U.S.
Justices Want More on Mass. Felon Vote Case
May 3, 2010 - 10:11 AM | by: Lee RossFor the past decade inmates in Massachusetts prisons have fought a state law keeping them from voting, Monday the Supreme Court announced it wants to know the views of the Obama Administration before deciding whether to hear arguments in their case.
The issue of felon voting rights has popped up in states across the country where those convicted of serious crimes often have to give up their ability cast a ballot. Opponents of the law claim the prohibition is a barrier to reform and reentry into society. Many also claim these laws are discriminatory because the large percentage of minorities behind bars.
This is the claim from the Massachusetts inmates who contend the state law passed in 2000 that keeps them from the polls violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and is also unconstitutional. Unlike most states where the main issue is over the loss of voting rights for felons who’ve been released–Massachusetts limited the right to felons still serving time.
The inmates argue the state law has “resulted in disproportionate disqualification of minorities from voting” and is therefore impermissible. They also argued the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling against them last year conflicts with the decisions of other federal appellate courts in similar cases. The Supreme Court often takes cases to resolve such a circuit split.
Massachusetts officials have asked the high court to stay out of the case saying the circuit split isn’t as significant as the prisoners claim and may ultimately not exist, but further argue that the law was passed by the state’s voters without prejudice.
“Given the lack of any factual allegation plausibly suggesting that the challenged Massachusetts laws interacted with racial bias in the community to disqualify voters on account of race or color,” Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Kenneth W. Salinger told the Court adding that, ‘[the inmates'] complaint failed to state a viable claim under” the Voting Rights Act.
The case, if eventually granted, would not be heard until after the justices start their next term in October.



























Subscribe to Posts


comments