Terrence Johnson v. Phil Bredesen
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22357
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs Terrence Johnson, Jim Harris, and Joshua Roberts are Tennessee residents and convicted felons who allege that restoring their voting rights is conditioned on paying restitution and child support, violating equal protection and other constitutional provisions.
- Tennessee’s re-enfranchisement statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-202, allows restoration upon pardons or discharge from custody, but adds (b) restitution payment and (c) current child support as prerequisites.
- The 2006 amendments added these two conditions; before then there was automatic reenfranchisement after sentence completion without such conditions.
- Plaintiffs sued in district court; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings; plaintiffs appealed.
- The court affirms, applying rational-basis review to the Equal Protection challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 40-29-202(b)-(c) survive rational-basis review under Equal Protection. | Johnson et al. are indigent; wealth-based distinction burdens them | Tennessee has legitimate interests in ensuring payment and compliance | Yes, rational basis supports the provisions. |
| Whether restitution and child-support payments violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. | Payments amount to a poll tax or other tax on voting | Restoration, not voting, is conditioned; not a tax on voting | No Twenty-Fourth Amendment violation; not the denial/abridgement of voting right. |
| Whether Privileges or Immunities Clause supports plaintiffs’ claim. | Voting rights are a privilege of citizenship | Richardson allows felon disenfranchisement; P&I not violated | No Privileges or Immunities violation; district court correctly rejected claim. |
| Whether Tennessee Ex Post Facto claims succeed under federal and state constitutions. | Provisions are punitive and retroactive, increasing punishment | Disenfranchisement is civil; proportional to aims; Mendoza-Martinez factors applicable | No federal Ex Post Facto violation; but dissent would find Tennessee ex post facto violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1974) (felon disenfranchisement permissible under § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (strict scrutiny when economic burdens on fundamental rights)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (limitations on revoking probation for nonpayment; individualized inquiry)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (wealth-based discrimination in access to appellate review)
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970) (indigent defendants’ punishment for nonpayment linked to ability to pay)
- Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1966) (poll taxes unconstitutional as electoral standard; wealth discrimination)
- Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1965) (Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibits poll taxes and related prerequisites)
- Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1958) (felon disenfranchisement serves regulatory, non-penal purpose)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973) (rational-basis review governs wealth-based classifications)
- Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2010) (rational-basis review applied to felony reenfranchisement distinctions)
- Harvey v. Brewer, 605 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2010) (re-enfranchisement conditioned on paying obligations upheld under rational basis)
- Madison v. Washington, 163 P.3d 757 (Wash. 2007) (state rational-basis upheld restitution condition for reenfranchisement)