On September 12, 2008, two convicted felons filed a civil rights action under federal and state laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division. Plaintiffs named the Secretary of the State of Mississippi, and various county election officials as Defendants ...
read more >
On September 12, 2008, two convicted felons filed a civil rights action under federal and state laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division. Plaintiffs named the Secretary of the State of Mississippi, and various county election officials as Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that §241 of the Mississippi Constitution explicitly allows for individuals who have been convicted of a crime to vote for the U.S. President and Vice President. Plaintiffs assert that they meet all the requirements for an elector in the State of Mississippi and, despite their felony convictions, retain the right to vote for President and Vice President. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' disfranchisement of Plaintiffs violates § 241 of the Mississippi Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the National Voter Registration Act. Represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
On September 25, 2008, the District Court (Judge Tom S. Lee) denied the motion for a preliminary injunction from the bench, stating that their interpretation of § 241 was not "fair or reasonable." The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit subsequently denied Plaintiffs' motion for emergency injunctive relief pending appeal.
On October 02, 2008, the state officials filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). On March 9, 2009, the District Court (Judge Tom S. Lee) granted Defendants' motion as to 12(b)(6), concluding that, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs' complaint was "without merit and should be dismissed with prejudice" because their interpretation of § 241 was "legally incorrect." The Court also concluded that "defendants have correctly construed this provision."
Plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit. On February 25, 2010, in a published opinion by Chief Judge Edith H. Jones, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. Young v. Hoseman, 598 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2010)
Xin Chen - 08/28/2011
compress summary
