Court rules Washington inmates can vote
 

Attorneys for six Washington state prisoners, Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote, "have demonstrated that police practices, searches, arrests, detention practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater burden on minorities that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."

Joined by Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion, Tashima found that black and Latino Washingtonians faced arrest and prosecution at rates far higher than could be explained simply by increased criminal activity. Finding no "race neutral" explanation for the higher incarceration rates, the majority reversed a U.S. District Court decision and ruled in favor of the inmates.

"Although (the state) criticized the experts' studies and the conclusions, the (plaintiffs') reports, when objectively viewed, support a finding of racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system," Tashima said in the ruling.

"Given that uncontroverted showing," he added, "in the words of the district court, there can be 'no doubt that members of racial minorities have experienced discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system.'"

Speaking on the ruling, Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed said the court's decision came as a surprise, in part because three circuit court panels elsewhere in the country came to opposite conclusions while reviewing similar cases.

Reed said he believes the state prohibition against prisoner voting remains appropriate.

"That's part of the penalty," Reed said. "A person loses their rights when they violate the rights of others by perpetrating a felony. … As long as when they get out they get a chance to rejoin society, that's the important part."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413851_vote05.html

That's great. Thanks for posting.

I wish I could tell from the article what the plaintiffs' claims and legal arguments actually were or how they related to the question of whether the state can prohibit felons from voting, but alas, the article just leaves me with questions.

I have a few myself because I am not 100% on board with this.

What on Earth? Is this a Washingtonian Constitutional issue? I'm completely in the dark as to how this argument leads to any sort of issue of rights being deprived.

I mean it sounds like they were saying that because of the racial discrimination in incarceration that it was unfair to prevent all these minorities from being able to vote while incarcerated.
I see how the two are related. This was somewhat of an issue when the 2000 presidential election was taking place. It will allow more minorities to have their voices heard when they are incarcerated.
Makes sense to me. I've never really understood the point of not allowing them to vote.

So only racial minorities who are incarcerated should be allowed to vote?

was actually thinking along the same line.

Not sure where you would get that from.

It seems to me like it was saying that ALL of the inmates would be allowed to vote.

I agree that's what the article suggests. I'm just having trouble figuring out what legal argument led from Point A (discrimination in incarceration) to Point B (the state cannot say that felons may not vote).

ETA: Found the opinion here.

There really doesn't seem to be more to it. The opinion opens this way:

Plaintiffs, minority citizens of Washington state who have lost their right to vote pursuant to the state’s felon disenfranchisement provision, filed this action in 1996 challenging that provision on the ground that, due to racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system, the automatic disenfranchisement of felons results in the denial of the right to vote FARRAKHAN v. GREGOIRE 113
on account of race, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973. We earlier reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants. See Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 984 (2004) (“Farrakhan I”). On
remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to Defendants. Plaintiffs timely appeal. We reverse and grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs.

Basically, the argument is that because of racial discrimination in prosecution and sentencing, the provision of the Washington Constitution that forbids convicted felons from voting amounts to vote denial and vote dilution on the basis of race in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

I haven't had a chance to do more than scan the opinion, but I can't help but wonder if the 9th Circuit is living up to its repution of being out-of-step with other federal courts.

As a Washingtonian... this bothers me. It's one thing to argue that inmates should have the right to vote (but in this state at least they should grow up knowing that if you screw up badly enough, you lose that right), but another to argue on racial discrimination. I'm sure there is some level of discrimination (goes back to that lovely judgement thread) that's undeniable despite good intentions... but they weren't sent to prison just so the majority would get the vote.

If it happens, okay. I'm not super opinionated on the issue of whether felons should be able to vote. I understand why they can't, I understand arguments for why they should. But to tie it to discrimination like this just feels dirty to me.