Civil Rights Groups Urge Federal Appeals Court To Strike Down Mississippi's Jim Crow–Era Felon Voting Ban
A broad coalition of civil rights groups and think tanks, including Reason Foundation, say that Mississippi's "mandatory, permanent, and effectively irrevocable" voting ban for certain offenders violates the Constitution.

Civil rights groups are urging a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that found Mississippi's lifetime felon disenfranchisement law, which ranks among the harshest in the nation, violates the Constitution.
In August, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked Mississippi's felon disenfranchisement law in a 2–1 ruling, finding that the state's lifetime voting ban for those convicted of certain crimes constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Mississippi Republican Attorney General Lynn Fitch successfully petitioned the full 5th Circuit for an en banc rehearing.
A broad coalition of civil liberties groups and think tanks filed an amicus brief in that case, Hopkins v. Watson, last week, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Cato Institute, and Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Those groups argue that the 5th Circuit panel correctly diagnosed the constitutional problems with Mississippi's "mandatory, permanent, and effectively irrevocable" voting ban for certain felony offenders.
The drafters of Mississippi's 1890 constitution admitted that they intentionally chose a list of crimes they believed most likely to lead to the disenfranchisement of black residents, such as forgery and bigamy. Rape and murder were not added to the list, which now includes 22 offenses, until 1968.
"Its historical origins in noxious, intentional racial discrimination offend the dignity of the individual and society," the brief says. "Its mandatory nature and lack of an accessible, non-arbitrary path to reentry make it functionally irrevocable—even for minor offenses that carry short terms of imprisonment, like writing a bad check for $100—and thus grossly disproportionate."
Mississippi's brazenness makes it unique, the brief states: "No other state, in the South or elsewhere, still maintains a disenfranchisement scheme so openly originating in Jim-Crow discrimination."
And the groups argue that the provision is still having its intended effect. Between 1994 and 2017, over 29,000 Mississippians were convicted of disenfranchising offenses, according to the brief. Of those people, 58 percent were black, despite only roughly 37 percent of Mississippi's total population being black during that time frame.
"Today, more than 15% of Black adults in Mississippi are permanently disenfranchised—an indication of Section 241's continued effectiveness at achieving its original aims," the brief argues.
In its petition for an en banc rehearing, the Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that the panel incorrectly ruled that the voting ban was punishment. "Under Supreme Court precedent, Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution is a nonpunitive voting regulation," the office wrote, pointing to widespread and mostly unconstrained felon voting laws in other states. "Third, even if disenfranchisement were a punishment, it is not cruel and unusual."
Although widespread, felon disenfranchisement laws have fallen out of favor in recent years, and several states with especially harsh laws have passed reforms. In Florida, another state with Jim Crow–era felon disenfranchisement laws, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution in 2018 restoring voting rights to those who have completed all the terms of their sentences, although its implementation has been clouded by controversy and lawsuits.
This will be the second time that the 5th Circuit, considered one of the most conservative circuits in the country, has ruled on the constitutionality of Mississippi's lifetime voting ban for certain offenses. Last year, it upheld the provision in a different suit challenging it on equal protection grounds.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Only way it fails under equal protection is to argue that minorities are just way more likely to commit felonies. Which seems awfully racist.
Only way it fails under equal protection is to argue that minorities are just way more likely to
commitbe convicted of felonies. Which seems awfully racist.ftfy
Or, Black people could try not committing felonies...
Sarc contends they would be convicted anyway.
Retarded person can't read.
sarcasmic 5 hours ago
Some of us have lives and don’t participate in every single conversation.
So why do you try?
Good. Hope this law goes away.
Why not the reverse: Anyone convicted of ANY felony is permanently disenfranchized? Granted, given the mess in our courts, it might still have a racial disproportionality, but the correction to that might be to have fewer crimes listed as felonies.
If you've been convicted of something so heinous that it is considered a felony, should you really be trusted to vote in the best interest of your country?
If you’ve been convicted of something so heinous that it is considered a felony, should you really be trusted to vote in the best interest of your country?
If you are walking free and paying taxes, you should have the ability to exercise EVERY enumerated right. Full stop.
Being able to vote is not an enumerated right.
The third section of the 14th amendment places several requirement on voters for "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof", and it covers "male inhabitants"..."being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States".
Subsequent amendments changed the age, and sex requirements, but none others.
If the first section requirement, of having faced due process, to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, has been accomplished, the franchise is lost, according to law.
In your opinion does that include Second Amendment rights?
I can't even begin to emphasize how many felonies one can commit that you would think are NOT felonies. Had a case the other day, college student used a fake i.d. to buy beer at a bar. Charged with a felony.
If you think it proper that a college kid who used a fake i.d. (something that happens perhaps millions times a year?) should warrant lifetime bar on voting then there isn't much to say. That is just one simple example. There are hundreds more.
Dare I ask how the college kid's action - I mean alleged action - qualified as a felony?
In Florida, you can get a felony conviction for speeding.
You can get that in every state if you’re driving fast enough. We’re not talking 10 mph over the limit. More like triple digit speeds. Or maybe 70 in a school zone.
The state tends not to like fraudulent reproductions of its official documents.
Yes I can answer. Instead of having someone else's I.D. that looked like him he had his picture over someone else's information. That person was his slightly older brother.
If you want to get into what constitutes a felony, that's another discussion.
In this case, it was part of that law's punishment, for which the person received due process, and was convicted, in conformance with the 14th amendment's requirement, before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.
The kid should have checked, before he committed this identity theft.
He hasn't been convicted yet. He has been charged. He could get convicted of it -sure. Its not a foregone conclusion at this point. Too early to say.
But the law at issue in the OP is that it was passed with a specific discriminatory intent. And that taints the whole thing even setting aside that it then interferes with someone's ability to exercise another fundamental right (voting).
Since you avoid specifics beyond frequency I'm left to assume that if there are more than some number of rapes in the US you'd argue it silly that they be charged as felonies. Sorry but why is fraud something you are fine with and not removing/lowering the drinking age?
Are you fucking retarded?
Of course Jeff the pedo enabler wants restrictions and consequences removed for bad behavior of any kind.
My theory is that he wants to molest kids but is such a fat, weak, gutless piece of shit that he’s too scared of prison and what the other democrats will do to him there. So if child molestation is legal, he can finally have that boy flesh he craves.
Or you are missing that just because somebody (especially a minority) is arrested for something, doesn't mean they actually did it.
1) https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/
2) https://www.exonerationproject.org/issues/police-prosecutorial-misconduct/
That happens and is a problem. But I think it is also true that most people put on trial are actually guilty. Most prosecutions aren't the result of some complicated investigation, but rather for crimes that were directly observed by police or witnesses.
What role has Section 2 of the 14th Amendment played in this case? It says:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The bolded portion seems to authorize felon disenfranchisement, it might even authorize misdemeanant disenfranchisement.
And if I read it correctly how many seats in the House.
That provision allows for a State's representation in the House to be reduced proportionally when it denies the franchise to the people covered. I assume "male inhabitants" is modified by the 19th Amendment and "twenty-one years of age" is modified by the 26th Amendment. I believe Section 2's sanction has never been imposed.
Yeah, the current rules are:
1) A state can't deny the vote on the basis of race/color/previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment).
2) A state can't deny the vote on the basis of sex (19th Amendment).
3) A state can't deny the vote for failure to pay a tax (24th).
4) A state can't deny the vote on the basis of age to people 18 or older (26th).
But a state may deny the right to vote for any reason not listed, with the usual (and inherently debatable) caveat that reasons adopted as proxies for prohibited reasons are prohibited.
Now, if that any-reason-not-listed is something other than conviction for crime, then under the 14th Amendment the state's representation in the House is reduced by the proportion of male citizens over 21 years of age so denied the right to vote. But the restriction stands.
So, does the state pass a law denying people who haven't gotten vaccinated for COVID the right to vote? Perfectly constitutional, it just proportionately reduces representation.
Yeah…… voting status is pretty low down the list of priorities where that’s concerned. Maybe focus on fixing wrongful convictions. As opposed to using it as an excuse to let felons vote.
Vote-suppressing right-wing racists are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Better Americans can't stomp these disaffected conservatives into cultural irrelevance fast enough . . . although they certainly have done an admirable job during five or six decades of glorious American progress.
Carry on, clingers. Until replacement.
Until replacement.
Always a veiled threat of violence with the proggies.
Well, you've tipped your hand in calling convicted felons "Better Americans".
Fuck off, slaver.
I don't have an issue with losing the right to vote permanently in certain circumstances. In the sane vein, I'm not anti-death penalty because some crimes are deserving of permanent consequences.
I'm not sure if I agree with the specific violations listed here being grounds for losing the ability to vote, but I'm willing to hear the actual arguments for those and the rest of the violations.
The argument that it hits a higher percentage of black people only tells me that the demographic has a higher instance of criminality. It's not an argument that should matter to a libertarian. I'm more interested in a discussion of what if any crimes justify this consequence.
I think that once you paid the time and you can vote again. They are free at that point.
So, longer sentences then?
The legislatures involved, disagreed.
Don't like a law, get legislators elected that will change it.
There is nothing unconstitutional about these legislatively applied laws.
The cruel and unusual claim should have been laughed out of court.
Non proggie judges would have.
How many of those of you who are quite happy with voter disenfranchisement are happy with removal of gun rights for post-release felons?
The general principle should be that the moment someone's sentence is served, their rights are no longer to be restricted. Exceptions should be highly limited - some sexual offences, for example - but other than that, you've done your time you get your rights back.
The risible claim of being "cruel and unusual" aside, legislatures have made these laws.
If you don't want them to exist, elect different legislators, who won't be worried about getting re-elected, which wouldn't happen if they gave rewards to convicted felons.
1. A legislature may have made laws but if they're unconstitutional they aren't to be enforced.
2. If something is a constitutional right we should be wary of keeping citizens deprived of it after they have served their punishment.
Consider a felon being deprived of the right KBA for a non-violent offence. Any issues? Because I am sure almost every gun rights advocate would oppose such deprivation. How about a law prohibiting a felon from exercising his right to freedom of speech, e.g. "anyone duly convicted of XX shall during his lifetime not utter any words critical of police, prosecutors or judges". You appear to regard that as acceptable if such a law were passed by a state legislature.
Not all serious crimes are violent. Bernie Madoff is a good example.
I agree with you that the right thing to do is to allow people all their rights and political privileges once they have served their sentences. But voting isn't an absolute constitutional right (I don't even like calling it a right, but that's another story), and the constitution allows it to be limited, just not based on sex, race or age.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Once you've served your time that should be it. If you don't want murderers and rapists to be able to vote or own a gun then keep them in prison. Once you're out you should be treated like any other citizen.
The only exceptions should be for government officials and employees.
I might have guessed that the malign Edith Jones voted for disenfranchisement.
It’s not disenfranchisement. Stop with that bullshit.
Well since being convicted of a felony =/= a race, color, religion, sex or national origin I'm completely dumbfounding as to why it would be a discrimination case.
Effectively, intentional disparate impact.
Are they guilty?
It's significant to see civil rights groups actively advocating against Mississippi's Jim Crow–era felon voting ban. The call to strike down such historical voting restrictions reflects a commitment to promoting equal rights and combating systemic barriers that disproportionately impact certain communities.
This effort aligns with broader movements for social justice and the ongoing struggle to address the legacy of discriminatory policies. By challenging these voting bans, civil rights groups contribute to the pursuit of a more inclusive and equitable democracy, where all citizens can exercise their right to vote, regardless of their past legal history.
It's worth noting that debates surrounding voting rights are central to discussions on democracy and justice, and actions taken by civil rights groups play a crucial role in shaping the narrative and influencing legal decisions. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds and its potential impact on voting rights and civil liberties in Mississippi and beyond.
HomeTheaterJournal
So basically we have Democrats pushing for the State Constitution to be changed to eliminate laws that were put into the State Constitution by DEMOCRATS.
So basically we have Democrats pushing for the State Constitution to be changed to eliminate laws that were put into the State Constitution by DEMOCRATS.
Yes. righting old wrongs. And who is resisting changing these laws? REPUBLICANS.
It's like the removal of traitors' statues. The old Democrats erected them but modern Republicans objected to their removal.
No, it’s just democrats trying to cater to a cherished demographic. In this case, viper t felons. Who vote almost exclusively democrat.
‘Convicted felons’
...if only the nations democracy could be led by felons.... /s
Conservatives resist change. Who could have guessed that would happen?
Some changes shouldn’t be made.
It's probably not unconstitutional, but it should be repealed anyway. I'm not even sure people in prison shouldn't be able to vote. There are a lot of bad laws, and the people subject to them should be able to have a say in who is making the laws.
Asking the federal government to trample on the rights of states to set their own voting laws is totally libertarian, guys.