Last Updated: August 30, 2011 at 6:08 PM
Farrakhan v. Gregoire
Case Information
Date Filed: October 26, 1999
State: Washington
Issue: Felon Voting Rights
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington (Case 2:96-cv-00076-RHW); U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (Case 06-35669)
Issue:
Whether a felon disenfranchisement statute violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, when the primary source of discrimination complained of is caused by external sources.
Status:
On remand, the district court granted the state of Washington’s motion for summary judgment. The court considered the impact of racial discrimination in Washington’s criminal justice system, but found that the totality of the circumstances did not support a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, basing its decision on the plaintiffs’ failure to prove intentional discrimination. Oral Argument held 9/21/10. Per Curiam Opinion issued 10/7/10.
Summary
In this case convicted felons claim that Article VI, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution, which denies felons the right to vote, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it has a disparate impact on minorities.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the state of Washington because the racial discrimination was attributable to outside sources, in particular the criminal justice system. As the cause of the disparate impact is external to the felon disenfranchisement statute, the plaintiffs could not prove a causal connection. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed and remanded the case. Using a "totality of the circumstances" test, the Court held that the law's interaction with external factors should have been considered. As the criminal justice system is an external factor directly affecting the disenfranchisement statute, it should have been considered by the District Court.
On remand, the District Court again granted summary judgment for the state of Washington. The court considered the impact of racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system, but found that the totality of the circumstances did not show a violation of section two of the Voting Rights Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, basing its decision on plaintiffs' failure to prove intentional discrimination.
Court of Appeals Documents
- Briefing Schedule [non-document] (entered 8/11/06)
- Appellant's opening brief is due 11/20/06;
- Appellees' brief is due 12/20/06;
- Appellants' reply brief is due 1/3/07.
- Revised Briefing schedule [non-document] (entered 11/6/06)
- Appellant's Brief due 12/4/06;
- Appellees' Brief due 1/3/07;
- Optional reply brief shall be filed within 14 days of service of the Appellees' brief
- Appellant's Opening Brief
(filed 12/4/06) - ACLU's amicus curiae brief in support of reversal (filed 12/12/06)
- Community Service Society's amicus curiae brief in support of reversal (filed 12/12/06) [not yet available]
- The National Black Police Assoc. et al.'s amici curiae brief (filed 12/12/06)
- Appellee's Brief (filed 2/5/07)
- Appellant's Reply Brief (filed 3/16/07)
- ARGUED AND SUBMITTED (4/8/08)
- Order Requesting Supplemental Briefs (entered 5/14/09)
- Appellant Supplemental Brief (filed 5/29/09)
- Appellee Supplemental Brief (filed 5/29/09)
- Opinion Filed (entered 1/5/10)
- Motion to Stay Mandate filed by Appellees (filed 1/12/10)
- Motion Granted (filed 1/28/10)
- Motion Granted
- Supplemental Brief filed by Appellants (filed 3/5/10)
- Supplemental Brief filed by Appellees (filed 3/5/10)
- Order - Case will be reheard en banc (entered 4/28/10)
- Order - En Banc Argument will take place the week of June 21, 2010 (entered 4/28/10)
- Motion and Affidavit for Continuance of En Banc Oral Argument (filed 4/30/10)
- Order - Rescheduling argument for the week of September 20, 2010 (entered 5/4/10)
- Motion of Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Equal Opportunity for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants-Appellees (filed 5/17/10)
- Amicus Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Equal Opportunity (filed 5/17/10)
- Amicus Brief of Thirteen Named Law Professors (filed 6/10/10)
- Amicus Brief of Community Service Society (filed 6/11/10)
- Amicus Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center (filed 6/11/10)
- Amicus Brief of the ACLU (filed 6/11/10)
- Amicus Brief of the Brennan Center for Justice (filed 6/11/10)
- Amicus Brief of Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights, Equal Justice Society, Legal Services For Prisoners With Children, And American Parole And Probation Association (filed 6/11/10)
- Amicus Brief of the National Black Police Association (filed 6/11/10)
- Supplemental Brief of Appellant in Response to Amicus Curie Briefs (filed 8/12/10)
- Supplemental Brief of Appellee in Response to Amicus Curie Briefs (filed 8/12/10)
- Notice of Oral Argument for 2PM on September 21, 2010 (entered 8/13/10)
- Oral Argument [Text only] (9/21/10)
- Per Curiam Opinion Affirming the District Court's grant of Summary Judgment (entered 10/7/10)
District Court Documents
- Motion to Amend Complaint (filed 10/26/99)
- Memorandum by Plaintiff in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint (filed 10/26/99)
- Fourth Amended Complaint adding new causes of action (filed 10/26/99)
- Answer by Defendant to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (filed 12/27/99)
- Motion for leave to file an amended answer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (filed 6/26/00)
- Memorandum in support of Motion for Leave to File and Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (filed 6/26/00)
- Amended Answer (filed 6/26/00)
- Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal (filed 8/1/00)
- Memorandum of Authorities in support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal (filed 8/1/00)
- Statement of Facts in support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal (filed 8/1/00)
- Motion by Plaintiff for Summary Judgment (filed 8/1/00)
- Memorandum of Points and Authorities by Plaintiffs in support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/1/00)
- Statement of facts by Plaintiffs in support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/1/00)
- Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/11/00)
- Response by Plaintiffs to Statement of Material Facts (filed 8/11/00)
- Counterstatement of Material Facts by Defendants regarding Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/11/00)
- Response by Defendants to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/11/00)
- Supplemental Summary Judgment Exhibit List by Defendants (filed 8/11/00)
- Correction to Counterstatement of Material Facts by Defendants (filed 8/16/00)
- Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply to Defendants' Responsive Memorandum (filed 8/18/00)
- Reply Memorandum of Defendant in support of summary judgment and dismissal (filed 8/21/00)
- Second Supplemental Summary Judgment Exhibit List by Defendants (filed 8/21/00)
- Defendants' corrections to their Reply Memorandum of Defendant in support of summary judgment and dismissal (filed 8/21/00)
- Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
- Order entering judgment for Defendants on all claims
- District Court Judgment
- Notice of Appeal (filed 12/19/2000)
- United States Supreme Court docket - denial of petition for certiorari
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion reversing and remanding the District Court's dismissal of the case
- Mandate from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Status Report, February 5, 2005
- Motion to substitute public officer party (filed 10/14/05)
- Memorandum in support of Motion to substitute public officer party (filed 10/14/05)
- Amendment to Motion to substitute public officer party (filed 10/25/05)
- Order granting Motion to substitute public officer party (filed 10/28/05)
- Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 12/13/05)
- Memorandum in support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 12/13/05)
- Statement of material facts regarding Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 12/13/05)
- Notice of Hearing
- Order amending Scheduling Order
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/27/06)
- Statement of Material Facts filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan (filed 1/27/06)
- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/27/06)
- Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (filed 1/27/06)
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/27/06)
- Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 3/1/06)
- Supplemental Statement of Material Facts filed by all Defendants (filed 3/1/06)
- Order amending Scheduling Order
- Reply Brief of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 3/22/06)
- Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Supplemental Statement of Material Facts (filed 3/22/06)
- Order Granting Defendants Motion, Denying Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment (entered 7/7/06)
- Judgment Cover Sheet(entered 7/7/06)
- Notice of Appeal (filed 8/4/06)
Commentary
A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting
Daniel P. Tokaji
Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.
more commentary...