Richardson v. Ramirez
Headline: Voting rules: Court reverses California, allows states to continue excluding convicted felons from voting, making it harder for ex-prisoners to regain the franchise without state restoration procedures.
Holding: The Court held that states may constitutionally refuse to register people convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences and parole, reversing the California court and allowing state disenfranchisement rules to stand.
- Allows states to keep ex-felon disenfranchisement laws in effect.
- Ex-prisoners must use state restoration or pardon processes to regain voting rights.
- Remands to state courts to examine uneven county enforcement.
Summary
Background
Three men who had been convicted of felonies, served jail or prison time, and finished parole applied to register to vote in different California counties and were refused by county election officials. They sued in the California Supreme Court on behalf of themselves and other ex-felons, challenging state constitutional provisions and Elections Code sections that bar people convicted of “infamous crimes” or felonies from voting. The California Supreme Court found that applying those rules to all ex-felons who had completed sentence and parole violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, and the State’s officials sought review in this Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from excluding convicted felons from the franchise. The majority relied on the text and history of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Reconstruction-era statutes, and past decisions, concluding that Section 2’s language “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime” shows that disenfranchisement for crime was understood as an exception. The Court therefore reversed the California decision, holding that California may continue to deny voter registration to people convicted of felonies who have completed sentence and parole. The Court remanded for consideration of the separate claim about inconsistent county enforcement.
Real world impact
The ruling allows California and other States to enforce existing rules that keep many convicted felons off voter rolls unless a state restoration procedure applies. Ex-prisoners who rely on courts or pardons for restoration may face continued barriers. The case was sent back to state court to examine whether county-by-county variations create a separate constitutional problem.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) dissented, arguing the Court lacked proper jurisdiction and that Section 2 should not prevent equal protection review; he maintained blanket disenfranchisement fails modern equal protection analysis. Justice Douglas also objected to the reversal.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?