Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
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 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.