Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting beyond their sentence and parole without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
However, on September 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that all fines do not have to be paid off before felons can be re-enfranchised. The appeals court ruling had the effect of again disenfranchising around 774,000 people, about a month before the 2020 U.S. presidential election. [34]
A case challenging the federal prohibition has been appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the justices have not yet said whether they will hear the challenge. In New York, convicted felons cannot ...
The Supreme Court in March overturned a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that allowed Trump to be removed from the state’s primary ballots under the provision for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 ...
During day two of her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced scrutiny over one of her most noteworthy past opinions on whether felons should be banned from ...
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that even if a Canadian citizen has committed a criminal offence and is incarcerated, they retain the constitutional right to vote. [9] In the 2015 federal election, more than 22,000 inmates in federal correctional institutes were eligible to vote. [10] There is one exception to this general principle.
It isn't clear how many of the 97,000 eligible felons are among the 1.2 million people the Secretary of State's office says were registered to vote in Nebraska as of Aug. 1 and are ineligible to ...
The Supreme Court, in that case, had affirmed his conviction, arguing he was convicted not for opposing the draft but for encouraging people not to comply with it.