If you or someone you love has a conviction in Minnesota and is looking for a pardon, this guide is written for you. Minnesota's clemency system has undergone substantial reform since 2023, replacing what was once the most demanding pardon structure in the country with a more accessible process. Under the old system, the unanimous agreement of all three constitutional officers on the Board of Pardons was required, and even a single dissenting vote stopped any pardon from taking effect. The grant rate was historically low, applications could sit for years without meaningful review, and the system was widely criticized as inconsistent and inaccessible. That changed with a 2023 law that abolished the unanimity requirement, created a 9-member Clemency Review Commission to evaluate applications before they reach the Board, and added automatic records sealing following every granted pardon. The reforms took full effect in July 2024 and have produced notably higher favorable recommendation rates at early Commission hearings, with approximately 90 percent of applicants receiving favorable Commission recommendations at initial hearings compared to a historical grant rate of about 40 percent under the old system. This is a meaningfully different system than it was even two years ago, and people who may have applied and been denied under the prior rules should consider reapplying under the new structure. I have been through the system myself, and most of the fear comes from not knowing how the process works. So let me walk you through it in plain language. None of this is legal advice, and every case is different, so treat this as a map and lean on a lawyer for the turns.
What Minnesota offers: the forms of clemency
Minnesota's Board of Pardons is authorized under Article V, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution and Chapter 638 of the Minnesota Statutes to grant three forms of clemency. A pardon, available to people who have completed their sentence, sets aside the conviction, purges it from the criminal record, and triggers automatic sealing of all related records. A commutation of sentence modifies the terms of an active sentence for someone who is currently incarcerated; it can modify a sentence to time served or a lesser sentence. A reprieve provides a temporary delay in punishment, typically relevant in circumstances involving a serious health situation or other urgent need for delay.
Who decides: the Board of Pardons and the Clemency Review Commission
The Minnesota Board of Pardons consists of three constitutional officers: the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Under the 2023 reform, a grant of clemency takes effect if the Governor votes in favor along with at least one other Board member. A pardon has no force or effect if the Governor opposes it, or if a majority of the Board opposes it. This replaces the former requirement that all three members vote in favor unanimously.
The Clemency Review Commission, a 9-member body established by the 2023 reform and operational from July 1, 2024, reviews all clemency applications and makes recommendations to the Board before the Board votes. Commission members are appointed jointly by the Governor, Attorney General, and Chief Justice, representing a range of perspectives and experience in the criminal justice system. The Commission conducts thorough investigations, holds hearings, and provides recommendations that the Board considers when making its decision. As part of the Commission's process, victims, prosecutors, and sentencing judges are notified of each application and given the opportunity to provide input.
At the first Board meetings under the new system in 2024, the Board approved every case the Commission recommended favorably and denied all cases the Commission advised against, demonstrating the significant practical influence the Commission has on outcomes. The historical grant rate under the old system was approximately 40 percent; at initial Commission hearings approximately 90 percent of applicants received favorable recommendations, suggesting the new screening process produces applications that are better matched to what the Board is looking for.
The Board holds quarterly public meetings to consider and vote on eligible applications. The Commission reports annually to the legislature on application volume, recommendation rates, and outcomes.
Who is eligible for a pardon in Minnesota
To be eligible for a pardon, an applicant must have been convicted of a crime in a Minnesota state court, including both felonies and misdemeanors, and must have completed their sentence and been discharged. At least five years must have elapsed since the completion of the sentence before a petition may be submitted.
Persons convicted under federal law or the law of another state are not eligible for a Minnesota state pardon. Both felony and misdemeanor convictions under Minnesota state law are eligible, so the pardon is not limited to felony cases.
The application process step by step
Step one: apply through the Clemency Review Commission. Applications for pardons are submitted to the Clemency Review Commission through the Commission's website at mn.gov/crc. The application must explain why the applicant is a good candidate for a pardon and include the information and documentation the Commission requires. The application must address the facts of the conviction, what the sentence was, what has changed since then, and why a pardon is being sought. The stronger and more specific this case narrative, the better positioned the application is for a favorable Commission recommendation.
Step two: Clemency Review Commission investigation and hearing. The Commission reviews the application, conducts a thorough investigation into the applicant's background, history, and evidence of rehabilitation, and holds hearings as part of the review process. Victims, prosecutors, and sentencing judges are notified of the application, allowing for more informed decision-making. The Commission evaluates the application against eligibility requirements and standards set out in state law, and prepares a recommendation for the Board.
Step three: Board of Pardons public hearing and vote. The Board of Pardons holds quarterly public meetings at which it votes on eligible applications that have received Commission recommendations. The Board's deliberations and votes are public, which means both the Commission's recommendations and the Board's final votes are matters of public record, creating accountability and transparency in the process. To grant a pardon, the Governor must vote in favor, along with at least one of the other two Board members (the Attorney General or the Chief Justice). If the Governor votes against, the pardon cannot take effect regardless of how the other Board members vote.
Step four: automatic record sealing. If the Board grants a pardon, the Clemency Review Commission must file a copy of the pardon with the district court of the county where the conviction and sentence were imposed. The district court then issues an order that: sets aside the conviction; seals all records related to the arrest, indictment, trial, verdict, and pardon; prohibits the disclosure or opening of those records except under court order; and directs the court administrator to send a copy of the order to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and all other government entities holding related records. This automatic sealing is built into the pardon process under the 2023 reform and requires no separate action by the person who received the pardon. Under the prior system, record sealing after a pardon required a separate court petition; the 2023 law made it automatic, which is one of the most practically significant improvements in the reform.
What a pardon does in Minnesota
A Minnesota pardon sets aside the conviction, purges it from the individual's criminal record, and triggers automatic sealing of all related records. Once pardoned, a person is not required to disclose the conviction in most contexts, including most employment and housing applications. The only exceptions are judicial proceedings and the licensing process for peace officers. This non-disclosure right is a practical benefit that goes beyond what many court expungements provide in Minnesota, because the pardon's sealing reaches all government databases, not just some of them.
The pardon also restores civil rights that may have been lost due to the conviction. Importantly, a Minnesota pardon restores firearms rights, which Minnesota's court-based expungement process does not. This is a significant distinction: if firearms rights restoration is among the goals, a pardon is more effective than an expungement in Minnesota because an expungement accomplishes partial record sealing but does not restore firearms eligibility.
Voting rights in Minnesota are automatically restored upon release from incarceration for people with felony convictions. Minnesota also permits people on parole or probation to vote, making it one of the states where voting rights are most broadly preserved. A pardon is not needed for voting rights in Minnesota.
Minnesota's expungement alternative
Minnesota has a separate court-based expungement process that provides partial record relief, and in 2025 the state began implementing a Clean Slate Act (Minn. Stat. § 609A.015) providing for automatic expungement of some conviction records. Minnesota's court expungement partially seals records from the public, but it does not restore firearms rights, and the sealing is less comprehensive than what a pardon achieves because court expungements in Minnesota do not reach all government databases in the same way. For people whose primary goal is a degree of record sealing without needing firearms restoration, and whose offense is eligible for expungement, the court-based process may be a more straightforward path. For people who need the conviction fully set aside, records completely sealed across all government databases, the right not to disclose in most contexts, and civil rights including firearms fully restored, a pardon is the more complete remedy.
A note on federal convictions
If the conviction is a federal conviction rather than a Minnesota state conviction, the Minnesota Board of Pardons and the Clemency Review Commission cannot help you. Federal clemency is granted by the President of the United States, and applications go through the Office of the Pardon Attorney within the United States Department of Justice. The federal and state processes are entirely separate, and a Minnesota state pardon has no effect on a federal conviction.
Where this leaves you
Minnesota's pardon system is in the early stages of its reformed structure, and the early signals from the 2024 hearings are genuinely encouraging for people who have been waiting for a more accessible process. The Clemency Review Commission's recommendation rate of approximately 90 percent at its initial meetings, compared to historical grant rates of around 40 percent under the old system, suggests that the new process is meaningfully more accessible. The five-year post-sentence waiting period is the threshold to plan around, and once that threshold is met, the application goes to the 9-member Clemency Review Commission rather than directly to three constitutional officers who had to agree unanimously as under the old system. The automatic records sealing that follows every granted pardon is also a significant practical improvement from the prior system, removing the need for a separate court action after the pardon was received and ensuring the sealing actually reaches all government databases. If you are approaching the five-year mark since completing your sentence, begin assembling documentation and thinking through your case narrative now. The Commission evaluates rehabilitation, and the quality of that case presentation in the written application and in any hearing before the Commission is what matters most in the first stage of the process. Think about what specific rights, opportunities, or barriers the pardon would address, and be able to articulate them clearly. Cases that present a specific, concrete reason for the pardon tend to be more compelling than applications that seek general forgiveness.