CA11: Voting Rights Act and disenfranchisement of ex-felons

The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc in Johnson v. Florida, has just affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, against the claim that Florida's disenfranchisement of ex-felons violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection clause. More later.

UPDATE: More analysis in the comments, below.

Comments

[Happy Fun Lawyer]

This is the exact issue that is pending en banc in the CA2 in Muntawuim v. Coombe and Hayden v. Pataki, which I have been writing about incessently. If I knew how to put a link into a comment, I would.

[Sam Heldman]

Here are some of HFL's prior posts on the Second Circuit's consideration of this issue: March 14, Feb. 24, Feb 16, Dec. 30. All recommended reading.

The Eleventh Circuit's decision goes basically like this: The en banc majority (with Judge Kravitch writing) reads Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as being inapplicable to ex-felon disenfranchisement laws. A special concurrence (Judge Tjoflat, joined by recess Judge Pryor) says (in paraphrase) "Even if the dissent is right that the majority is wrong, still summary judgment was appropriate here because plaintiffs' evidence failed to meet the standard of Section 2." They say that Section 2 doesn't always require proof of intentional discrimination by state actors, but (if I'm understanding them correctly) at least requires proof of intentional discrimination by somebody in the relevant community, in regard to the voting practice at issue. Judges Wilson and Barkett dissent. The case also involves an Equal Protection claim, but it not as interesting.

[Happy Fun Lawyer]

FYI, the en banc CA11 reversed the panel decision, and is in line with the CA2's panel decision. This result seems to justify the Supreme Court's denial of cert. in Muntaquim (the CA2 case), and should make it easier for the CA2 to adhere to the panel decision -- although for reasons I've previously written about, I don't think that is at all inevitable. Indeed, it would be quite ironic if a circuit split between the CA2 and CA11 panels remained a split after the two courts went en banc, but with the courts having switched sides.

[Happy Fun Lawyer]

There's a decent write-up of the decision at this link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1113383112057

Also, Prof. Hasen has some discussion on his blog, at http://electionlawblog.org/archives/003265.html

(feel free to turn those into hyperlinks)

[Anthony White]

I recently recieved my BS and I am now interested in precticing Law. I am an ex-felon and would like to know if there is anything that prevents an ex-felon from practicing Law? Please email me the response as I don not regularly check this web site.

[michael phillips]

My friend with a BS, you are not only entitled, no urged, no required by law to be an attorney, as BS is standard mentality for the practice of law.