On September 13, 2000, New York state prisoner Joseph Hayden filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging a state law prohibiting him from voting solely on account of his felony conviction and incarceration. Hayden's pro se complaint alleged that New York Constitution Article II, § 3 and New York Election Law § 5-106 violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. There was little case activity for over two years and eventually Joseph Hayden was paroled.

In January 2003, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), and the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College (CLSJ) took over the prosecution of Hayden's case. The coalition filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2003 and sought class action status for three groups: (1) Blacks and Latinos who are currently incarcerated for a felony conviction, (2) Blacks and Latinos who are currently on parole for a felony conviction, and (3) Black and Latino voters from Black and Latino communities who are denied an equal opportunity in the political process in New York State because of the disproportionate disfranchisement of Blacks and Latinos who are incarcerated or on parole for a felony conviction. The amended complaint sought to invalidate the felon disenfranchisement provisions, which it alleged violated the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973), the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(a)(1), 1971(a)(2)(A) & 1971(a)(2)(B), and certain treaties and customary international law.

Defendants, who included the New York Board of Elections and New York State Department of Correctional Services, moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss, citing a lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court (Judge Lawrence M. McKenna) granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the case by order dated June 15, 2004. Hayden v. Pataki, 2004 WL 1335921, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10863 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2004). Plaintiffs appealed.

The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consolidated Hayden v. Pataki with a similar case, Muntaqim v. Coombe [CJ-NY-5], in which an en banc proceeding was already pending. Both cases presented a common issue: ''whether, on the pleadings, a claim that a New York State statute, Section 5-106 of the New York Election Law, that disenfranchises currently imprisoned felons and parolees results in unlawful vote denial and/or vote dilution can state a claim for violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.'' Other issues that were raised in the original briefs of the Hayden plaintiffs were held in abeyance, to be decided a regular three-judge panel at a later date.

The en banc Court (Circuit Judge Josie A. Cabrames) held that it could not. Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2nd Cir. 2006). The en banc Court expressly did not consider a claim on behalf of plaintiffs who were neither incarcerated nor on parole that their votes were ''diluted'' because of New York's apportionment process, ''which counts incarcerated prisoners as residents of the communities in which they are incarcerated, and has the alleged effect of increasing upstate New York regions' populations at the expense of New York City's.'' The en banc Court remanded Hayden's case so that the District Court could decide that claim.

Simultaneously with the filing of the Hayden opinion, the en banc court de-consolidated Muntaqim and Hayden and entered a judgment vacating the District Court opinion and dismissing Muntaqim's claims for lack of standing. See Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371 (2d Cir. May 4, 2006) (per curiam ).

On remand, plaintiffs advised the District Court that they did not believe further proceedings were needed because the " 'apportionment claim' described by the Court of Appeals, dealing with possible dilution because in apportionment and redistricting, New York counts incarcerated individuals as part of the total population of the jurisdictions where they are incarcerated, was not a part of Plaintiff's original complaint." Hayden v. Pataki, 2006 WL 2242760 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 04, 2006) (NO. 00 CIV. 8586 (LMM). The case was then referred back to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the remaining undecided issues raised by the Hayden plaintiffs.

At the time of this summary, the case was still pending on appeal.

Dan Dalton - 11/20/2007


compress summary