center of this case.

In September 2023, the Upper Midwest Law Center filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Minnesota law that restricts speech about elections, including discussions about voter eligibility.

The law imposes both criminal and civil penalties on individuals who knowingly make “materially false” statements within 60 days of an election if the statement is deemed to interfere with someone’s right to vote.

What the Law Does

The statute allows for:

• Criminal penalties, including fines
• Civil lawsuits brought by the Attorney General or county attorneys
• Legal exposure during the most active period of political discussion—right before an election

While framed as a measure to protect voters, the lawsuit argues the law goes much further.

The Legal Challenge

UMLC represents the Minnesota Voters Alliance and several grassroots activists who argue the law is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.

According to the lawsuit, the statute fails to clearly define what qualifies as a “materially false statement,” creating uncertainty for individuals engaging in political speech.

That uncertainty matters.

Because when the consequences include fines, lawsuits, or criminal penalties, people may choose not to speak at all.

The plaintiffs argue that this chilling effect undermines core First Amendment protections—especially during the very time when open debate is most important.

Why This Case Matters

Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment.

This case raises a critical question: Can the government regulate speech about elections in a way that risks silencing lawful debate?