Challenges to felony disenfranchisement laws across the U.S. picked up steam this week after judges issued a series of rulings hampering voter restrictions for individuals with criminal backgrounds.
In Tennessee, a federal judge handed a partial victory to a nonprofit and a group of individuals who are challenging the state’s process for restoring voting rights to people with felony criminal convictions.
The plaintiffs — the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP and five individuals who tried to restore their voting rights before the 2020 election but were denied — are suing over what they describe as an inconsistent and inaccessible process for restoring their right to vote.
Since 2014, the plaintiffs allege, the state “has implemented a policy of rejecting forms to register to vote in elections for Federal office on which applicants indicate they have a prior felony conviction,” and of “requiring those applicants with a prior felony conviction to provide documentary proof of their eligibility to vote.”
For people with felony convictions, Tennessee’s restoration process requires them to request an application and then submit it to the county election administrator. But, according to the lawsuit, some plaintiffs have requested forms and either not received them or have been in situations where they were unable to obtain one.
As a result, the process creates “an unequal, scattershot system across Tennessee’s ninety-five counties,” the plaintiffs allege, and also violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, according to the complaint, which names Gov. Bill Lee (R) and Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) as defendants.
This week, a judge determined that state election officials cannot deny residents with past felony convictions their right to vote by improperly rejecting eligible voters’ registration forms. The remaining claims over the restoration process will proceed to trial.
In North Carolina, a felony disenfranchisement law can no longer be enforced after a ruling was issued earlier this week. A judge sided with two local advocacy groups that challenged a state law that imposes criminal penalties on residents who vote while on parole, probation or post-release supervision for a felony conviction, even if they mistakenly believed or were told that they are eligible to vote.
Action NC and the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute sued over the law in 2020, alleging that it is intentionally discriminatory towards Black residents in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This week, a judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, meaning the law cannot be enforced (as of April 22).
But that’s only half the battle. North Carolina still has a felony disenfranchisement law on the books that prohibits voting for any person with a felony conviction that is on probation, parole or a suspended sentence. In 2019, various voting and civil rights groups and individuals with felony convictions sued over the law, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. In 2022, a state trial court judge agreed and invalidated the law, restoring voting rights to over 56,000 North Carolinians. But the state Supreme Court later upheld the restrictions in 2023, reversing the lower court decision.
Also, in Nebraska, a bill that restores voting rights to people with felony convictions after they’ve completed their sentence became law in the state – but without the signature of the governor, who signaled that a legal challenge may be imminent.
