Richardson v. Ramirez
|Richardson v. Ramirez|
|Argued January 15, 1974|
Decided June 24, 1974
|Full case name||Viola N. Richardson v. Abran Ramirez et al.|
|Citations||418 U.S. 24 (more)|
|Prior||Ramirez v. Brown, 9 Cal.3d 199 (1973). Appeal from the Supreme Court of California|
|Subsequent||Ramirez v. Brown, 12 Cal. 3d 912 (Cal. 1974)|
|Convicted felons may be constitutionally disenfranchised.|
|Majority||Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell|
|Dissent||Marshall, joined by Brennan; Douglas (part I-A)|
|U.S. Const. amend. XIV|
|Hunter v. Underwood (1985) (in part)|
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 United States Constitution. Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of U.S. states.
Plaintiffs, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences, brought a class action against California’s Secretary of State and election officials, challenging a state constitutional provision and statutes that permanently disenfranchised anyone convicted of an “infamous crime,” unless the right to vote was restored by court order or executive pardon.
Typically in voting rights cases, states must show that the voting restriction is necessary to a “compelling state interest,” and is the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s objective. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the state had no compelling interest to justify denying them the right to vote. The California Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a state does not have to prove that its felony disenfranchisement laws serve a compelling state interest.
The Court pointed to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which exempted felony disenfranchisement laws from the heightened scrutiny given to other restrictions on the right to vote. The Court said that Section 2, which reduces a state’s representation in Congress if the state has denied the right to vote for any reason “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,” distinguishes felony disenfranchisement from other forms of voting restrictions, which must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests in order to be constitutional. 
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 418
- Hunter v. Underwood (1985) Strucking down a provision allowing disfranchisement for actually racial reasons
- Works related to Richardson v. Ramirez at Wikisource
- Text of Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Gabriel J. Chin, "Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment?", 92 Georgetown Law Journal 259(2004)
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|