Democrats and left-leaning activists had pinned their hopes on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Mississippi constitutional provision that strips voting rights from individuals convicted of specific felonies. This legal challenge was supported by many who believed the lifetime voting ban was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court recently decided not to hear the case, effectively upholding the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that maintains the provision.
The decision means that individuals in Mississippi convicted of certain felonies will continue to face a lifetime ban on voting unless pardoned by the governor or if two-thirds of the state legislature intervenes. This ruling has been a significant setback for those who argued against the provision, which they claimed violated constitutional rights.
Six men from Mississippi had previously challenged the provision in court after losing their voting rights due to felony convictions. They argued that the lifetime disenfranchisement violated both the 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. They claimed the punishment was “cruel and unusual” and failed to provide “equal protection” under the law.
The focal point of the controversy is Article XII, Sec. 241 of the Mississippi Constitution. Originally adopted in 1890 and amended several times since, this section removes voting rights from those convicted of certain felonies, including crimes like murder, rape, bribery, and arson, among others.
The challengers contended that the provision was initially crafted with racial motivations. They asserted that the lawmakers at the time deliberately included crimes predominantly associated with black individuals, thereby disenfranchising a significant portion of the black population. This argument was bolstered by statistics showing that over 58% of disenfranchised felons in Mississippi are black, despite blacks constituting only about 38% of the state’s population.
In 2018, the six individuals who lost their voting rights due to felony convictions filed a class action lawsuit. However, a federal district judge dismissed their claims related to racial discrimination. Unperturbed, they appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit Court.
In a 2023 decision, a three-judge panel at the 5th Circuit found the lifetime voting ban violated the 8th Amendment but did not infringe upon the 14th Amendment. One judge even labeled Mississippi’s punishment as an “outlier” compared to other states. This ruling, however, was short-lived.
The case was brought before the full 5th Circuit, which reversed the panel’s decision by a 13-6 vote. The court upheld the lifetime disenfranchisement as a constitutional punishment, aligning with the state’s stance.
The case, known as Hopkins v. Watson, was appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same 8th and 14th Amendment issues. The justices considered it during a recent conference, but ultimately decided against hearing the case.
Notably, this was the second time in three years that this issue had reached the Supreme Court. The previous challenge was also rejected, though Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor had dissented from the majority decision.
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, the challengers and their supporters find themselves without recourse. The decision leaves them without voting rights unless the governor grants clemency or the state legislature acts to restore their rights.
This outcome is a clear indication of the prevailing judicial perspective on state-level disenfranchisement laws. It underscores the complexities involved in balancing state and federal constitutional interpretations.
For those who support stricter laws on voting rights, this decision reaffirms the states’ authority to determine the conditions under which individuals can participate in elections. It aligns with a belief in upholding laws that maintain the integrity of the voting process.
On the other hand, critics argue that such provisions disproportionately affect minority communities and perpetuate historical injustices. They see the Supreme Court’s decision as a missed opportunity to address what they view as systemic inequities.
The broader implications of this ruling may influence similar cases in other states, as it sets a precedent for how courts might handle challenges to disenfranchisement laws.
While the debate over voting rights continues, the current legal framework supports the idea that states have significant leeway in establishing their voting laws. This is a point that resonates with those who advocate for state sovereignty and local governance.
The decision by the Supreme Court, while disappointing to some, is seen by others as a necessary step in preserving the rule of law and respecting the constitutional powers afforded to individual states.
As this case fades from the national spotlight, it remains a poignant reminder of the ongoing struggle over voting rights and the broader societal implications of disenfranchisement.
