A lawsuit filed this week revives legal arguments against a Minnesota law that allows for unionization of in-home child care providers.

The suit, filed Tuesday in Ramsey County District Court, sought a temporary injunction to halt a mail-in election that is underway.

The suit — which names Gov. Mark Dayton, the state Bureau of Mediation Services, the Department of Human Services, and the commissioners of the two agencies — asserts that the unionization and pending election are unconstitutional. Related Articles Early voting begins in Minnesota: Things to know.

Biden’s Minnesota campaign destination revealed: Duluth

2 shot in Minneapolis had worked for candidate

Walz warns Trump and Biden campaigns of COVID rules. Both candidates are coming Friday.

South Dakota agency: AG reported hitting deer, but fatally hit man

The plaintiffs, who are Minnesota child-care providers, are challenging Minnesota’s Family Child Care Providers Representation Act, signed into law in 2013, which allows certain providers to opt for union representation.

“Our parties are being denied constitutional rights, and this statute is pre-empted by federal law,” attorney Douglas Seaton said. “The state cannot set up any sort of election procedure at all. That’s because this category of providers are exempt from any sort of union organization because they are employers, and employers are excluded by bargaining by federal law and state law.”

The issue of child care unions has been contentious since its inception.

In November 2011, Dayton issued an order calling for an election allowing child care providers to vote on whether to be represented by a union. A group of providers sued, and the order was blocked in April 2012 by a Ramsey County judge who said the governor had exceeded his authority.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ordered the state to reimburse the attorney’s fees in that case, Seaton said.

Following passage of the law in 2013, two more lawsuits were filed; both were dismissed.

Seaton said later efforts were dismissed without prejudice — meaning the claims could be filed again — because the issue wasn’t ripe.

“So we are back, filing in state court, because now there is an election, of course, and so we’re saying this is ripe now,” Seaton said.

The Family Child Care Providers Representation Act allows child care providers who receive government subsidies for children in their care to be eligible for union representation. That union will then negotiate with the government “regarding grievance issues, child care assistance reimbursement rates … and terms and conditions of service,” the law states.

According to this week’s lawsuit, about 11,000 family child care providers are in the state and, per voting rules set out by the law, only 2,348 of them can vote to choose the union organization.

The Bureau of Mediation Services mailed out ballots Feb. 8, seeking votes on whether to appoint a sub-group of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) as the child care union. The deadline for votes to be returned is Monday.

The plaintiffs, the recent suit said, “will be irreparably harmed by the immediate and direct negative impact on the businesses and livelihoods of plaintiffs caused by this election.”

The lawsuit sought to block the election, though the first hearing on the matter has been scheduled for March 8 — after votes have been submitted.

“The way that’s going to work is that the election will take place, there will be a count, but the certification will not, in our view, be able to be acted on until the hearing,” Seaton said, noting that the court chose the hearing date. “But that will not affect the fact that we can challenge the certification. We would be asking for the certification to be quashed so that it doesn’t hold.”

Matt Swenson, a spokesman for Gov. Dayton’s office, said, “This is just another in a series of relentless right-wing extremist attempts to tell Minnesotans that they cannot decide for themselves whether to vote to form a union.”

A message seeking comment from the AFSCME group seeking union appointment also was not answered.