| ||||
| Â | About a thousand Florida residents attended a Restoration of Rights and Redemption Summit last week to obtain support to have their civil rights restored. The Miami Herald reported that the effort was led by the local American Civil Liberties Union and Legal Aid in response to the Clemency Board's April vote to make it easier for most people convicted of nonviolent felonies to have their civil rights - which include voting - restored. Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami, had $50,000 inserted in the state budget to help finance the summit and pay for a promotion campaign. Of the 38,000 individuals eligible for rights restoration at the time the rule was changed, nearly 14,000 have regained their rights. | |||
| ||||
| Â | The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has opened the way for a challenge to the state's disenfranchisement policy as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. On August 30, the Court issued a ruling in Simmons v. Galvin, a case challenging that state's disenfranchisement laws. The plaintiffs had argued that the state of Massachusetts incorrectly denied their right to vote in federal and state elections. In its ruling, the Court denied the state's motion for a summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim that Massachusetts' disenfranchisement policy violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs had argued that the racially disproportionate impact of the state's felony disenfranchisement policy violated the Act. The Court ruled that "[i]t may be difficult for plaintiffs to prove that racial bias in the court system exists and has interacted with other cognizable factors to render" the Massachusetts policy unlawful, but they should be given the opportunity to make that case in court. The Court rejected two additional arguments of the plaintiffs. First, the plaintiffs had contended that the change to the Massachusetts law in 2000 that denied the right to vote to persons who are currently incarcerated should not apply to them because they were incarcerated prior to the constitutional amendment that resulted in the policy change. They argued that to deny their right to vote was a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court disagreed, ruling that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to "civil, non- punitive measures" intended "for the regulation of the franchise." The Court held that the "amendment was intended to be primarily civil and regulatory, rather than punitive, in nature." Secondly, the plaintiffs argued that Massachusetts' disenfranchisement policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In granting the state's motion for summary judgment, the Court pointed to the established ruling in Richardson v. Ramirez upholding the practice of felony disenfranchisement as clear evidence that the law in Massachusetts does not run afoul of the Constitution. - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. | |||
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.