The state of Mississippi has until Aug. 18 to appeal a controversial ruling out of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel ruled that Mississippi must restore the voting rights of people convicted of certain felonies.
All eyes are on Mississippi’s attorney general after a panel of federal judges sided with the plaintiffs of a lawsuit aimed at restoring voting rights to thousands of Mississippians convicted of certain felonies. Jonathan Youngwood is among the attorneys representing plaintiffs in this case.
“It’s about people who committed a crime, made a mistake, served their time and now they’re back in society. They should be allowed to vote,” Jonathan Youngwood said.
What’s at question is Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, which strips the voting rights of people who’ve been convicted of certain crimes. Critics argued it was designed to keep the newly freed slaves from voting. In 2023, Youngwood saw it as an outdated measure and unconstitutional.
“It treats murder the same as writing a bad check in terms of your right to vote: both of those equally until this decision would disqualify you from voting for your entire life in the state of Mississippi,” said Youngwood.
Out of a three-judge panel, two of the judges ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that stripping the voting rights of a person after being released from prison violated the 8th Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.
Now, the courts are requiring Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson to restore these rights unless of course the state appeals.
“Obviously we’re in active litigation, so I can’t talk too much about the details of that, but I will say there was another case similar to that that the court ruled the opposite way, so you’re going to see an appeal in this case so we’ll wait and see what the court says,” said Watson.
There are 22 disenfranchising crimes in Mississippi law from forgery and bigamy to the most heinous acts such as murder. 16 WAPT reached out to the attorney general’s office; they declined an interview but gave us this statement:
“At this time, the State expects to seek further review. As Judge Jones notes in her dissent, an “end-justifies-means analysis has no place in constitutional law.” The Supreme Court has signaled that felon disenfranchisement is not punishment and the Eighth Amendment cannot be distorted to prohibit what the plain language of the Constitution affirmatively acknowledges as legitimate.”
Source: Wapt