Landmark Case Could Restore Felon Voting Rights

Monday 01 February 2010

by: Matthew Cardinale | Inter Press Service

photo
(Photo: theocean; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

Atlanta - A historic ruling earlier this month on behalf of felons who lost the right to vote could call into question the disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons in the State of Washington and indeed across the United States.

Federal Ninth District Circuit Court Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Stephen Reinhardt ruled on behalf of several disenfranchised voters, in a 2-1 ruling. Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna will appeal to the Supreme Court.

If plaintiffs are successful, the case could result in the restoration of voting rights to 47,000 U.S. citizens who are either incarcerated or under state supervision in the State of Washington, said Reed's director of communications, David Ammons.

In addition, the case could have an impact on the status of felon voting rights in other states, by opening up the path for similar lawsuits.

According to the Sentencing Project, an estimated 5.3 million U.S. citizens cannot vote because they have a criminal conviction and live in one of 48 states which disenfranchise felons and ex-felons. An estimated four million of these are already out of prison and are living and working in their communities.

"It absolutely is a victory," Kara Gotsch, advocacy director for the Sentencing Project, told IPS. "The racial disparity that exists in the criminal justice system and discrimination is something we've been concerned about as an organisation for a long time."

"To have the court acknowledge that racial discrimination is an issue is in itself a significant finding, but the fact that this could also impact the felon voting laws is also important," Gotsch said.

As for the potential broader impact of the ruling, "One might assume that other plaintiffs might be able to prove similar claims in other states. Washington state - why is their criminal justice system more discriminatory than Alabama? Plaintiffs could bring similar lawsuits and be successful along similar lines," Gotsch said.

Not everybody saw the ruling as a victory, though. "The U.S. Constitution, the Washington Constitution, and the laws of 47 other states all agree that felons may lose this important civil right when they violate the rights of others by committing egregious violations of the law," Reed said.

"I’m pleased the attorney general will be taking this case to the U.S. Supreme Court and expect a positive outcome," Reed said.

While there have been numerous legal efforts to restore felon voting rights over the last several years, this case is unique because it focuses on the racial impact of felon voting disenfranchisement as it relates to the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The U.S. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 under its enforcement power of the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"The ruling was based on the [argument that the] state was violating the VRA. The country has a history of racial discrimination in its voting rights laws - poll taxes and literacy tax," Gotsch said. "The concerns of racial discrimination against minorities has always been a concern in voting law because of this history. They were able to make a case that race was influencing who could vote because... there was racial discrimination in the criminal justice system."

"Minorities are disproportionately prosecuted and sentenced, resulting in their disproportionate representation among the persons disenfranchised under the Washington Constitution," plaintiffs argued, according to the ninth district court of appeals ruling.

As a result, Washington's felon disenfranchisement law "causes vote denial and vote dilution on the basis of race, in violation of the VRA," they argued.

Plaintiffs in the case are Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, Al-Kareem Shadeed, Marcus Price, and Timothy Schaaf, who are African American, as well as Ramon Barrientes, who is Hispanic, and Clifton Briceno, who is Native American. The case was first filed in 1996.

The district court had previously ruled on behalf of the State of Washington. However, the federal appeals court overruled and remanded the case back to the lower court. The lower court then ruled on behalf of the state a second time. On appeal, the federal circuit court of appeals overturned the lower ruling again, finding in favour of the plaintiffs.

"We explained that a [VRA] Section 2 'totality of the circumstances' inquiry requires courts to consider how a challenged voting practice interacts with external factors such as 'social and historical conditions' to result in denial of the right to vote on account of race or color," the appeals court ruling said.

Because other federal circuit courts in other U.S. districts have ruled differently in similar felon voting VRA cases, Gotsch believes it is even more likely the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case.

Those decisions include the First Circuit in a Massachusetts case, the Second Circuit in a New York case, and the Eleventh Circuit in a Florida case, according to the Judicial Watch blog.

Felon voters in Washington and 47 other states are still unable to vote in the meantime.

Advocates and some legislators at state and federal levels are continuing to pursue other strategies to restore voting rights to felons and ex-felons.

The Democracy Restoration Act was introduced both in the U.S. House and Senate in 2009 to restore voting rights to felons and ex-felons in federal elections.

Technically, the bill would not restore voting rights in state elections, which states have discretion over. However, in practice, it may result in re-enfranchisement for state elections as well, because it may be too complicated and confusing to allow ex-felons to vote in federal but not state elections.

Due to the efforts of such organisations as the Sentencing Project, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, and others, the general trend over the last decade has been for state legislatures and governors to change their laws to allow at least some ex-felons to vote.

Since 1997, over 19 states have expanded or eased access to voting for felons or ex-felons, Gotsch notes.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50171




About time.

They have either payed their dues to society by serving their time or we need to change our penal system to show that you never get forgiven for any crime and pay for the rest of your life regardless to how much time you spend in jail.

If you really feel that way then help get rid of the illegal . They are the ones that are taking the jobs that felons use to get ..

Yeah, this is a good idea! Let's reward the worst of the worst.

Sorry I will never see that the ones in prison should have voting rights. They may have served their time but they also choose to do the crime and in the event there should be rights taken away.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows for voting rights of criminals to be taken away.

If you have served your time and payed for your crime. You should have the same rights as everyone else.

We are such hypocrits in this country.

We want to punish and punish and punish but we don't want to give the forgiveness we talk so much about.

Did they serve their time or not?

Should convictions be expunged just because they did their time? Should they have to write convicted felon on job applications? Should they have to register as a sex offender even though they "did" their time?

Isn't that the case you are making? once you are out, you should have the same rights as people that didn't commit a serious crime?

Did they pay their debt or not?

Sex offenders are not rehabable so that is why they have to be registered, that is different from other felons.

The way I see it they dirty their slate so why should it be wiped clean just cause they served their time. Does the act they did vanish from society or the person they affected? I think not therefore yeah they should bare the burden of not having the same rights as once was given to them freely...........

even through not in usa now. dont when you go to prison you lose your right to vote.

sex offenders don't get to vote?

Then Txs, that is what our laws need to say.

Once you are found guilty of a felony you will be marked and punished for life with no quarter given.

Then we won't be hypocrits with our fake law and punishment.

Otherwise as it is written now. Once you serve your time, with the exception of sex offenders of course, you have paid your debt and should be given your rights back as we promise in our laws.

Did you see my first post? Section 2 of the 14th amendment says they have the authority to take away voting rights of criminals.

Irrelevant.

Just because it says it can be done doesn't mean it has to be done and the states laws still give the impression that your debt is paid after you go to jail.

We need to be consistent and we need to set the rules and stand by them.

If you served your debt then you should be allowed your rights back. Otherwise we need to redefine what the debt is.

No felons get to vote in most states. Past or present felons.

If the constitution is irrelevant then their argument of this violating their rights under the 15th amendment is also irrelevant..

Noone said the constitution is irrelevant.

So I guess your point is moot.

Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.[7]

-wiki

I said:

"Did you see my first post? Section 2 of the 14th amendment says they have the authority to take away voting rights of criminals."

you said:

"Irrelevant".

You didn't type that?

If you don't start reading the post and catching on, I am going to stop responding to you.

Read my post, it explains what is irrelevant and why.

Damn.