Richardson v. Ramirez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richardson v. Ramirez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 15, 1974
Decided June 24, 1974
Full case nameViola N. Richardson v. Abran Ramirez et al.
Citations418 U.S. 24 (more)
94 S. Ct. 2655, 41 L. Ed. 2d 551; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 84
Case history
PriorRamirez v. Brown, 9 Cal.3d 199 (1973). Appeal from the Supreme Court of California
SubsequentRamirez v. Brown, 12 Cal. 3d 912 (Cal. 1974)
Holding
Convicted felons may be constitutionally disenfranchised.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell
DissentMarshall, joined by Brennan; Douglas (part I-A)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
Superseded by
Hunter v. Underwood (1985) (in part)

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of U.S. states.

Facts[]

Plaintiffs, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences, brought a class action against California's Secretary of State and election officials, challenging a state constitutional provision and statutes that permanently disenfranchised anyone convicted of an “infamous crime,” unless the right to vote was restored by court order or executive pardon.

Typically in voting rights cases, states must show that the voting restriction is necessary to a “compelling state interest,” and is the least restrictive means of achieving the state's objective. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the state had no compelling interest to justify denying them the right to vote. The California Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a state does not have to prove that its felony disenfranchisement laws serve a compelling state interest.

Decision[]

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that California's law was constitutional. The majority opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist.

The Court relied on Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which calls for reducing representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for any state that denies the right to vote to its voters (a provision designed to prevent the Southern states from disenfranchising black citizens after the Civil War). But Section 2 makes an exception for denying voting rights to citizens because of "participation in rebellion, or other crimes."[1] The Court said that this distinguishes felony disenfranchisement from other forms of voting restrictions, which must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests in order to be constitutional. [2]

The Court also reviewed the legislative history of Section 2, and relied as well on the fact that when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, over half of the U.S. states allowed denying the right to vote to "persons convicted of felonies or infamous crimes."[3]

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), pp. 949–50.
  2. ^ Issacharoff, Samuel (2007). The Law of Democracy. Foundation Press. pp. 25. ISBN 978-1-58778-460-6.
  3. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), p. 950.
  • Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4548-9574-9.

External links[]

Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

  • v
  • t
Retrieved from ""