August 02, 2009Felon Disenfranchisement Issue Heading to the Supreme Court?On Friday, a First Circuit Panel split 2-1 in Simmons v. Galvin, a case challenging the disenfranchisement of currently incarcerated Massachusetts felons under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the ex post facto clause. The opinions total 104 pages. The majority, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lynch, rejected the arguments. Judge Torruella issued a lengthy dissent, noting the close split within other circuits that have addressed the issue. Judge Torruella's position on the meaning of section 2 is very much like that expressed by Judge Sotomayor in Hayden v. Pakaki. Judge Sotomayor: "It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all 'voting qualification[s]." And it is equally plain that s 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to itscoverage. Judge Torruella: "Rather this is a case about interpreting a clearly worded congressional statute, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ('VRA'), according to its terms, when there is no persuasive reason to do otherwise." This case could well go to the Supreme Court on an issue that Judge Sotomayor knows well. |