F OR P UB L I CAT I ON U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT M U H A M M A D SH A BA ZZ F A R R A K H A N , ak a E rn es t S . W al k er ; AL - KA RE E M S HA DE E D; MARC US X. PR I C E; R A M O N BA R R I EN TES; T I M OT HY S CHAAF ; CL I F T ON B RI CE NO , P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. CH RI S T I NE O. GR E GO I RE ; S AM R EED ; H A R O LD W . C LA R K E; S T AT E OF W AS HI NGT ON , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 06- 35669 D. C . No . C V- 9 6 - 0 0 0 7 6 - R HW OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtH . W ha l e y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r21, 2010 S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia F i l ed B ef ore: KOZ I NS KI , C h ie f Ju d g e , SC H R O ED ER , O ’S C A N N L A IN , R Y M ER , K LEI N FELD , T HO MAS , G R A BER , M c K E O WN , W AR DL AW , G O U LD a nd CL I F T ON , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED OC T 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSpage 2

P E R C UR I AM : W as hi ng t on ’ s c on st i tut i on deni es the ri gh tt o v ot e t o “ [a ] l l pers on s c on vi ct ed o f in f a m o u s c r im e u n le s s r e s to r e dto th e irc iv il r ig h ts .” W a s h . C o n s t. art. V I , § 3 . A n “ i nf a m ous c r i m e ” i s one tha t ’ s “ puni s habl e byde a th . . . ori m pr i s onm e nti n a st at e c orre ct i on alfa ci l i ty. ” W as h. R ev. C od e § 29 A . 04 . 07 9. W as hi ng t on has di se nfranchi se d fel on s s i nce 186 6, four ye ar s bef ore the F i ft ee nth A m endm entw as r a t i f i e d. T e rr i t or i a lL aw of

1866, R e m . & B a l . C ode § 4755. P l a i nt i f f s c l a i m tha tthe s t a t e ’ s f e l on di s e nf

r anc hi s e m e ntl aw vi ol a t e s s e c t i on 2 of the V ot i ng R i ght s A c t( “ V R A ” ) be c aus e the l aw “ r e s ul t s i n ade ni a l or ab r id g e m e n t o f

th e r ig h t . . . to v o te o n a c c o u n t o f r a c e .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 7 3 ( a ) . P l a i nt i f f s don’ tc l a i m tha tthe l aw w a s e na c t e d f orthe purpos e of

de ny i ng m in o r itie s th e r ig h t to v o te . S e e H u n te rv . U n d e rw o o d , 4 7 1 U .S . 2 2 2 , 2 3 3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . N ordo the ypr e s e nte vi de nc e tha tthe i rc onvi c t i ons a nd r e s ul t i ng di s e nf r anc hi s e m e ntr e s ul t e d f

r om i nt e nt i ona l r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on i n the ope r a t i on of the s t a t e ’ s c r i m i na l j us t i c e s y s t e m . S e e M c C l e s ke yv. K e m p, 481 U . S . 279, 29 7– 98 (198 7). Inst ea d, they pre se ntst at i st i ca l evi dence thatthere ar e r ac i al d i s p ar i t i e s i n W a s h i n g t o n ’ s c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m. W he n thi s c a s e w a s l a s tbe f or e ourc ourt , w e he l d tha tf e l on di se nfranchi se m entl aw s c an be chal l enged u nd erse ct i on 2 b y i ntrodu ci ng suchpage 3

e vi de nc e . F arr a khan v. W a s hi ngt on, 338 F . 3d 1009, 1016, 1020 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ F arr a khan I ” ) . B a s e d on the s t a t i s t i c a l e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d bypl a i nt i f f s , the d istrict co u rt o n re m an dfo u n dth at “th er e is d iscr im in atio n inW as h in g to n ’s cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em on ac coun tof ra ce . ” B utthe courtre as on ed thatthi s w as o n lyo n e r e le v an t f

a c to rin s e c tio n 2 ’s “to ta lityo f c ir c u m s tan c e s ” b a lan c in g te s t. S e e 42 U . S . C . § 1973( b) ; S . R e p. N o. 97- 417, a t28–29 ( 1982) , r e pr i nt e d i n 1982 U . S . C . C . A . N . 17 7, 20 6– 07 ; se e a l so T ho rnbu rg v. G i ng l es , 47 8 U . S . 30 , 46 (198 6). Itconcl ud ed thatother f ac t ors c ou nt erbal ance d p l ai nt i ff s’ evi dence of ra ci al d i sp ari t i es, an dth erefo re g ran t edsu m m ary j u d g m en tt o d efen d an t s. T hr e e c i r c ui t s — tw o s i tt i ng e n banc — ha ve di s a gr e e d w i th F arr a kha n I a nd c onc l ude d tha tf

e l on di s e nf

r anc hi s e m e ntl aw s a r e c a t e gor i c a l l ye xe m ptf r om c h a lle n g e s b r o u g h t u n d e rs e c tio n 2 o f th e V R A . S e e J o h n s o n v . G o v e rn o ro f F la ., 405 F . 3d 1214, 1234 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e n banc ) ; H ay de n v. P a t a ki , 449 F . 3d 305, 32 3 (2d C i r. 20 06 ) ( en banc); S i m m on s v. G al vi n, 57 5 F . 3d 24 , 41 (1stC i r. 20 09 ), pet i t i on for c ert . fi l ed, 78 U . S . L . W . 34 61 (U . S . F eb. 1, 20 10 ) (N o. 09 -920 ). In l i ghtof thos e opi ni ons , w e c onc l ude tha tthe rul e a nnounc e d i n F arr a kha n I s w e e ps t oo broadl y. F el on di se nfranchi se m entl aw s have al on g h i st ory i n the U ni t ed S t at es . S ee G re en v. B d. of E l ec t i on s of N . Y . C . , 38 0 F . 2d 44 5, 45 0 & n. 4 (2d C i r. 1 9 6 7 ). T h ese l aw s p red at e th e Ji m C ro w era an d , w i th a few n o t ab l e ex cep t i o n s,page 4

se e, e. g. , H un t er , 47 1 U . S . at22 9 (concl ud i ng thatan A l abam a c on st i tut i on al prov i si on “ w as enac t ed w i th the i nt entof di se nfranchi si ng bl ac ks”) , have no tbeen a dopt e d ba s e d on r a c i a l c ons i de r a t i ons . M anys uc h l aw s w e r e i n e f f e c tw he n the F ourt e e nth and F i f

t e e nth A m e ndm e nt s w e r e r a t i f i e d, s e e H ay de n, 449 F . 3d a t317 n. 12 ( l i s t i ng tw e nty - ni ne s t a t e c ons t i tut i ona l pr ovi s i ons ) ; i nde e d, f e l on d is e n f r an c h is e m e n t h a s a n a f

f irm a tiv e s an c tio n in th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, R i c har ds on v. R a m i r e z , 418 U . S . 24, 54 ( 1974) . C ongr e s s w a s no doubta w ar e of the s e l aw s w he n i te na c t e d the V R A i n 1965 a nd a m e nde d i ti n 1982, y e tga ve no i nd i cat i on thatfe l on di se nfranchi se m entw as i n any w aysuspec t . T od ay , an o v erw h el m i n g n u m b er o f st at es— i n cl u d i n g al l st at es i n o u r ci rcu i t

— d i sen fran ch i se f e l ons . S e e T he S e nt e nc i ng P r oj e c t , F e l onyD i s e nf r anc hi s e m e ntL aw s i n the U ni t ed S t at es 3 (M ar . 20 10 ), avai l abl e athttp: // se nt enci ng proj ec t . org/ do c/ pu bl i cat i on s/ fd_b s_fdl aw si nu sM ar ch20 10 . pd f. T he r e i s a n a ddi t i ona l r e a s on t o be s ke pt i c a l tha tf e l on di s e nf

r anc hi s e m e nt l aw s c an be c ha l l e nge d unde rs e c t i on 2 of the V R A . B yde f

i ni t i on, f e l on di se nfranchi se m entt akes ef fe cton l y a ft eran i nd i vi du alhas bee n fou nd gu i l ty of a c r im e . T h is d e te rm in a tio n is m a d e b yth e c r im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m , w h ic h h a s its ow n u ni qu e s af

eguards and remedie s a gai nstarbi trary , i nv i di ou s or m i st akenpage 5

c onvi c t i on. S e e , e . g. , 28 U . S . C . § 2254; H e c k v. H um phr e y , 512 U . S . 477, 486–87 (199 4). I n l i ghtof

the s e c ons i de r a t i ons , w e hol d tha tpl a i nt i f f s br i ngi ng as e c t i on 2 V R A chal l enge t o a fe l on di se nfranchi se m entl aw base d o n the op er at i on of a s ta te ’s c r im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m m u s t a t le a s t s h o w th a t th e c r im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m is i nfec t ed by i nt ent i on aldi sc ri m i nat i on or thatthe fe l on di se nfranchi se m entl aw w as en act edw i th su ch i n t en t . O u r ru l i n g i s l i m i t edt o th i s n arro w i ssu e, an dw e ex p ress no vi e w a s t o anyof

the othe ri s s ue s r a i s e d bythe part i e s a nd a m i c i . W e a l s o l e a ve for ano ther daythe qu es t i on of w hether apl ai nt i ff w ho has m ade the re qu i re d show i ng w ou l d n ec es sari l y e st abl i sh thata f el on di se nfranchi se m entl aw vi ol at es s e c t i on 2. B e c aus e pl a i nt i f

f s pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e of i nt e nt i ona l di s c r i m i na t i on i n the op er at i on of W as hi ng t on ’ s c ri m i nal j ust i ce sy st em and argue no other theory und er w hi ch a s ec t i on 2 chal l enge m i gh tbe sust ai ned, w e c on clud e thatthey di dn ’ tm ee t thei r burden o f s ho w i ng a vi ol at i on of the V R A . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt d i d n ’ te rrw h e n i tg r an t e ds u mmaryj u d g me n ta g a i n s tth e m. AF F I RME D.page 6 C ou n se l R y an P . H ay good ( ar gue d) , J ohn P ay t on, T he odor e S haw , N orm an J . C ha c hki n, D ebo P . A degb i l e, K ri st en C l arke and D al e E . H o, N A A C P L egalD ef ense & E du cat i on alF un d, Inc. , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, D ani el l e C . G ray, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, and L aw re nce A . W ei se r, U ni vers i ty L egalA ss i st ance atG on za ga L aw S ch o o l , S p o k an e, W ash i n g t o n , fo r p l ai n t i ffs-ap p el l an t s. R o b e rt M . M c K e n n a( ar g u e d ) , A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, D an ie l J . Ju d g e , S e n io rC o u n s e l, and Jef fr eyT . E ven, C ar ol M urph y and W i l l i am B . C ol l i ns, D eputy S ol i ci t ors G en eral , O l ym p i a, W ash i n g t o n , fo r d efen d an t s-ap p el l ees. D er ek S . T ar son and M ar i anne K oh , O f C ou nsel , D ebevoi se & P l i m pt on L L P , N ew Y o rk , N ew Y o rk , fo r am i ci cu ri ae T w en ty-T h ree L ead i n g C ri m i n o l o g i st s. S har on L . B r ow ne a nd R a l ph W . K a s ar da , P a c i f i c L e ga l F ounda t i on, S a c r a m e nt o, C al i forni a, for am i ci curi ae P ac i fi c L egalF ou nd at i on and C ent erfor E qu al O p p o rtu n i ty. T h o m a s C . G o ld s te in , A k in G u m p S tr au s s H au e r& F e ldL L P , W a s h in g to n , D .C ., and P am el a S . K ar l an and Jef fr eyL . F i sher , S t anford L aw S choo l S up re m e C ou rt L i t i g at i o n C l i n i c, S t an fo rd , C al i fo rn i a, fo r am i ci cu ri ae T h i rt een L aw P ro fesso rs. D ani elF . K ol b and E dm un d P ol ub i nski II I, D avi s P ol k & W ar dw el l L L P , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, for am i cus c uri ae B re nn an C ent erfor Just i ce atN ew Y ork Un i v e r s i tyS c h o o l o f

L aw. Juan C art a ge na , C om m uni tyS e rvi c e S oc i e ty , N e w Y ork, N e w Y ork, f ora m i c us cu ri ae C o m m u n i ty S erv i ce S o ci ety. E l i zabeth B . W ydra , D ou gl as T . K endal l and D avi d H . G ans, C on st i tut i on al A cc ou nt abi l i ty C ent er , W as hi ng t on , D . C . , for am i cus c uri ae C on st i tut i on al A cc ou nt abi l i ty C ent er . W h i ttySo mv i c h i an , K y l e C. W o n g , K e l l yCo o k e a n dTy l e rO n i t s u k a , Co o l e yLLP, S an F ran ci sco , C al i fo rn i a, fo r am i ci cu ri ae L aw yers’ C o m m i tt ee fo r C i v i l R i g h t s,page 7

E qu alJust i ce S oci ety, L egalS ervi ce s f or P ri soners w i th C hi l dren and A m er i can P ar ol e and P r oba t i on A s s oc i a t i on. S ar ah A . D unne a nd N anc yT a l ne r , A m e r i c an C i vi l L i be rt i e s U ni on of W a s hi ngt on F o u n d at i o n , S eatt l e, W ash i n g t o n , P et er A . D an el o , S eatt l e, W ash i n g t o n , L eo n ardJ. F el dm an, P . K . R un kl es -P ears on and D ani elA . S w edl ow , S t oel R i ves L L P , S eatt l e, W a s h in g to n , an dL au g h lin M c D o n a lda n dN an c yG . A b u du , A C L U V o tin g R ig h ts P r oj e c t , A t l ant a , G e or gi a , f ora m i c i c ur i a e A m e r i c an C i vi l L i be rt i e s U ni on of W a s hi ngt on and A m e r i c an C i vi l L i be rt i e s U ni on. L aw ren ce S . L u stb erg an dJen n i fer B . C o n d o n , G i b b o n s P . C . , N ew ark , N ew Jersey, for am i ci curi ae N at i on alB l ac k P ol i ce A ss oci at i on , N at i on alL at i no O ff i ce rs A ss oci at i on , A m er i can P robat i on and P ar ol e A ss oci at i on and S i x F orm erL aw E n fo rcem en tO ffi ci al s.