## Facts

- Alabama Constitution of 1901, art. VIII, § 182 disenfranchised persons convicted of specified offenses, including certain misdemeanors and “any … crime involving moral turpitude.”
- Carmen Edwards (Black) and Victor Underwood (white) were convicted of the misdemeanor of presenting a worthless check.
- County registrars classified that offense as a crime involving moral turpitude and removed both from the voter rolls under § 182.
- Edwards and Underwood sued state and county officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging § 182 was adopted to disenfranchise Black voters and continued to do so in practice.
- The district court found the 1901 convention had a major purpose of disenfranchising Black citizens but upheld § 182.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding racial discrimination was a motivating factor and the provision would not have been adopted absent that motive, with substantial disparate impact on Black voters.

## Issues

1. Whether a facially neutral voting-disqualification provision violates the Equal Protection Clause when adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose and producing a racially discriminatory impact.
2. Whether the State can avoid invalidation by asserting additional, permissible motives (such as general criminal disenfranchisement or disenfranchising poor whites).
3. Whether later developments or the State’s general authority over voting qualifications (including the Fourteenth Amendment § 2 “other crime” language) can validate a provision enacted with unconstitutional racial purpose.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Eleventh Circuit and held § 182 violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court concluded racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in adopting § 182 and that Alabama failed to show the provision would have been enacted without that impermissible purpose.
- The Court held that subsequent events could not validate a provision enacted for an unconstitutional purpose.
- The Court rejected defenses based on state authority over elections, including reliance on the Tenth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment § 2.

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral law violates equal protection if racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in its enactment and the law would not have been adopted absent that motive.
- Once plaintiffs show discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor, the burden shifts to the State to prove the same decision would have been made without the impermissible purpose.
- Mixed motives do not save a measure when racial discrimination was a but-for cause of enactment.
- Later race-neutral administration or changed conditions do not cure a provision that was enacted with unconstitutional discriminatory intent and continues to have disparate racial effects.
- The Fourteenth Amendment § 2 reference to disenfranchisement “for … other crime” does not exempt criminal disenfranchisement measures from equal protection review when enacted for racially discriminatory reasons.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Alabama’s § 182 disenfranchisement scheme because historical evidence showed it was adopted to suppress Black voting power and it continued to disenfranchise Black citizens disproportionately, and the State failed to prove the provision would have been enacted absent that racial purpose.


Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985)