[EL] Felon Disenfranchisement

[John Tanner]

Actually Hunter v Underwood dealt with disfranchising misdemeanors.  Felonies involving moral turpitude (but not other felonies) still are disfranchising in Alabama.

Proving a racial purpose in the Redemption conventions should not be that hard, as everyone was very open.  The passage of time and changes in circumstances can be complicating.  For example, Mississippi made no bones about the fact that they were establishing a party primary election system with a racially discriminatory intent, but the Democratic primary is now purged of that stain.  

On Nov 19, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Frank Askin <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu> wrote:

> how do you prove the subjective intent of ther legislature. Hunter is an outlier. FRANK
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Adamany" <adamany at temple.edu>
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:22:44 PM
> Subject: [EL] Felon Disenfranchisement
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, where it is proven that the purpose of felon disenfranchisement laws is to disqualify African Americans or any other specific sector of the population, the more general language of the 14th Amendment that seems to approve disenfranchisement laws enacted to disqualify felons is not applicable. That too is established law. Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985). David 
> 
> 
> David Adamany 
> Laura Carnell Professor of Law 
> and Political Science, and 
> Chancellor 
> 1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330 
> Temple University 
> Philadelphia, PA 19122 
> (215) 204-9278 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election