Hayden v. Pataki

Last updated

Hayden v. Pataki
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name Joseph Hayden, et al. v. George Pataki, Governor of the State of New York, et al.
ArguedJune 22, 2005
DecidedMay 4, 2006
Citation449 F.3d 305
Case history
Prior historyHayden v. Pataki, No. 00-CV-8586(LMM), 2004 WL 1335921 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2004), consolidated with Muntaqim v. Coombe, 366 F.3d 102, as amended, 396 F.3d 95 (2004)
Court membership
Judges sitting John M. Walker Jr., Dennis Jacobs, Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Chester J. Straub, Rosemary S. Pooler, Robert D. Sack, Sonia Sotomayor, Robert Katzmann, Barrington Daniels Parker Jr., Reena Raggi, Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall(en banc)
Case opinions
MajorityCabranes, joined by Walker, Wesley, Hall
ConcurrenceWalker, joined by Jacobs
ConcurrenceJacobs
Concur/dissentStraub, joined by Sack
Concur/dissentSack, joined by Straub
Concur/dissentRaggi, joined by Jacobs
DissentParker, joined by Calabresi, Pooler, Sotomayor
DissentCalabresi
DissentSotomayor
DissentKatzmann

Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2nd Cir. 2006), [1] was a legal challenge to New York State's law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. New York State is one of the 47 states to prohibit citizens from voting while in prison.

Contents

The initial pro se complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Joseph Hayden on September 12, 2003. [2] [3]

The plaintiff, Joseph Hayden, a former incarcerated felon and Campaign Director at nonprofit Unlock the Block, argues that because the law has a disproportionate impact on African Americans it violates Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race, in addition to violating the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case as not violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, nor of violating any of the Constitutional Amendments. [4]

In an en banc rehearing of a panel decision, the Second Circuit held that the law did not violate the Voting Rights Act. [1]

New York State later restored voting rights to people on parole, first by executive order in 2018, and then by law in 2021. However, people in prison are still unable to exercise the right to vote in New York.

See also

Related Research Articles

Disfranchisement, also disenfranchisement or voter disqualification, is the restriction of suffrage of a person or group of people, or a practice that has the effect of preventing someone from exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement can also refer to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community, or being to the natural amenity they have; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, through intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting. High barriers to entry to the political competition can disenfranchise political movements.

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting rights in the United States</span>

Voting rights, specifically enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, have been a moral and political issue throughout United States history.

<i>Muntaqim v. Coombe</i> American legal case

Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, was a legal challenge to New York State’s law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The plaintiff, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim who was serving a life sentence at the time, argued that the law had a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José A. Cabranes</span> Puerto Rican judge (born 1940)

José Alberto Cabranes is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a former presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). Formerly a practicing lawyer, government official, and law teacher, he was the first Puerto Rican appointed to a federal judgeship in the continental United States (1979).

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting beyond their sentence and parole without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jalil Muntaqim</span> American activist convicted of murder, former political prisoner

Jalil Abdul Muntaqim is a convicted felon, political activist and former member of the Black Panther Party (BPP) and the Black Liberation Army (BLA) who served 49 years in prison for two counts of first-degree murder. In August 1971, he was arrested in California along with Albert “Nuh” Washington and Herman Bell and charged with the killing of two NYPD police officers, Waverly Jones and Joseph A. Piagentini, in New York City on May 21. In 1975, he was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with possible parole after 22 years. Muntaqim had been the subject of attention for being repeatedly denied parole despite having been eligible since 1993. In June 2020, Muntaqim was reportedly sick with COVID-19. He was released from prison on October 7, 2020, after more than 49 years of incarceration and 11 parole denials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephanos Bibas</span> American judge (born 1969)

Stephanos Bibas is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before his appointment to the bench, Bibas was a professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he also served as director of its Supreme Court clinic.

Loss of rights due to criminal conviction refers to the practice in some countries of reducing the rights of individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The restrictions are in addition to other penalties such as incarceration or fines. In addition to restrictions imposed directly upon conviction, there can also be collateral civil consequences resulting from a criminal conviction, but which are not imposed directly by the courts as a result of the conviction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Corn-Revere</span> American lawyer

Robert L. "Bob" Corn-Revere is an American First Amendment lawyer. Corn-Revere is the Chief Counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and was formerly a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C. He is regularly listed as a leading First Amendment and media law practitioner by The Best Lawyers in America (Woodward/White), SuperLawyers Washington, D.C., and by Chambers USA. Best Lawyers in America named him as Washington, D.C.’s 2017 “Lawyer of the Year” in the areas of First Amendment Law and Litigation – First Amendment. He was again named as Best Lawyers’ “Lawyer of the Year” for First Amendment Law for 2019 and 2021, and in Media Law for 2022. In 2022 he was listed in Washingtonian Magazine's Top Lawyers Hall of Fame for Lifetime Achievement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felony disenfranchisement in the United States</span> Prohibiting criminals from voting in elections in the United States

In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens. As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.

Rights restoration is the process of restoring voting rights to people with prior felony convictions who lost their voting rights under felony disenfranchisement. It may also refer to additional civil rights that are taken away upon conviction, such as holding public office and serving on a jury.

This is a timeline of voting rights in the United States, documenting when various groups in the country gained the right to vote or were disenfranchised.

Felony disenfranchisement in Virginia is a provision of the Virginia Constitution: "No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority".

Felony disenfranchisement in Florida is currently a contentious political issue in Florida. Though the general principle of felony disenfranchisement is not in dispute, the disenfranchisement of people who had been convicted of a felony and have served their sentence — that includes prison, bail and parole — but continue being barred from voting if they have outstanding fines, fees or restitution obligations is in contention. Prior to January 8, 2019, when Amendment 4 came into effect, people convicted of a felony effectively lost their right to vote for life, as it could only be restored by the governor as an act of clemency, which rarely occurred. Florida was one of four states with a lifetime ban, the others being Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Florida Amendment 4</span> Successful referendum on restoring certain felons right to vote

Florida Amendment 4, also the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, is an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Florida passed by ballot initiative on November 6, 2018, as part of the 2018 Florida elections. The proposition restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment does not apply to Floridians convicted of murder or sexual offenses.

Demetrius Jifunza is an American Christian Methodist Episcopal pastor and activist who is among the most visible spokespersons and leaders in the felony disenfranchisement, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative.

United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federal supervised releases under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) as unconstitutional unless the charges are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Gorsuch's plurality opinion, while Breyer provided the necessary fifth vote with his narrow concurrence that began by saying he agreed with much of Justice Alito's dissent, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

References

  1. 1 2 Hayden v. Pataki,449F.3d305(2nd Cir.2006).
  2. Jeff Manza, Christopher Uggen (2006). Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-514932-7.
  3. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 13, 2006. Retrieved October 12, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODYtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3886-pr_opn.pdf Archived October 7, 2006, at the Wayback Machine [ bare URL PDF ]