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 nameJoseph Hayden, et al. v. George Pataki, Governor of the State of New York, et al.
ArguedJune 22, 2005
DecidedMay 4, 2006
Citation(s)449 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
Judge(s) 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

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

Disfranchisement, also called 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 a person 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.

Civil death is the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person due to a conviction for a felony or due to an act by the government of a country that results in the loss of civil rights. It is usually inflicted on persons convicted of crimes against the state or adults determined by a court to be legally incompetent because of mental disability.

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> Suffrage in American elections

Voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has 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 is serving a life sentence, argues that the law has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violates 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> American judge

José Alberto Cabranes is a 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).

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.

There have been several efforts at electoral reform in the U.S. state of Washington. In 2006, Pierce County's electorate adopted Amendment 3, voting to switch to instant-runoff voting, a voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. Part of the impetus for this measure was dissatisfaction with the "pick-a-party primary" system. Washington requires 1,000 petition signatures for printed ballot access. Voting rights of felons are restored upon completion of sentence, including prison, parole, and probation. Bills to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and award Washington's 11 electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote winner were introduced in both houses of the Washington State Legislature in 2007, but they died. The Bill was re-introduced in 2009, passed, and was signed into law.

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of U.S. states.

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.

Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [citation?] Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.

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

Felony disenfranchisement in the United States is the suspension or withdrawal of voting rights 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. The timeline highlights milestones when groups of people in the United States gained voting rights, and also documents aspects of disenfranchisement in the country.

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> 2018 amendment to the Constitution of Florida

Florida Amendment 4, also the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, is an amendment to the Constitution 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 17</span> 2020 California ballot proposition

The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.

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 2006-02-13. Retrieved 2006-10-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODYtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3886-pr_opn.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]