Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund v. Steve Simon
Also decided on this docket: Minn. Ct. App., March 24, 2025
Opinion text
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A24-1134
Court of Appeals Hudson, C.J.
Took no part, Thissen, Gaïtas, JJ.
Minnesota Alliance for Retired
Americans Educational Fund, et al.,
Appellants,
vs. Filed: August 12, 2026
Office of Appellate Courts
Steve Simon,
Respondent.
________________________
Sybil L. Dunlop, Amran A. Farah, Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Uzoma N. Nkwonta, Elias Law Group LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, for
appellants.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Angela Behrens, Allen Cook Barr, Madeleine DeMeules,
Emily B. Anderson, Sarah Doktori, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota,
for respondent.
Benjamin L. Ellison, Jones Day, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Nathaniel C. Sutton, Jones Day, Washington, District of Columbia, for amici curiae
Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Minnesota.
________________________
SYLLABUS
1. Minnesota’s witness certification requirement for absentee voting in Minn.
Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3, does not violate the vouching prohibition in the Voting Rights
1
Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10501, with respect to unregistered voters because it does not require
those voters to prove their qualifications by the voucher of another.
2. Minnesota’s witness certification requirement for absentee voting in Minn.
Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3, does not violate the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights
Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), with respect to registered voters because the
certifications that a witness provides for those voters are not papers that relate to an act
requisite to voting.
Affirmed.
OPINION
HUDSON, Chief Justice.
We are asked to determine whether Minnesota’s witness certification requirement
for absentee voting violates the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Appellants
Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund (the Alliance), Teresa
Maples, and Khalid Mohamed (collectively, appellants) sued Minnesota Secretary of
State Steve Simon (the Secretary), alleging that Minnesota’s requirement that voters
secure the certification of a witness to cast an absentee ballot violates two federal laws—
the Voting Rights Act by conditioning a person’s right to vote on the “voucher” from a
witness, and the Civil Rights Act by denying the right to vote based on errors or
omissions in the witness certification that are not material to determining voter eligibility.
The Secretary moved to dismiss the suit, arguing, in part, that appellants failed to
state an actionable claim. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that
appellants stated an actionable claim for unregistered voters under the Voting Rights Act,
2
and for registered voters under the Civil Rights Act. The Secretary sought discretionary
review of the denial of his motion to dismiss, which the court of appeals granted. The
court of appeals then determined that Minnesota’s witness certification requirement did
not violate federal law, reversing the district court and remanding with instructions to
dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
We granted review. We conclude that Minnesota’s witness certification
requirement for unregistered absentee voters does not require those voters to prove their
qualifications by the voucher of another, and thus there is no Voting Rights Act violation.
We also conclude that the witness certifications for registered absentee voters are not
papers relating to an act requisite to voting and consequently do not come under the
purview of the Civil Rights Act. We therefore hold that appellants fail to state an
actionable claim under either law. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of
appeals.
FACTS
The Alliance is a nonprofit corporation that, as part of its activities, helps its
members vote absentee by sharing information and facilitating connections between
members. Individual appellants Maples and Mohamed are registered Minnesota voters
who regularly vote absentee; Maples is also a member of the Alliance.
Appellants sued the Secretary, claiming that Minnesota’s requirement that a person
must obtain a witness certification to vote absentee—set forth in Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07,
subd. 3, 203B.121, subd. 2, and implemented in Minn. R. 8210.0500, 8210.0600, and
8210.2450 (2025)—violates two federal election laws. First, appellants alleged that the
3
witness certification requirement contravenes the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10501,
by conditioning the right to vote on a “voucher” of a voter’s qualifications from a
member of a specific class of people. Second, appellants asserted that the witness
certification requirement violates the materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act,
52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), by denying the right to vote based on errors or omissions
that are not material in determining the voter’s qualifications to vote. The Secretary
moved to dismiss appellants’ complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), arguing that appellants lacked standing and
failed to state actionable claims.
The district court concluded that the Alliance had direct and association-based
standing. The district court also denied the motion to dismiss. Addressing the Voting
Rights Act claim, it held that appellants stated an actionable claim with respect to
unregistered voters—those registering to vote at the same time as casting an absentee
ballot—but that appellants did not state an actionable claim for registered voters. For the
Civil Rights Act, the district court concluded that appellants stated an actionable claim
with respect to registered voters but not for unregistered voters.
The Secretary petitioned the court of appeals for discretionary review. In a
precedential opinion, the court of appeals concluded that the Alliance had standing, but
held that the witness certification requirement did not violate the Voting Rights Act for
any voters, or the Civil Rights Act with respect to registered voters.1 Minn. All. for
1
The court of appeals did not address whether the witness certification requirement
for unregistered voters violated the Civil Rights Act, in part, because it concluded that
4
Retired Ams. Educ. Fund v. Simon, 19 N.W.3d 480, 487–89, 494 (Minn. App. 2025). The
court of appeals therefore reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to
enter judgment of dismissal for failure to state an actionable claim. Id. at 484. Appellants
filed a petition for review of the decision of the court of appeals on their Voting Rights
Act and Civil Rights Act claims, which we granted.
ANALYSIS
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the
statutory interpretation informing that decision, de novo to determine whether there is a
legally sufficient claim for relief. Abel v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., 947 N.W.2d 58, 68 (Minn.
2020). To survive the motion to dismiss, appellants must demonstrate that it is possible
for Minnesota’s witness certification requirement to violate the Voting Rights Act or Civil
Rights Act. See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn. 2014) (“A claim is
sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it is possible on any
evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the
relief demanded.”).
The goal of statutory interpretation for both state and federal statutes is to give
effect to the intent of the legislature. See McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., 26 N.W.3d 847, 852
(Minn. 2025) (interpreting a state statute); Bergman v. Caulk, 938 N.W.2d 248, 251
(Minn. 2020) (interpreting a federal statute). “We begin statutory interpretation with the
appellants had not argued, as an alternative basis for affirmance, that the witness
certification requirement for unregistered voters violated 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B) of
the Civil Rights Act. Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund v. Simon, 19 N.W.3d 480,
491 n.6 (Minn. App. 2025). That issue is thus forfeited before this court. See infra n.9.
5
plain language of the statute.” KSTP-TV v. Ramsey County, 806 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Minn.
2011); accord Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). We may consider
dictionary definitions to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of undefined words in
a statute. McBee, 26 N.W.3d at 853; see Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S.
560, 566–67 (2012). We consider terms in context and with a view to harmonize and give
effect to all statutory provisions. McBee, 26 N.W.3d at 855; Robinson, 519 U.S. at 341.
We begin with an overview of Minnesota’s absentee voting process and the role of
the witness certification, as relevant here. To be eligible to cast a ballot in Minnesota, an
individual must (1) be at least 18 years old, (2) be a United States citizen, (3) “maintain
residence in Minnesota for 20 days immediately preceding the election,” and (4) not have
a condition rendering a person ineligible to vote (i.e., being currently incarcerated for a
felony conviction, under a guardianship in which the court revoked the right to vote, or
found legally incompetent). Minn. Stat. § 201.014, subds. 1–2a. All eligible voters must
also register before casting a ballot. Minn. Stat. § 201.018, subd. 2. Minnesota allows
individuals to register up to 20 days before an election, Minn. Stat. § 201.061, subd. 1, or
on election day, Minn. Stat. § 201.061, subd. 3(a).2
2
In 2025, after appellants commenced this action, the Legislature amended the
state’s voter registration process to include individuals who need to update an existing
voter registration. See Act of May 23, 2025, ch. 39, art. 8, §§ 4, 5, 10, 11, 26, 27, 29,
2025 Minn. Laws 1195, 1300–02, 1304–06, 1315, 1316 (codified as amended at Minn.
Stat. §§ 201.061, subds. 1, 3, 201.071, subds. 1, 4, 203B.04, subd. 4, 203B.06, subd. 4,
203B.07, subd. 3 (Supp. 2025)). The requirement to provide proof of residency applies
equally to those individuals updating their registration and goes into effect on June 1,
2026. See id., ch. 39, art. 8, § 29, Minn. Laws at 1316 (amending Minn. Stat. § 203B.07,
subd. 3 (Supp. 2025)). The inclusion of this group does not alter our statutory analysis.
Accordingly, we include this group when analyzing “unregistered voters.”
6
Any eligible voter can vote by submitting an absentee ballot. Minn. Stat.
§ 203B.02, subd. 1. To do so, a person must request an absentee ballot application. Minn.
Stat. § 203B.04, subd. 1(a). As with in-person same-day registration at a polling place, a
person can register to vote when submitting an absentee ballot. Minn. Stat. §§ 201.061,
subd. 3(a), 203B.04, subd. 4. After receiving an absentee ballot application, a designated
election official determines whether the person making the request is registered to vote; if
not, the official includes a voter registration application with the absentee ballot. Minn.
Stat. § 203B.06, subd. 4; In re Contest of Gen. Election Held on Nov. 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Electing a U.S. Senator from the State of Minn., 767 N.W.2d 453, 460 (Minn.
2009).
To cast an absentee ballot, the voter marks the ballot, places the marked ballot into
a ballot envelope, and then places that envelope into a signature envelope. Minn. Stat.
§ 203B.08, subd. 1(a); Minn. R. 8210.0500, subps. 2–3. Printed on the signature envelope
is a certificate of eligibility, which contains two mandatory sections. See Minn. Stat.
§ 203B.07, subd. 3; Minn. R. 8210.0600, subp. 1. The first section requires the voter to
provide identifying information and to sign a statement swearing that the voter “meets all
Additional legislative amendments that occurred after this suit began are irrelevant
to our analysis. See Act of May 17, 2024, ch. 112, art. 2, §§ 4, 5, 11, 2024 Minn. Laws
1348, 1353–55, 1359–60 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. §§ 201.061, subds. 3, 3a,
203B.04, subd. 1 (Supp. 2025)); Act of May 23, 2025, ch. 39, art. 8, §§ 30, 31, 2025
Minn. Laws 1195, 1316–17 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 203B.08, subds. 1, 3
(Supp. 2025)); Minn. Stat. § 201.061, subd. 3, as amended by, Act of May 18, 2026,
ch. 97, art. 1, § 10.
7
of the requirements established by law for voting by absentee ballot.” Minn. Stat.
§ 203B.07, subd. 3; Minn. R. 8210.0600, subp. 1.
The second section requires that the voter secure an eligible witness. Minn. Stat.
§ 203B.07, subd. 3; Minn. R. 8210.0600, subp. 1. To serve as a witness, a person must be
at least 18 and a United States citizen, or be a notary public or individual authorized to
administer oaths.3 Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3. The witness also signs the certificate of
eligibility on the signature envelope to certify the following:
(1) the ballots were displayed to [the witness] unmarked;
(2) the voter marked the ballots in [the witness]’s presence without showing
how they were marked, or, if the voter was physically unable to mark them,
that the voter directed another individual to mark them; and
(3) if the voter was not previously registered …, the voter has provided proof
of residence as required by section 201.061, subdivision 3.
Id. If the voter was not previously registered, the witness must check a box indicating the
type of proof of residence that the voter displayed. Minn. R. 8210.0600, subp. 1b,
8210.0500, subp. 3. The Secretary established the language that appears on absentee
ballot signature envelopes to fulfill these requirements. See Minn. Stat. § 203B.125;
Minn. R. 8210.0600, subps. 1a–1b.
3
In 2024, after this suit began, the Legislature amended the criteria for who can
serve as a witness. Act of May 17, 2024, ch. 112, art. 2, § 12, 2024 Minn. Laws 1348,
1360–61 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3 (Supp. 2025)). The
change is in effect for all elections “for which the absentee ballot period begins on or
after January 1, 2025.” Id. The parties agree that we should review the current version of
the statute. We therefore analyze appellants’ challenge under the current version of the
eligibility statute.
8
After receiving an absentee ballot, designated election officials review the
signature envelope to confirm, among other things, that: (1) the voter-provided
identifying information matches what the voter listed on the absentee ballot application or
existing voter record; (2) “the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has
included a properly completed voter registration application”; and (3) the certificate of
eligibility is correctly completed. Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 2(a)–(b). Election
officials accept signature envelopes—and the corresponding absentee ballots—that meet
these requirements and reject signature envelopes that fail to meet them. Id.,
subd. 2(b)–(c). There are no other permissible reasons for rejecting an absentee ballot.
See id., subd. 2(c)(1).
Appellants argue that the required witness certifications violate the Voting Rights
Act and Civil Rights Act. We address appellants’ claims regarding each statute in turn.
I.
Appellants first assert that the witness certification requirement with respect to
unregistered absentee voters violates the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition against denying
the right to vote for failure to comply with a test.4 The Voting Rights Act provides:
(a) No citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to comply with any test
or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election
conducted in any State or political subdivision of a State.
(b) As used in this section, the term “test or device” means any requirement
that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting …
4
The court of appeals concluded that the witness certification requirement did not
violate the vouching prohibition of the Voting Rights Act with respect to registered
absentee voters. Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund, 19 N.W.3d at 489. Appellants
did not challenge this conclusion before our court.
9
prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members
of any other class.
52 U.S.C. § 10501 (emphasis added).
Neither we nor the United States Supreme Court has interpreted section 10501 of
the Voting Rights Act. Nor have we interpreted the Minnesota statute imposing the
witness certification requirement, Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3. We first determine
what it means to “prove … qualifications by the voucher of” a class member to
understand what constitutes a prohibited test or device under the Voting Rights Act, and
then we apply that determination to Minnesota’s witness certification requirement.
A.
We begin by determining what it means to “prove … qualifications by the voucher
of” another. 52 U.S.C. § 10501(b). The Voting Rights Act does not define any of these
terms. See 52 U.S.C. § 10501.5
The term “voucher” has several possible meanings. A voucher can be an action,
the equivalent of “to vouch.” See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1403 (11th
ed. 2003) (defining “voucher” as “an act of vouching”). Alternatively, when used as a
noun, a voucher is the equivalent of a receipt or similar indication of payment. See
Voucher, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (“1. Confirmation of the payment or
discharge of a debt; a receipt” or “2. A written or printed authorization to disburse money.
See Tuition Voucher”). Here, the subject of the Voting Rights Act’s voucher prohibition—
5
The parties do not challenge—and we agree with—the court of appeals’
conclusion that the word “qualifications” in the statute refers to a person’s eligibility to
vote. See Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund, 19 N.W.3d at 488.
10
what is proven “by the voucher of”—is the voter’s qualifications. 52 U.S.C. § 10501(b).
And these qualifications are proven “by the voucher of” another, indicating that the use of
“voucher” here is an action: the act of attesting to a voter’s qualifications. “Voucher” as
used in section 10501 is not a receipt or other certification of a past attestation. Thus,
“voucher” as it is used in section 10501 of the Voting Rights Act is best understood as an
action and the equivalent of “to vouch.”
This, in turn, requires us to determine what it means to “vouch.” As relevant here,
vouch also has two definitions. First, vouch means to guarantee or personally assure for
another. Vouch, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (“To answer for (another); to
personally assure.”); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1943
(5th ed. 2018) (“To give personal assurances or a guarantee.”). Second, vouch also means
to substantiate, prove, or verify with evidence. Vouch, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed.
2024) (“To call on, rely on, or cite as authority; to substantiate with evidence.”); The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1943 (5th ed. 2018) (“To
substantiate by supplying evidence; prove.”).
The Secretary argues for the first definition, focusing on the need for personal
assurance. Appellants primarily focus on the second definition and the verification role,
although they contend that the witness certification requirement meets both definitions
and thus violates the Voting Rights Act under either definition. And the court of appeals,
for its part, combined these definitions to conclude that “a person vouches for another if
they give their personal assurance as evidence to prove or verify something for the other.”
Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund, 19 N.W.3d at 488–89.
11
We adopt the first definition and conclude that “voucher” as it is used in the Voting
Rights Act means to guarantee or personally assure for another. That is the only definition
that gives full meaning to the surrounding statutory language that a voter cannot be
required to “prove … qualifications by the voucher of” another. 52 U.S.C. § 10501(b)
(emphasis added). The definitions of “voucher” proffered by the appellants and the court
of appeals both render other terms in this provision of the Voting Rights Act superfluous.
See State v. Thompson, 950 N.W.2d 65, 69 (Minn. 2020) (“[W]e attempt to avoid
interpretations that would render a word or phrase superfluous, void, or insignificant,
thereby ensuring each word in a statute is given effect.”); City of Chicago v. Fulton,
592 U.S. 154, 159–160 (2021) (rejecting an interpretation of a statutory provision
because it would render another part of the same statutory scheme superfluous).
The definition of “vouch” for which appellants argue—a verification role—would
make the term “vouch” the equivalent of “to prove” and render the use of the term
“prove” in the same Voting Rights Act provision superfluous. And the combined
definition from the court of appeals runs afoul of the same rule against surplusage. The
Voting Rights Act prohibits conditioning the right to vote on a requirement to “prove [the
voter’s] qualifications” via a specified method—“by the voucher of [another].” 52 U.S.C.
§ 10501(b). Adopting the court of appeals’ combined definition would improperly allow
the term “voucher” to act as proof and the method of proof. Instead, to give meaning to
each term, we conclude that “voucher” as it is used in the Voting Rights Act means to
guarantee or personally assure for another.
12
As a result, this means that “voucher,” as it is used in the Voting Rights Act, does
not prohibit another person verifying some facet of a voter’s registration, as opposed to
another person providing a personal assurance or guarantee. Appellants maintain that the
Voting Rights Act’s prohibition does not require that the voucher itself prove a voter’s
eligibility. Instead, appellants argue that if a witness certification is used to substantiate
any fact relevant to the person’s qualifications to vote—even without personal knowledge
of the veracity of that fact—there has been an impermissible voucher. Put differently,
appellants argue that if any link in the chain used to establish a voter’s eligibility relies on
a voucher, it violates the Voting Rights Act.
This argument fails in two ways. First, this interpretation strains the plain meaning
of “prove.” As appellants acknowledge, to “prove” in this context means “[t]o establish
or make certain; to establish the truth of (a fact or hypothesis) by satisfactory evidence.”
Prove, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). The ordinary meaning of “to prove”
clarifies that it is the evidence itself that makes certain or establishes a fact. Thus, in the
context of the Voting Rights Act, “prove” means the personal assurance in the voucher
must itself establish or make certain a particular fact of a voter’s eligibility to cast a
ballot. It cannot be that to “prove … qualifications” by voucher means having only some
role in making a fact more or less likely to be true, or to be only a link in a chain. Second,
appellants’ framing contradicts the plain language of the Voting Rights Act. Appellants
assert that it is the role the voucher plays that matters, not the subject of the voucher. But
the Voting Rights Act prohibits “prov[ing] … qualifications by the voucher of” another,
13
which conveys that the subject of the voucher matters—the voucher must establish
qualifications or there is no violation.
In sum, the plain language of section 10501(b) of the Voting Rights Act that a
voter cannot be required to “prove … qualifications by the voucher of” another means
that a state cannot condition the right to vote on the personal assurance from another
person to establish the truth of a voter’s eligibility to vote.
B.
We now consider whether Minnesota’s witness certification requirements
constitute a voucher prohibited by the Voting Rights Act. A witness for an unregistered
absentee voter signs the signature envelope to certify the following:
(1) the ballots were displayed to [the witness] unmarked;
(2) the voter marked the ballots in [the witness]’s presence without showing
how they were marked, or, if the voter was physically unable to mark them,
that the voter directed another individual to mark them; and
(3) if the voter was not previously registered …, the voter has provided proof
of residence as required by section 201.061, subdivision 3.
Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3 (emphasis added). The witness also checks a box on the
signature envelope to indicate which form of proof the voter presented. Minn. R.
8210.0600, subp. 1b. The listed forms of proof mirror the options for proving residency
for in-person same-day registration at a polling place, including, as relevant here, a
Minnesota driver’s license; Minnesota identification card; student fee statement or bill
with an identification card; tribal identification card; or signed oath of another vouching
14
for the voter’s residency. See id.; Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07, subd. 3(3), 201.061, subd. 3(a),
(d).
Appellants challenge only the third certification requirement, which applies only
to unregistered voters: that the voter has provided proof of residence as required by the
statute. We conclude that this witness certification requirement is not a prohibited
voucher, for the following reasons.
First, appellants acknowledge that the witness “does not need to independently
verify any of the information” in the presented document. In other words, Minnesota’s
certification does not require a personal assurance in the manner prohibited by the Voting
Rights Act. Appellants nonetheless assert that the witness is an integral step in verifying
eligibility because the document establishes that the voter meets the residency
requirement, and the witness certification proves that the document reflecting proof of
residence has been shown. This argument is unavailing because, as we determined earlier,
under the Voting Rights Act, the witness’s assurance itself must prove a voter’s eligibility
to constitute a voucher. There is not a voucher when the witness’s actions are only a link
in the chain that makes a voter’s eligibility more or less likely.
A second reason Minnesota’s witness certification requirement is not a prohibited
voucher is because the witness certifies only that a voter has provided a residency
document, not that the voter is in fact eligible to vote. To “prove … qualifications by the
voucher of” a witness, the witness must provide a personal assurance that proves a voter’s
eligibility to cast a ballot. Minnesota’s eligibility requirements include that a person must
be at least 18 years old, be a U.S. citizen, and have maintained residence in Minnesota for
15
at least the 20 days preceding the election. See Minn. Stat. § 201.014, subd. 1(1)–(3).
Minnesota’s witness certification requirement does not require the witness to personally
assure that the voter met any of these requirements.
Even so, appellants argue that when a witness certifies that the voter “provided
proof of residence,” Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3(3), it violates the Voting Rights Act’s
voucher prohibition because the witness is providing a personal assurance that the
absentee voter has maintained residence in Minnesota for the 20 days preceding the
election. We disagree. A witness certifying that a voter provided a residency document is
not a personal assurance that the voter meets Minnesota’s eligibility requirement. As the
court of appeals rightly concluded, there is no prohibited voucher because the witness
“merely attests to voter conduct and voting mechanics,” rather than to the witness’s
personal knowledge of a voter’s eligibility. Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund,
19 N.W.3d at 489. Under Minnesota’s law, the witness certifies that the voter “provided”
a residency document, not that the provided document is valid, that the voter resides at
the listed address, or that the document qualifies the voter to vote in the voter’s district.
Neither does the witness certify that the witness knows where the voter currently resides,
nor that the voter satisfies the 20-day residency requirement. The witness certifies a
discrete aspect of voter conduct—the voter’s display of a residency document. The
witness does not certify that a voter fulfills Minnesota’s residency eligibility
requirement.6
6
In fact, none of the documents presented by an individual registering to vote on
election day—in person or absentee—could alone establish a voter’s eligibility. To be
16
As the Secretary persuasively argues, the difference between a prohibited voucher
and a mere attestation of a voter’s conduct becomes clear through an example. One
optional type of proof of residency that an unregistered voter may, but need not, use is
having a registered voter in the precinct “sign an oath … vouching that [they] …
personally know[] that the [voter] is a resident of the precinct.” Minn. Stat. § 201.061,
subd. 3(a)(4). Because the registered voter acting as witness provides a personal
attestation about where the voter lives on which an election official relies to establish
residency, it is a voucher.7 Here, in contrast, the witness for the absentee voter is never
asked for personal knowledge that would establish the voter’s residence.
Three federal district courts have similarly determined that there is no
impermissible voucher under the Voting Rights Act when a witness attests to observing
only a voter’s conduct and not personal knowledge of a voter’s eligibility. See Liebert v.
Millis, 733 F. Supp. 3d 698, 705 (W.D. Wis. 2024) (“[A] witness does not vouch for a
voter’s qualifications by simply confirming with a signature what he or she observed.”);
Thomas v. Andino, 613 F. Supp. 3d 926, 961–62 (D.S.C. 2020) (concluding that there was
eligible to vote in Minnesota, a person must “maintain residence in Minnesota for 20
days immediately preceding the election,” Minn. Stat. § 201.014, subd. 1(3), and none of
the permissible documents indicate the duration of an individual’s residency. See Minn.
Stat. § 201.061, subd. 3(a)(1)–(3).
7
While a voucher under the Voting Rights Act, this option is not prohibited because
it is only one of four different methods an individual may use to prove residence. See
Minn. Stat. § 201.061, subd. 3(a)(1)–(4). Because proof of residence can alternatively be
shown by presenting a driver’s license, any document approved by the secretary of state,
or a current student fee statement along with a picture identification card, no citizen
would be denied the right to vote solely for failing to comply with the vouching option in
Minn. Stat. § 201.061, subd. 3(a)(4).
17
no impermissible voucher where the witness is “simply required to witness”); People
First of Ala. v. Merrill, 467 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1224–25 (N.D. Ala. 2020) (determining
that there was no Voting Rights Act violation where a witness certifies only that the
witness observed the voter sign an affidavit, not personal knowledge of voter eligibility).
Appellants assert that these cases are inapposite because witnesses in those states
were not required to attest to an element of voter eligibility. However, because “voucher”
in the Voting Rights Act means to guarantee or personally assure for another, a Minnesota
witness does not certify an element of voter eligibility. And in Liebert, as here, the
plaintiffs claimed that the Wisconsin witness certification attesting “the above statements
are true” encompassed the voter’s residency certification. 733 F. Supp. 3d at 705–06
(quoting Wis. Stat. § 6.87(2)). The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ reading,
concluding that the certification covered only observations of a voter’s conduct in part
because, like Minnesota, any adult citizen can serve as a witness, indicating that “a wide
variety of people should be able to do the job.” Id. at 706; see Minn. Stat. § 203B.07,
subd. 3. The Wisconsin district court declined to adopt an interpretation that a person
must have personal knowledge of voter eligibility to act as a witness because “[i]t makes
no sense to interpret [the Wisconsin witness statute] in a way that would make
compliance virtually impossible,” as any adult citizen would not know, for example, if a
voter has a criminal history such that they are ineligible to vote. Liebert, 733 F. Supp. 3d
at 706. We find Liebert’s analysis of this issue to be persuasive.
In sum, because Minnesota’s witness certification requirement for unregistered
absentee voters does not contain a personal assurance that the voter is eligible to vote or
18
that the voter meets the residency requirement to vote, we conclude that the witness
certification does not require that voter to prove their qualifications “by the voucher of”
another. As a result, we hold the witness certification requirement for unregistered
absentee voters does not violate the prohibition on vouching in the Voting Rights Act.8
II.
Appellants also claim that Minnesota’s witness certification requirement, as to
registered voters,9 violates the “Materiality Provision” of the Civil Rights Act:
No person acting under color of law shall … deny the right of any individual
to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper
relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if
such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual
is qualified under State law to vote in such election.
52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B). Neither we nor the United States Supreme Court have
interpreted the Materiality Provision or its relation to Minnesota’s witness certification
requirement, Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3.
8
Because we conclude that Minnesota’s witness certification requirement does not
require an impermissible voucher, we do not address the parties’ arguments about
whether the witness certification violates the Voting Rights Act’s other requirement that
the voucher be from “registered voters or members of any other class.” See 52 U.S.C.
§ 10501(b).
9
Our analysis under the Civil Rights Act considers only the witness certifications
made with respect to registered voters. The district court determined that the witness
certification requirement did not violate the Civil Rights Act with respect to unregistered
voters. Appellants forfeited any claim with respect to unregistered voters before this court
by failing to make an affirmative argument before the court of appeals. See Rued v.
Comm’r of Hum. Servs., 13 N.W.3d 42, 52 (Minn. 2024) (observing arguments not raised
before the court of appeals are forfeit). Because we conclude that appellants forfeited this
claim, we do not address the Secretary’s alternative argument that appellants needed to
file a notice of related appeal to make an argument about unregistered voters.
19
Appellants argue that Minnesota’s witness certification requirement violates the
Civil Rights Act because (1) the signature envelope, on which the witness certifications
are made, is a mandatory paper relating to an “other act requisite to voting”; and
(2) errors or omissions from the witness are not material in determining voter eligibility,
namely age, citizenship, residency, or whether the person has a condition rendering them
ineligible to vote. Both elements are required for a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
We first consider what “other act requisite to voting” means, and then apply that
understanding to determine whether the witness certifications made on the signature
envelope are a paper “relating to” an “other act requisite to voting.” Because we conclude
that the signature envelope is not a paper relating to an “act requisite to voting,” we do
not address whether the witness certification requirement is “material” in determining
voter qualifications.
A.
Appellants argue that the signature envelope containing the witness certification,
as to registered voters, is a paper that relates to an “act requisite to voting,” and thus
violates the Materiality Provision, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B).10 Appellants base their
argument on the definition of “vote” in the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act defines
“vote” to encompass “all action necessary to make a vote effective including, but not
limited to, registration or other action required by State law prerequisite to voting, casting
10
Neither party contends that the signature envelope containing the witness
certification, as to registered voters, is a “record or paper relating to” an “application” or
“registration.” See 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B).
20
a ballot, and having such ballot counted and included in the appropriate totals of votes
cast.” 52 U.S.C. § 10101(e). This definition applies to the Materiality Provision. See
52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(3)(A) (“For purposes of this subsection … the term ‘vote’ shall
have the same meaning as in subsection (e) of this section ….”). Appellants assert that,
because the Materiality Provision prohibits denying the right “to vote,” that means it
protects against the denial of the right at all stages of the voting process. Appellants
contend that “other act requisite to voting,” as it used in the Materiality Provision,
necessarily protects every piece of the voting process—save for marking the paper ballot
itself—or else voting would mean different things in different provisions of the Civil
Rights Act.
The Secretary disagrees, arguing that appellants’ interpretation renders the phrase
“act requisite to voting” impermissibly synonymous with the word “vote.” The court of
appeals adopted the Secretary’s approach, reasoning that appellants acknowledged that
the ballot itself is not a record or paper relating to an act requisite to voting, but that
appellants failed to explain why marking the ballot would not also constitute an act
requisite to voting under their proposed interpretation. Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ.
Fund, 19 N.W.3d at 492–93.
We agree with the Secretary and court of appeals that the deliberate use of “act
requisite to voting” in the Materiality Provision limits the reach of the broad definition of
“vote” in the Civil Rights Act. We decline to adopt appellants’ expansive and untenable
definition of “vote” as applied to the Materiality Provision. In our view, Congress
signaled an intention to limit the coverage by specifying an act “requisite to voting”
21
instead of using “to vote.” See In re Welfare of R.S., 805 N.W.2d 44, 51 (Minn. 2011)
(reasoning that Congress, by using one term in one part of a statute and another set of
terms in a related statutory provision, “dr[ew] an express distinction between” the terms);
Salinas v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 592 U.S. 188, 196 (2021) (presuming intent where
Congress “includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act” (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))).
Having rejected appellants’ construction, we instead interpret “other act requisite
to voting” to mean an act involving the assessment of voter qualifications. Our
interpretation finds support when reading the Materiality Provision as a whole and in the
context of surrounding Civil Rights Act provisions. Two components of the Materiality
Provision support our view. First, the phrase at issue—“other act requisite to voting”—
appears as a catch-all in a list addressing where the error or omission must occur—“on
any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to
voting,” 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added)—and must be read in that context.
See State v. Khalil, 956 N.W.2d 627, 638–39 (Minn. 2021) (recognizing that statutes
often “include specific items followed by a general catch-all term intended to capture the
same kind or class of items as those specifically identified”); Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
584 U.S. 497, 512 (2018) (explaining general terms following more specific terms in a
list are understood to embrace only similar objects). We agree with the Secretary and
court of appeals that understanding the catch-all phrase “other act requisite to voting” as
an assessment of a voter’s qualifications coheres with the use of the terms “application”
and “registration.” Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund, 19 N.W.3d at 492.
22
We also disagree with appellants’ contention that interpreting all three terms as
referring to only voter registration or similar voter qualification assessments reads words
out of the statute and renders “application” and “other act” superfluous. Registration and
application are similar but not identical terms that both, in this context, relate to a
determination of a voter’s qualifications. See Registration, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th
ed. 2024) (“The act of recording or enrolling ….”); Application, Black’s Law Dictionary
(12th ed. 2024) (“A request or petition.”). The Materiality Provision’s use of both
terms—along with the catch-all “other act requisite to voting”—recognizes that states
may use different words to describe the same process of assessing a voter’s eligibility to
cast a ballot. For example, Minnesota election laws do not exclusively use “registration”
or “application” to refer to voter eligibility. Contrast Minn. Stat. § 203B.04 (listing
processes for “applying” for absentee ballots), with Minn. Stat. § 201.071 (addressing
“registration applications”). These examples demonstrate that in the context of
Minnesota’s election laws, “application” and “registration” both refer to a requisite act
related to assessing voter eligibility. “[O]ther act requisite to voting” in the Materiality
Provision, as a catch-all phrase, should similarly be understood through the preceding
terms as a threshold step to voting akin to registration.
Second, the Materiality Provision specifies that a person cannot be denied the right
to vote based on errors that are “not material in determining whether [the voter] is
qualified under State law to vote.” 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). As the
Third Circuit acknowledged when analyzing the Materiality Provision, “the text does not
say the error must be immaterial ‘to’ whether an individual is qualified to vote. It uses the
23
words ‘in determining,’ and that choice must mean something.” Pa. State Conf. of
NAACP Branches v. Sec’y Pa. (Pa. NAACP), 97 F.4th 120, 131 (3d Cir. 2024), cert.
denied sub nom., Pa. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Schmidt, 145 S. Ct. 1125 (2025). The
court of appeals agreed with this assessment, observing that “an error or omission that is
material to determining voter qualification could occur only on a document that … is
related to some act requisite to voting.” Minn. All. for Retired Ams. Educ. Fund,
19 N.W.3d at 492. We find this reasoning persuasive and concur that the language
addressing the type of errors or omissions the Materiality Provision prohibits is another
textual clue that suggests “other act requisite to voting” must relate to determining voter
qualifications.
We likewise find unavailing appellants’ assertion that such an interpretation
misreads the provision to impermissibly narrow the scope of papers to which the
Materiality Provision applies. Appellants rely on the use of “any” in the Materiality
Provision to suggest a broader view of the papers and records to which the Materiality
Provision applies. But specifying “any” when requiring “any record or paper relating to
any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting” does not broaden the scope
of “act requisite to voting” further than records or papers related to assessments of voter
qualifications.
The two surrounding provisions of the Civil Rights Act within subsection
10101(a)(2) further bolster our interpretation of the Materiality Provision as
circumscribed to assessments of voter qualifications. The first, 52 U.S.C.
§ 10101(a)(2)(A), prohibits disparate applications of “standards, practices, or procedures”
24
“in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any
election.” The second, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(C), bans literacy tests as “a qualification
for voting in any election” without certain conditions. Thus, the two provisions
surrounding the Materiality Provision focus on determinations of voter qualifications. We
agree that “[s]ection 10101(a)(2)(A) is particularly probative because it uses the same ‘in
determining’ language as the Materiality Provision (§ 10101(a)(2)(B)).” Liebert, 733 F.
Supp. 3d at 714. Appellants contend that the Materiality Provision is “textually and
structurally distinct” from the other two provisions because it includes the phrase “deny
the right to vote,” where the other two do not, indicating a broader focus. We disagree.
We presume that Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes” by tucking a broad
provision between two much more narrowly targeted ones. Sackett v. Env’t Prot. Agency,
598 U.S. 651, 677 (2023) (quoting Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 532 U.S. 457,
468 (2001)). The more obvious and reasonable conclusion is that all three provisions
relate to processes and requirements for states when determining a voter’s eligibility.
Finally, our conclusion that “other act requisite to voting” applies only to records
or papers relating to voter qualification determinations finds support from other courts
that have interpreted the Materiality Provision—the Third Circuit’s decision in Pa.
NAACP, 97 F.4th 120, and the Wisconsin federal district court’s decision in Liebert,
733 F. Supp. 3d 698. Appellants contend that these decisions are not persuasive because
they relied on extratextual arguments including legislative history and policy concerns.
We agree that when statutory terms are not ambiguous, we do not turn to legislative
history or consider whether absurd results would follow. Kratzer v. Welsh Cos.,
25
771 N.W.2d 14, 21 (Minn. 2009) (“We look beyond the plain language of the statutory or
regulatory provision only if the text is ambiguous.”); Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S.
644, 674 (2020) (“[W]hen the meaning of the statute’s terms is plain, our job is at an
end.”). But both decisions recognized this limit on statutory interpretation and noted that
the extratextual arguments were simply additional sources of support, not the primary
reasoning on which either court relied. See Pa. NAACP, 97 F.4th at 132–35; Liebert,
733 F. Supp. 3d at 706, 714–15.
Appellants also contend that our decision goes against the “weight of authority” of
federal court interpretations of the Materiality Provision. We acknowledge that other
courts have determined that the Materiality Provision applies beyond initial
determinations of voter qualification. See In re Ga. Senate Bill 202, No. 1:21-mi-55555-
JPB, 2023 WL 5334582, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2023) (concluding that the Materiality
Provision applies to voting-related papers); La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 705 F.
Supp. 3d 725, 756–57 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (holding that the Materiality Provision applies to
mail ballot applications). But several cases cited by appellants in support of their
interpretation rest on the broad definition of “vote,” which we reject as a basis for
expanding the scope of the Materiality Provision. See In re Ga. Senate Bill, 2023 WL
5334582, at *10; La Unión del Pueblo Entero, 705 F. Supp. 3d at 756. The remaining
cases on which appellants rely either do not analyze the first clause of the Materiality
Provision at all or do so only cursorily. See Get Loud Ark. v. Jester, 171 F.4th 1058,
1065–67 (8th Cir. 2026) (analyzing only what constitutes materiality); Migliori v. Cohen,
36 F.4th 153, 162–64, 162 n.56 (3d Cir. 2022) (interpreting materiality but concluding
26
that a mail-in ballot is “a paper relating to an act for voting” without further analysis);
Org. for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft, 493 F. Supp. 3d 790, 803 (W.D. Mo. 2020) (assessing
only materiality); Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1308–09 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
(same). And additional courts have adopted our analysis. See, e.g., United States v.
Paxton, 148 F.4th 335, 340–41 (5th Cir. 2025) (endorsing the analysis of the Materiality
Provision in Pa. NAACP but concluding the challenged law was material regardless). The
weight of authority does not support appellants’ view.
In sum, we conclude that the phrase “other act requisite to voting,” read in context
with other language in the Materiality Provision and harmonized with the surrounding
provisions of the Civil Rights Act, refers to a determination of a voter’s qualifications to
cast a ballot.
B.
We now assess whether Minnesota’s witness certifications for registered absentee
voters relate to a determination of voter qualifications such that the signature envelope is
a “paper relating to … [an] other act requisite to voting” and thus within the scope of the
Materiality Provision. 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B). A witness for a registered absentee
voter signs the signature envelope to certify that (1) the voter displayed the blank ballot
before voting; (2) the voter marked the ballot in private or, if physically unable, directed
the ballot to be marked; and (3) “the voter enclosed and sealed the ballot in the ballot
envelope.” Minn. R. 8210.0600, subp. 1a.
None of these certifications relate to a voter’s registration, application, or other
determination of eligibility. Thus, Minnesota’s witness certifications for registered
27
absentee voters fall outside the purview of the Materiality Provision. As a result, we hold
that appellants do not state an actionable claim under the Civil Rights Act.
* * *
In conclusion, Minnesota’s witness certification requirement for absentee voting
does not violate the Voting Rights Act as to unregistered voters because it does not
require such voters prove their eligibility through the voucher of a witness. And the
witness certification requirement does not come within the scope of the Civil Rights Act
as to registered absentee voters because the witness certifications for such voters are not
papers that relate to an act requisite to voting. Accordingly, appellants do not state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and
remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed.
THISSEN, J., took no part in the decision of this case.
GAÏTAS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
28