Case: Coronado v. Brewer

On June 01, 2007, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the State of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Arizona Constitution provides that "[n]o person . . . convicted of treason or felony [shall] be qualified to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights." Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2; see also A.R.S. § 14-904 ("A conviction for a felony suspends the following civil rights of the person sentences: 1. The right to vote."). A felony is "an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state." A.R.S. § 13-105(16). A person convicted of a single felony automatically regains any civil rights that were lost or suspended by the conviction if the person both: (1) completes a term of probation or receives an absolute discharge from imprisonment; and (2) pays any fine or restitution imposed. Id. at § 13-912. Persons convicted of more than one felony must apply to the superior court to have their civil rights restored. Id. at § 13-908.

Plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the Arizona statutory scheme governing the right to vote of those convicted of felonies. Their first argument was that disenfranchisement for felonies not recognized as such at common law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While plaintiffs acknowledged that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment insulates felon-disenfranchisement schemes from equal protection challenges to some extent, they argued that Section 2 only permits disenfranchisement for common-law felonies. In their view, disenfranchisement for statutory felonies not recognized at common law has no affirmative sanction in Section 2 and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Three of the Plaintiffs also argued that conditioning the restoration of the right to vote upon the payment of their criminal fines and restitution violates various provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. Particularly, they alleged that this repayment condition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment's bar against poll taxes, the Privileges or Immunities Clauses in both the federal and Arizona Constitutions, and the Arizona Constitution's provision mandating free and equal elections.

Contending that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on August 13, 2007. The District Court (Judge Stephen M McNamee) granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint without prejudice on January 22, 2008, reasoning that Arizona law treats all felons equally with regard to disenfranchisement and subsequent restoration of civil rights and finding no distinction between common law and non-common law felonies.

On April 30, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint and on May 19, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On November 06, 2008, Judge McNamee granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits States to disenfranchise felons, regardless of whether their offenses were recognized as felonies at common law. Requiring felons to satisfy the terms of their sentences before restoring their voting rights is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and does not violate any of the various constitutional provisions Plaintiffs rely upon.