Opinion ID: 1380470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Iqbal ProngConclusory Pleadings

Text: We begin our analysis by reviewing plaintiffs' amended complaint for allegations that are conclusory and thus are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. Plaintiffs allege, for example, that [t]he disenfranchisement of felons was one aspect of [constitutional delegates adopting certain voting requirements] to deprive minorities of the right to vote, J.A. 106, ¶ 42, which is a bare assertion[]... amount[ing] to nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a constitutional discrimination claim, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding the following similar allegations conclusory: that particular defendants `knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [plaintiff]' to harsh conditions of confinement `as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest'; and that defendant Ashcroft was the `principal architect' of this invidious policy and [defendant] Mueller was `instrumental' in adopting and executing it (internal citations omitted)). Similarly, plaintiffs' allegation that the 1821 Constitution further restricted the suffrage of minorities by permitting the state legislature to disenfranchise persons `who have been, or may be, convicted of infamous crimes' is conclusory, for whether the facially neutral disenfranchisement provision restricted the suffrage of minorities in effect and intent is the very assertion that plaintiffs must prove. Finally, plaintiffs allege that New York Election Law § 5-106(2) was enacted pursuant to ... the New York State Constitution with the intent to disenfranchise Blacks, which is not only a bare assertion, but is the only allegation in plaintiffs' amended complaint that New York's felon disenfranchisement statutory provisions were enacted with discriminatory intent. After setting aside these and other conclusory allegations, [10] we nonetheless find, for the reasons discussed below, that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that the 1821, 1846, and 1874 constitutional provisions were enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. But, fatal to plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claim, they have failed to allege that this invidious purpose motivated the enactment of either the 1894 constitutional provision or any of the statutory provisions. Moreover, plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that the 1971 or 1973 amendments to New York Election Law § 5-106(2) were enacted because of the 1894 Constitution's mandate that the legislature enact felon disenfranchisement laws.