Facts
- California’s constitution and statutes barred persons convicted of certain felonies from voting unless their rights were restored.
- Abran Ramirez and other individuals with felony convictions, who had completed their sentences and paroles, were denied voter registration in various California counties based on those provisions.
- The respondents filed a class petition in the California Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandate, alleging the disenfranchisement scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- During the state proceedings, some county election officials declined to contest the challenge and indicated they would begin registering ex-felons whose sentences and paroles had expired.
- The California Supreme Court added Viola N. Richardson, a county clerk and registrar of voters, as a defendant; the California Secretary of State remained a party.
Issues
- Whether the controversy was moot given some local officials’ decision not to contest the action and to register ex-felons.
- Whether California’s disenfranchisement of persons convicted of felonies who had completed sentence and parole violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot because the litigation proceeded in a class-wide posture and the challenged rule continued to affect similarly situated ex-felons and state election administration.
- The Court reversed the California Supreme Court.
- The Court held that California’s felon disenfranchisement scheme, as applied to individuals who had completed sentence and parole, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court relied on Fourteenth Amendment § 2’s reference to denial of voting rights “for participation in rebellion, or other crime” as constitutional authorization for disenfranchisement on that basis.
- The Court rejected applying the usual strict-scrutiny/compelling-interest framework to felon disenfranchisement because § 2 contemplates exclusion from the franchise for “other crime.”
Legal Principles
- Fourteenth Amendment § 2 is read as affirmatively permitting states to disenfranchise individuals for “rebellion, or other crime.”
- Because the Fourteenth Amendment expressly contemplates disenfranchisement for crime, felon disenfranchisement does not, by itself, trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- A class-wide declaratory-type ruling affecting election administration and unnamed class members can preserve a live controversy for appellate review despite some officials’ acquiescence.
Conclusion
The Court upheld California’s denial of the vote to persons convicted of felonies even after completion of sentence and parole, concluding that Fourteenth Amendment § 2 authorizes disenfranchisement for “other crime” and therefore the scheme did not violate equal protection.