The Minnesota Court of Appeals sided Monday with a group seeking records on all voters in the state, ruling that under state law the information is public.
The decision sets up a likely state Supreme Court fight, extending a two-year legal battle between Secretary of State Steve Simon and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, which says it wants to evaluate potential voter fraud in Minnesota.
The case has played out against national efforts by the Trump administration and several Republican state attorneys general to prove widespread voter fraud by people living in the U.S. illegally. Those efforts have been largely inconclusive to date, and a national commission set up by President Donald Trump to investigate the 2016 presidential election was disbanded without finding evidence of large-scale fraud.
The Voters Alliance has been seeking access to data from the statewide voter registration system, which includes voters' names, addresses, phone numbers, birth years and voting history, as well as information about the types of ballots they cast and whether they were challenged. Simon countered that he would turn over much of the basic voter information but not the records on ballots and challenges to voters' status.
Monday's decision affirms a Ramsey County District Court ruling last year that the information contained within roughly 5.4 million individual voter records is public. That order, issued by District Judge Jennifer Frisch, was put on hold while Simon appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeals found that none of Simon's arguments "explicitly state that the requested data are not public." Also at issue is a provision in the state's government data practices law holding that the secretary of state "may" provide certain voter information in the registration system "if requested for permissible purpose."
Simon's office argued that the law granted the secretary of state discretion to decide whether or not to disclose certain information. Writing for the court, Judge Renee Worke concluded that the Voters Alliance pursuit of the records for "political activities" is a permissible purpose.
"We are not persuaded," Worke wrote of Simon's claimed discretion. "If the secretary of state has unfettered discretion to disclose the contested data, which we need not decide, it would be nonsensical to conclude that the legislature has classified that data on individuals as private or confidential data."