Viola N. Richardson, as County Clerk, et. al. v. Abran Ramirez, et. al. (1974) 418 U.S. 24 [41 L.Ed.2d 551] 94 S.Ct. 2655, reversing Abran Ramirez v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 199..
Case Summary. California Supreme Court accepted original jurisdiction of the case that was brought as a class action suit by various prisoner organizations, against the Secretary of State and County Clerks (Election Officers), challenging various provisions of the California Constitution and Elections Code disenfranchising convicted felons. Mendocino County petitioned to be made a member of the class when it became apparent that the named County Clerks and Secretary of State were only putting up token opposition, since she had a similar action pending in the Court of Appeals.
California Supreme Court decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declared that Art. II and Art. XX, sec. 11, of the California Constitution denying the right of suffrage to persons convicted of crime, together with provisions of the Elections Code implementing such disqualification, violated the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
United States Supreme Court . Granted my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Secretary of State, refused to participate. The California Attorney Generals office appeared as amicus curie. Opposition to the case presented by various prisoner rights organizations.
(a) Question presented: Whether Article II, Section 3, of the California Constitution, which provides that no person "convicted of an infamous crime" shall exercise the privileges of an elector in California, and Article XX, Section 11, of the California Constitution, which denies the right of suffrage to "persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office or other high crimes," and Sections 310, 321, 383, 389, 390, 14240, and 14246 of the California Elections Code, which implement the above constitutional disqualification’s, violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(b) Factual summary as set forth by the court: Three convicted felons that had completed their sentences and parole had been refused the right to register to vote in three (3) different California counties because of the felony convictions. The three (3) county officials decided not to contest the action. The Petitioner herein was not allowed to intervene in the state court but was added as a defendant because she had a similar action pending in the Court of Appeals.
(c) Holding: In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that disenfranchising convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause (pp. 2665-2672). The court summary states that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause, in dealing with voting rights as it does, could not have been meant to bar outright a form of disenfranchisement that was expressly exempted from the last drastic sanction of reduced representation that section 2 imposed for other forms of disenfranchisement.