Incarcerated felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote, argue the Washington State Secretary of State and Washington State Attorney General. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban was unconstitutional earlier this year, citing the racial disparity of the inmate population. But today a nine-member bench overturned that decision (.pdf):
[W]e hold that plaintiffs bringing a section 2 VRA challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law based on the operation of a state’s criminal justice system must at least show that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional discrimination or that the felon disenfranchisement law was enacted with such intent. Our ruling is limited to this narrow issue, and we express no view as to any of the other issues raised by the parties and amici. We also leave for another day the question of whether a plaintiff who has made the required showing would necessarily establish that a felon disenfranchisement law violates section 2. Because plaintiffs presented no evidence of intentional discrimination in the operation of Washington’s criminal justice system and argue no other theory under which a section 2 challenge might be sustained, we conclude that they didn’t meet their burden of showing a violation of the VRA. Accordingly, the district court didn’t err when it granted summary judgment against them.
Concurring opinions here and here.
UPDATE: A statement from state AG Rob McKenna after the jump.
State Attorney General Rob McKenna won his first case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous ruling upholding the state’s felon voting laws and rejecting an earlier ruling that applied the federal Voting Rights Act to Washington’s felon disenfranchisement law.
“This ruling affirms the rights of states to withhold the right to vote from those who’ve committed the most serious crimes against society,” McKenna said. “I’m pleased by how quickly the court issued its unanimous decision. This ruling brings the Ninth Circuit into line with the three other federal circuit courts of appeals who concluded that felon disenfranchisement laws are generally exempt from challenges under the federal Voting Rights Act. It affirms the rights of the 47 other states with similar laws.”
Secretary of State Sam Reed said he was delighted with the speedy and decisive victory in the 9th Circuit.
“We absolutely believe in civil rights and will continue to work toward equality in the criminal justice system, but at the same time, we firmly believe that it is appropriate and reasonable for society to deny voting rights to people who commit serious crimes,” Reed said. “This has been the law in our state since 1866 and nearly every state in America has this sensible policy. There is clearly no discriminatory intent. It is about a reasonable sanction we impose based on the person’s decision to commit a crime.
“The people of Washington will be very pleased with this ruling,” he said. “We will inform county election officials across the state that they will continue to deny registration and voting of felons who are behind bars or still on community supervision. We thank Attorney General McKenna for his vigorous, personal handling of this case. We are very pleased to have apparently final resolution of a case that has dragged through the courts for 14 years now. Since this circuit now agrees with other circuits around the country, there would seem to be no reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept review. We trust that this case is over.”
Background:
In 1996, Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan and five other minority race felons challenged the constitutionality of Washington’s felon disenfranchisement act, alleging minorities are disproportionately prosecuted and sentenced to prison, and that their automatic disenfranchisement violates the federal Voting Rights Act.
In January 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals applied the federal Voting Rights Act to Washington’s felon disenfranchisement law and overturned Washington law barring felons in prison and under community supervision from voting. The Ninth Circuit had been the only court in the country to reach this conclusion.
Appellate courts in New York, Massachusetts and Florida had reached the opposite result, concluding that the Voting Rights Act does not address voting by felons. The Ninth Circuit chose to rehear the case en banc (before an 11-judge panel) on Sept. 22.
All your votes are belong to America.
Unless you’re a minority, of course. Then you’re just an indentured serf.
Not a slave. We took the chains off, but you still can’t vote.
(an aside, his daughter is nice, even if he isn’t)
Amazing. Hard to believe those nitwits actually did something right for a change.
Guess they’ll never elect any more Democrats in WA again.
If they’d just make voting Republican a felony, I could get on board with this.
“Not a slave. We took the chains off, but you still can’t vote”
You could very well be talking about white slaves, who were brought to this country about 100 years before African slaves were. So a white felon can’t vote just like a black felon can’t, but dat be racis? Here’s a novel approach, don’t be a felon! Oh, I know, it’s all the oppression that the evil YT forced upon the innocent black. Why aren’t incarceration rates similar for the Irish? After all, they were oppressed for over 1100 years in their homeland.
Using Will’s “logic,” robbing 7-11s should be legal, since that’s almost exclusively done by black people.
#2
Have you seen Jessica Alba in The Eye?
Very hot, in a natural kind of way.
@5 for the logical win. 5280 for the Epic Fail, after the revolution comes and we vote down Prop 1.
Here’s that Eye picture:
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2008_The…
Hawtness.
Hang in there, Will, the revolution is coming in about three and a half weeks. The only problem is, it’s not the one you thought was coming.
wow, other than @1 and maybe 5, this thread has been both a slog asswipe and idiot wankfest, and chock full of the usual banal insight from the resident dolts.
fuck,@11 just illustrates this disconnect, there is not going to be any revolution…. not in any real way, mostly smoke and distraction, sure the house will probably change hands, not much more… other than that the administration will move forward w/immigration and DADT, perhaps even voter disenfranchisement and an end to overseas campaign finance donations.
Oh, Pissy, I’m just jerking Will’s chain. Lighten up.
@13: okay, true that, will’s chain needs a good something…. maybe a connecting link here or there, or perhaps the kind of clue that is beyond any human or bot to give him.
Well at least they still have their fundamental right to marriage. The Supreme Court granted that right when it struck down a law which said a prisoner could only get married with permission of the warden. Law abiding gay folks can’t get married but folks such as Washington’s own prize catch, Ted Bundy, was married while in prison in Florida. For years gays couldn’t adopt in FL but Ted Bundy got to father a child while in a FL prison. Gotta love how them heterosexuals rally around their own.
someone took a ride on the bitter bus today
Having been in this situation entitles one to an opinion.
Not having “done that and been there” disqualifies one from having an informed opinion on this question.
That won’t stop the “law and order” freaks from screeching and wailing, beating their chests and threatening to do something stupid.
I’m one of the former, a federal class C felony prisoner for 16 months, and I fully concur with not allowing people in prison or jail, or on probation prior to completion of financial obligations (fines, restitution), to register to vote or vote in any elections, even to select a dogcatcher.
However, once a person has “paid their debt(s) to society,” they rejoin that society and must be allowed to fully participate in it, including receiving any benefits accorded to “normal” citizens (Ha! That’s a joke, son.)
Decent people do not continue to hound and punish others after they atone for their sins.
Thanks, AG McKenna, now what are you going to do about the systemic racial bias that led to the ruling in the first place?
Keep in mind, the court found that we have an inherently racist penal system. That fact is not in dispute. The issue at hand was whether or not that fact puts our felony disenfranchisement laws in conflict with the VRO.
That issue has been decided, but I don’t hear any talk about fixing our system.
Thanks, AG McKenna, now what are you going to do about the systemic racial bias that led to the ruling in the first place?
Keep in mind, the court found that we have an inherently racist penal system. That fact is not in dispute. The issue at hand was whether or not that fact puts our felony disenfranchisement laws in conflict with the VRO.
That issue has been decided, but I don’t hear any talk about fixing our system.