Posted on 11/08/2004 10:02:27 PM PST by Former Military Chick
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear cases from New York and Washington State on whether states violate the federal Voting Rights Act when they strip felons of the right to vote. But with 48 states, all except Maine and Vermont, disenfranchising millions of people who have been convicted of crimes, the issue remains very much alive in the lower courts, and the justices' action did not foreclose accepting a future case.
The Voting Rights Act prohibits states from applying any "voting qualification or prerequisite" in a manner that has a racially discriminatory effect. Inmates and their advocates who are bringing the lawsuits point out that the impact of the felon-disenfranchisement laws falls disproportionately on members of minority groups, particularly on black men. The number of people barred from voting under the state laws is estimated to be 3.9 million, with more than one-third of them black men.
The statistics are not disputed. But whether Congress intended the Voting Rights Act to apply to this situation is very much in dispute. Congress passed the original Voting Rights Act in 1965 and amended it in 1982 to make clear that it barred voting policies that had not only the intent but also the effect of discriminating by race.
Two federal appeals courts differed on the question in the cases that the justices considered and turned down on Monday. In the case from Washington State, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit permitted a lawsuit by six felons to go forward. In a similar case brought by a New York inmate serving a life sentence for murder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the Voting Rights Act did not apply.
The Washington case, Locke v. Farrakhan, No. 03-1597, was filed by four black men, one Hispanic man, and one American Indian. All were in prison on felony convictions or had recently been released. Washington has stripped felons of their right to vote since before it became a state, and the prohibition against voting by "all persons convicted of an infamous crime" is part of its constitution. The prohibition is lifelong unless lifted by a pardon, clemency or by a sentencing review board.
The Federal District Court in Seattle dismissed the lawsuit, but the Ninth Circuit, which sits in San Francisco, reinstated it, sending the case back to the District Court for further examination of racial bias in Washington's criminal justice system. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the New York case, Muntaqim v. Coombe, No. 04-175, a black man, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim, serving a life sentence for murder, filed his own lawsuit in challenging New York's law, which is less extensive than Washington's and applies only to those who are in prison or on parole. The Federal District Court in Syracuse dismissed the case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, also ruled against him, finding that in the absence of a "clear statement" from Congress, the Voting Rights Act should not be interpreted to apply to the disenfranchisement of felons.
The inmate, now represented by a team of lawyers, appealed to the Supreme Court. Now that the justices have denied review, it is likely that the appeals court will revisit the issue. A majority of the circuit's judges have indicated that they would grant a request to rehear the case, which was decided by a three-judge panel, if the Supreme Court turned down the appeal.
Last month, the 11 judges of the full United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which sits in Atlanta, heard arguments in a case challenging Florida's life-long felon disenfranchisement law, which bans an estimated 600,000 state residents from voting. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Florida's law, which dates to 1868, was enacted with the intention of keeping the newly enfranchised blacks from voting.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit had ruled that the lawsuit could go to trial, but the full court vacated that decision and granted Florida's request for re-argument. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Florida case filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Washington case to make sure the justices were aware of the Florida lawsuit.
Many lawyers following the issue believe that the Florida case, which is being handled by lawyers from the University of North Carolina School of Law and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, is the strongest of the lawsuits because the facts have been extensively developed and the state's history of discrimination is clear. The brief urged the justices not to grant the Washington case but to wait for the Florida case.
I really find it hard to go against the law of the lands. If someone wants to break the law then why should he/she be able to vote. Troubling indeed.
If I did not fear that most would vote Dem, I'd support it after time served and a probationary period.
When did this practice start?
I know stripping gun rights began in 1968....that I find more of an issue actually....it has grown far beyond the original intent and redress has been killed short of a pardon.
What if it's someone obeying their Second Amendment rights but breaking some new gun control law?
This is an important part of the Democrat base. Then again, why would any self respecting felon want to be called a Democrat?
Former Military Chick,
It's seems you're misunderstanding what happened here. By refusing to get involved, the Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand that favor convicts. Those rulings allow convicts to sue states that have taken away their ability to vote.
I did not say the rights of the individual, but the rights of citizenship.
As the victim of a violent crime I am fully aware of the how fellons feel about their right to vote.
There are states that have moved to the mindset that if someone has fullfilled their sentence that they should not be idenitified as a fellon. I am not comfortable with that.
But, I do think that every case is different. So, a broad brush is perhaps also the right way to go.
You can sue for anything even a tuna sandwich, sorry if I went of topic -- it is a very touchy subject for me.
Those convicted of felonies have had due process, thus can be deprived of certain liberties. I'd like to think Democrats aren't desperate enough to win elections that they are willing to turn important decisions, like electing our leaders, to felons. After President Bush's reelection, though, I think their motto is now "by any means necessary."
I have a tendency to believe (although I have no actual data) that most people in prison would be a of a liberal persuasion. This would come as little surprise since liberals are usually more rebellious than conservatives. This past election season demonstrated that rather well with the numerous acts of criminal damage to several GOP campaign offices, injuries to a few campaign workers and many ugly and less than peaceful protests. More than simply rebellious, their actions also demonstrated their lack of regard for law, order and civility.
Why should anyone convicted of a felonious act ever be allowed to vote? Why should a criminal not forfeit their say in a land as punishment for breaking the laws of that land?
No one is being "disenfranchised" (are we sick of that word or what?) when it is AGAINST THE FREAKING LAW!
Alas, now being a felon is brought upon one because of race?
We are lost....
It's OK to EXECUTE someone, but not OK to punish someone by stripping their voting rights.
Impeach these judges and remove them immediatley.
I don't suppose Ms. Greenhouse has any idea how ridiculous that sounds. For as long as I can remember, it's been common knowledge that criminals don't have the right to vote, and felons lose that right for life. As it should be.
Unfortunately, Ms. Greenhouse is not alone in her dillusions.
Naturally, felon tend to vote for Dems and why not? After all the Dems are trying to get rid of the second amendment, reduce sentencing times and eliminate the three strikes rule. It is in the intrests of the felons to vote dim-o-rat.
I may be wrong, but my hunch is that released felons who manage to serve out their full term of parole with re-offending are often able to do so because they've come to understand concepts such as personal responsibility which go contrary to the Democrat grain. While I recognize that the vast majority of felon-parolees are overwhelmingly Democrats, I would think that a substantial portion of those who stay clean would be Republican.
I know several that are conservatives.
The gun issue is more of an issue in my view.
I think one in seven adult males is disenfranchised there and growing
...and not just for felonies but now even some misdemeanors.
why outlaw guns....outlaw gun owners.
the fed penalties for such are draconian.
if a felon has done their time and probationary period then I am for a review to restore gun rights.
prior to 1968, this was a nonissue
after 1968, the ATF gave review...now since 1992 (or 1994?) Congress won't fund the review...I don't see either party picking up that gauntlet do you..lol
The Truly Disfranchised: Felon Voting Rights and American Politics
I have stumbled across some pretty interesting information let me know if you or for anyone on this thread would like to have the links.
Likewise, they should be taught that if they run from a policeman demanding they stop or pull a gun, even if it is a plastic squirt gun, they risk being shot. Can't our schools manage to teach an urban survival course? /sarc. all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.