US federal appeals court hears oral arguments in Mississippi felony disenfranchisement case News
jraffin / Pixabay
US federal appeals court hears oral arguments in Mississippi felony disenfranchisement case

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case challenging a Mississippi felon voter disenfranchisement law. Several voters who were previously convicted of felonies challenged the law on the basis of it being an unconstitutional example of cruel and unusual punishment under the US Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

The case, Dennis Hopkins v. Secretary of State Michael Watson, was originally brought in 2018 by lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of convicted felons in Mississippi, such as the named plaintiff Dennis Hopkins. The lawsuit drew attention to section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution, which permanently strips voting rights from individuals convicted of specific felonies including, timber theft, forgery, bribery and arson—among other crimes. The list has expanded over the years while legislation has also been passed to exempt certain crimes from the disenfranchisement. Felons convicted of one of the crimes could only have their voting rights restored by obtaining a pardon from the governor or through aforementioned legislation that would exclude them from the list.

Critics of the constitutional provision have argued that Section 241, which was enacted in 1890, was created with the primary purpose of denying Black men the right to vote. Supporters of the law have argued that the law is representative of the people’s right to prevent individuals that have arguably displayed indifference to law and order from being a part of the state’s conversation on potential legislation that effects the entire population.

A large part of the case against disenfranchisement, argued by lawyer Jon Youngwood, consisted of the punitive and arbitrary nature of the law, specifically regarding the crimes that were singled out for a voting ban. During oral argument several judges raised concern that a decision on the case by the court would be judicial overstep of the legislative branches duty to discern what crimes could or should be included in Section 241. Judge Kyle Duncan raised this question during an exchange with Youngwood saying, “[T]here is no judicial calculus for to tell the difference between a rapist, and an armed robber [or a] car thief – and a timber thief, for that matter.”

Previously, in August 2023, a three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit struck down the law, citing a “national consensus” against lifetime voting bans calling disenfranchisement and “exceptionally severe penalty.” This decision was later vacated the case was granted a rehearing before the full 17-member bench. No indication has been given as to a timeline for the decision.

THIS DAY @ LAW

UK parliament rejected J.S. Mill's proposal to give women the vote

On May 20, 1867, the British Parliament rejected by 196-73 an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act presented by John Stuart Mill that would have permitted women to vote. Review Mill's 1869 work The Subjection of Women.

Supreme Court applies Free Exercise Clause to state governments

On May 20, 1940, the United States Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment applied to state governments in Cantwell v. Connecticut under the incorporation doctrine, which applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Learn more about the Incorporation Doctrine from the Cornell Law Schools' Legal Information Institute.