Isn't taking away an ex-felon's right to vote a violation of the 8th Amendment?

[berni_mccoy]

I would argue, possibly in error since I am not a lawyer, that taking away a person's right to vote after they have served their punishment for their crime would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Court held in the case Trop v. Dulles (1958) that punishing a natural born citizen for a crime by taking away his citizenship is unconstitutionally excessive, being "more primitive than torture" because it involved the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society".

There is no better way to remove a citizen's status than to take away their right to vote and choose their representation.

Does anyone know if a case with this argument has been tried, and if so, what was the outcome? It seems to me that the Trop v. Dulles would set precedence.

[aquart]

1. Seems to me they DID argue it was cruel and unusual.

Nifty precedent.

[pinto]

2. Good editorial from the CS Monitor (March 01, 2005):

Voting Rights for Ex-Felons
The Monitor's View

A new report shows some 1.5 million convicted felons still denied one of democracy's fundamentals - the right to vote after completing their prison sentences.

In fact, 14 states don't automatically restore voting rights to felons who have served jail time, according to a study by the criminal justice advocacy group, The Sentencing Project.

The process to restore voting rights to felons, according to the report, is unnecessarily cumbersome - so much so, that many ex-cons don't even bother to try. (Thirty-five states and Washington, D.C., grant voting rights immediately to former felons.)

<snip>

Elections should be open to all of the country's citizens eligible to vote - a right that reflects a society's willingness to recognize full citizenship for those who have paid their legal debt to society.

Participating in elections can help give ex-felons a sense of being connected as public stakeholders in a broader community. Civil rights advocate Jazz Hayden once said, "In prison you lose your liberty, not your citizenship." He's right.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0301/p08s03-comv.html

[pinto]

3. The Sentencing Project, 'Felony Disenfranchisement' :

http://www.sentencingproject.org/IssueAreaHome.aspx?IssueID=4

[varkam]

4. I am a convicted felon

And in my state, that automatically means that I can no longer vote. I guess it's just one of those "collateral consequences" of having a felony conviction. Oddly enough, it does upset me because I have always been interested in politics, have always followed politics and current events and I have always voted every chance that I have had.

[mitchum]

5. Yes, I have always thought so (n/t)

[On the Road]

6. A Constitutional Right Can Sometimes be Outweighed

by someone else's right or in some cases another compelling reason. I just can't see what those other factors might be here. I suspect it's partly a relic of Jim Crow laws.

For that matter, why can't people vote while they're in jail? No reason that has to be part of the normal punishment. Our prison system would be a lot better off if inmates were also constituents.

[pinto]

7. Apparently, in Trop v. Dulles, a soldier was "denationalized" for desertion. Justice Warren wrote

an eloquent reversal of the judgement of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case:

Trop v. Dulles
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER join.

The petitioner in this case, a native-born American, is declared to have lost his United States citizenship and become stateless by reason of his conviction by court-martial for wartime desertion. As in Perez v. Brownell, ante p. 44, the issue before us is whether this forfeiture of citizenship comports with the Constitution.

<snip>

Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and wellbeing of the Nation. The citizen who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the laws safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous blow to his country. But could a citizen be deprived of his nationality for evading these basic responsibilities of citizenship? In time of war, the citizen's duties include not only the military defense of the Nation, but also full participation in the manifold activities of the civilian ranks. Failure to perform any of these obligations may cause the Nation serious injury, and, in appropriate circumstances, the punishing power is available to deal with derelictions of duty. But citizenship is not lost every time a duty of citizenship is shirked. And the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be. As long as a person does not voluntarily renounce or abandon his citizenship, and this petitioner has done neither, I believe his fundamental right of citizenship is secure. On this ground alone, the judgment in this case should be reversed.


<snip>

In concluding, as we do, that the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress to punish by taking away citizenship, we are mindful of the gravity of the issue inevitably raised whenever the constitutionality of an Act of the National Legislature is challenged. No member of the Court believes that, in this case the statute before us can be construed to avoid the issue of constitutionality. That issue confronts us, and the task of resolving it is inescapably ours. This task requires the exercise of judgment, not the reliance upon personal preferences. Courts must not consider the wisdom of statutes, but neither can they sanction as being merely unwise that which the Constitution forbids.

We are oath-bound to defend the Constitution. This obligation requires that congressional enactments be judged by the standards of the Constitution. The Judiciary has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. When the Government acts to take away the fundamental right of citizenship, the safeguards of the Constitution should be examined with special diligence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0356_0086_ZO.html