AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Voting
Florida authorities appealed a trial court’s orders in favor of nine convicted felons who had finished their sentences and wanted their voting rights restored. A federal appeals court overturned the orders. The Fourteenth Amendment “expressly empowered” the states to abridge a convicted felon’s right to vote. Further, past binding precedent held that the Governor had “broad discretion” to grant and deny clemency, even when the applicable regime lacked any standards. And although a reenfranchisement scheme could violate equal protection if it had both the purpose and effect of “invidious discrimination,” the plaintiffs had not alleged -- let alone established as undisputed facts -- that Florida’s scheme had a discriminatory purpose or effect. Hand v. Scott, #17-11388, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 10675 (11th Cir.).
Election officials were not liable
for failing to send an absentee ballot for voting to a detainee in a county
jail. After the jail staff held a voter registration drive to encourage detainees
to apply for absentee ballots, the plaintiff submitted an application, but he
lacked standing to sue election officials since his application had listed his
home address rather than his address at the jail. His claim that they would
have refused to mail his absentee ballot to the jail address had he provided it
was completely speculative. Swann v. Secretary, State of Georgia, #10–14901,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1967 (11th Cir.).
Convicted felons in Tennessee challenged the
state's voter re-enfranchisement statute, which only permits restoration of a
felon's voting rights if they have paid any court-ordered victim restitution
and child support payments. They claimed that putting these conditions on the
restoration of their voting rights violated equal protection and the 24th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which outlaws a poll tax, as well as the ex
post facto and privileges and immunities clauses of the U.S. and state
Constitutions. Rejecting these claims, a federal appeals court found that the
challenged conditions had, at a minimum, a direct and rational relationship to
the advancement of legitimate state interests, and did not violate equal
protection. Further, the payment of victim restitution and child support did
not qualify as the type of "tax" the 24th Amendment was intended to
prohibit. Prior caselaw barred the remaining claims. Johnson v. Bredesen,
#08-6377, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22357 (6th Cir.).
Update: As previously reported, a 2-to-1 majority
of a panel of a federal appeals court ruled that a Washington state law that
automatically disenfranchises convicted felons results in denial of the right
to vote on account of race in violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1973, due to racial discrimination in the state's criminal justice system.
A strong dissent noted that three other federal circuit courts of appeal have
ruled that challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws cannot be brought under
the Voting Rights Act. Farrakhan v. Gregoire. #06-35669, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
141 (9th Cir.). The 9th Circuit, ruling en banc, has now overturned that panel
decision, unanimously upholding the state felon disenfranchisement law, which
dates back to 1866, before statehood. The court reasoned that inmates seeking
to challenge the statute under the Voting Rights Act had to show intentional
discrimination in the state's criminal justice system, rather than simply a
racial disparity in the composition of the state's prison population. Farrakhan
v. Gregoire. #06-35669, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20803 (9th Cir.).
Rejecting a constitutional challenge to Arizona's
felon disenfranchisement statute, a federal appeals court ruled that states are
allowed, under the 14th Amendment, to deny the vote to felons, and that this is
true whether or not their offenses were recognized as felonies at common law.
The court also held that a requirement that felons complete the terms of their
sentences before having their voting rights restored was rationally related to
legitimate state interests and does not violate the felons' constitutional
rights. Harvey v. Brewer, #08-17253, 12010 U.S. App. Lexis 10822 (9th Cir.).
By a 2-to-1 majority, a panel of a federal
appeals court ruled that a Washington state law that automatically
disenfranchises convicted felons results in denial of the right to vote on
account of race in violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, due
to racial discrimination in the state's criminal justice system. A strong
dissent noted that three other federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled that
challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws cannot be brought under the Voting
Rights Act. Farrakhan v. Gregoire. No. 06-35669, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 141 (9th
Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that new Massachusetts laws
that disenfranchised imprisoned felons, violated 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971, the
Voting Rights Act, in that they allegedly have a disparate impact on
minorities, given that a greater percentage of minorities were incarcerated.
The court found that Congress did not intend the Voting Rights Act to apply in
this context, and that laws disenfranchising felons are "deeply
rooted" in U.S. history and laws, and in the Constitution. The laws also
do not violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws as they do not constitute
punishment, since there are non-punitive purposes for the disenfranchisement,
and they are a part of a civil regulatory scheme for voting. Simmons v. Galvin,
#08-1569, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17012 (1st Cir.).
California intermediate appeals court rejects
argument that the 14th Amendment's second clause, allowing states to take away
voting privileges from citizens for participating in rebellion or other crimes
is limited to "felonies at common law." Crime, in the U.S.
Constitution, means serious offenses, or, if required by the context, any
criminal offense. No historical evidence supported the notion that such
disenfranchisement only is constitutionally permissible for acts of rebellion
and the crimes of treason, murder, manslaughter, mayhem, rape, arson, burglary,
robbery, larceny, and sodomy. Legal Services for Prisoners With Children v.
Bowen, A120220, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 72 (1st Dist.).
While convicted felons in Tennessee who finished
their sentences and satisfied the conditions of their supervised release could
ordinarily have applied for the restoration of their voting rights, they were
ineligible to do so when they owed either past-due child support payments or
crime victim restitution payments. This ineligibility did not violate their
equal protection rights since there is no fundamental right for felons to vote.
A number of other related claims were also rejected. Johnson v. Bredesen, Case
No. 3:08cv0187, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80932 (M.D.
Tenn.).
Massachusetts felon disenfranchisement laws,
contained in the Massachusetts state Constitution and a state statute, did not
violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the
retroactive increasing of the penalties for a crime, or the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment, since they were not criminal penalties and there
was a reasonable basis to disenfranchise incarcerated felons. The plaintiff
incarcerated felons did, however, state a possible claim under Sec. 2 of the
Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973(b) on the basis of their contention that
the provisions disproportionately disenfranchised African-American and
Hispanic-American voters in the state, entitling them to further proceedings on
that issue. Simmons v. Galvin, No. 01-11040, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64358 (D.
Mass.).
Washington state Supreme Court, by 6-3, upholds
requirement that felons, after completing their full prison terms, can properly
be required to pay court-ordered fines before their right to vote is restored,
rejecting a claim by three former prisoners that these provisions of state law
denied them their constitutional right to vote on the basis of their lack of
wealth. Madison v. State of Washington, No. 78598-8, 2007 Wash. Lexis 556.
Federal appeals court dismisses appeal from
denial of claim that New York Election Law section 5-106, denying the right to
vote to incarcerated or paroled felons, violates section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1973, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing because
he was a resident of California before becoming incarcerated in New York, and
therefore had never been eligible to vote in New York. Muntaqim v. Coombe, No.
01-7260, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 11167 (2d Cir. 2006). [N/R]
The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, does
not apply to statutes barring voting by incarcerated or paroled prisoners,
because Congress did not intend for the statute to cover such provisions of
state law. Hayden v. Pataki, No. 04-3886, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 11187 (2d Cir.
2006). [N/R]
Federal appeals court, en banc, rejects claim
that Florida's ban on felons voting was motivated by intent to discriminate
against African-Americans. Johnson v. Governor of the State of Florida, No.
02-14469, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5945 (11th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
Federal appeals court rejects Voting Rights Act
challenge to New York's felon disenfranchisement statute, removing the right to
vote from currently incarcerated felons and parolees, rejecting argument that
it infringes on the right to vote on the basis of race. Three-judge panel, however,
unanimously suggests resolution of the issue by the United States Supreme
Court. Muntaqim v. Coombe, #01-7260, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8077 (2nd Cir). [2004
JB Jun]
Editor's Note: Additionally, in Farrakhan v.
Washington, No. 01-35032, 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003), rehearing en banc
denied 359 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2004), a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a
claim of vote denial based on Washington State's felon disenfranchisement
scheme could be pursued under the Voting Rights Act. [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders hearing in lawsuit
challenging Florida's ban on felons voting. Plaintiffs claim that imposition of
ban was motivated by intent to discriminate against African-Americans. Johnson
v. Governor of the State of Florida, #02-14469, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 25859
(11th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
265:15 Prohibition on voting for incarcerated felons did
not violate 15th Amendment; fact that many incarcerated felons were members of
minority races did not prove discrimination. Jones v. Edgar, 3 F.Supp.2d 979
(C.D. Ill. 1998).
266:30 Provision
of state constitution denying the ballot to those convicted of enumerated
crimes was not racial discrimination, despite intent to disenfranchise blacks
when earlier version was adopted in 1890. Cotton v. Fordice, #97- 60275, 157
F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 1998).
230:30
Prisoners' suit challenging N.Y. statute disenfranchising incarcerated felons
while allowing unincarcerated felons to vote stated a claim for racial
discrimination under the federal Voting Rights Act resulting from alleged
racial disparity in sentencing, federal appeals court rules. Baker v. Cuomo, 58
F.3d 814 (2nd Cir. 1995).