Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Richardson v. Ramirez

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionVoting RightsFelon DisenfranchisementMootnessFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseSection 2

Facts

The three individual respondents had been convicted of felonies, completed their prison or jail terms, and successfully terminated parole. County election officials in San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Stanislaus Counties refused to register them to vote because of their felony convictions under provisions of the California Constitution and Elections Code disenfranchising persons convicted of an infamous crime or felony. California law also provided limited procedures for restoration of voting rights by court order after probation or by executive pardon after rehabilitation proceedings. The California Supreme Court held those disenfranchisement provisions unconstitutional as applied to ex-felons whose incarceration and parole had expired.

Issue

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid California from excluding from the franchise convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles? Also, was the case moot when the named county clerks indicated they would allow the named respondents to register?

Rule

The Fourteenth Amendment's § 2, by excepting disenfranchisement for 'participation in rebellion, or other crime' from the reduction-of-representation sanction, affirmatively recognizes the states' authority to disenfranchise persons for crime. Therefore, a state may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of § 1, exclude convicted felons from voting even after completion of sentence and parole.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio's constitution bars any person convicted of a felony from voting unless the person's voting rights are later restored through a separate state process. Marcus Hale completed a burglary sentence and parole eight years ago, moved to Columbus, and was denied registration solely because of the old felony conviction.

If Marcus brings only a federal Equal Protection challenge to Ohio's exclusion, what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that when a state disenfranchises persons for participation in crime, the analysis must consider not only § 1 but also § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because § 2 excepts disenfranchisement for 'rebellion, or other crime' from the apportionment penalty, the Court read that text as affirmative recognition of state authority to exclude convicted felons from voting, even after completion of sentence and parole. Therefore an equal protection attack of this sort fails.