Opinion ID: 2517881
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington's disenfranchisement scheme is rationally related to legitimate state interests

Text: ¶ 31 Because no fundamental right is at stake in this case and respondents do not allege that they constitute a suspect class, we do not apply strict scrutiny in analyzing Washington's disenfranchisement scheme. We next consider whether to apply intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review. Intermediate scrutiny is not appropriate in this case because this court has held that intermediate scrutiny will be applied only if the statute implicates both an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status. In re Pers. Restraint of Runyan, 121 Wash.2d 432, 448, 853 P.2d 424 (1993). Respondents have failed to establish that felons' right to vote qualifies as an important right under federal case law. Additionally, even though low-income felons may not be accountable for their wealth status, they have been adjudicated responsible for their status as felons, which is the classification at issue. Therefore, we do not apply intermediate scrutiny, and we examine Washington's disenfranchisement scheme using rational basis review. Under rational basis review, this court must uphold a law establishing classifications unless the `classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of legitimate state objectives.' Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 414, 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting State v. Harner, 153 Wash.2d 228, 235-36, 103 P.3d 738 (2004)). ¶ 32 In considering respondents' equal protection claim, we must determine what classification Washington's disenfranchisement scheme establishes. The State asserts that the scheme does not establish a wealth-based classification because [t]he only classification drawn by Washington law is between those who have completed all of the terms of their sentences and those who have not. Br. of Appellants at 19. Although it is clear that the requirement that felons pay their LFOs in full may impact felons disparately based on their differing income statuses, this alone does not establish an equal protection violation. `[T]he equal protection clause does not require a state to eliminate all inequalities between the rich and the poor.' Runyan, 121 Wash.2d at 449, 853 P.2d 424 (quoting Riggins v. Rhay, 75 Wash.2d 271, 283, 450 P.2d 806 (1969)). ¶ 33 In Runyan, prisoners challenged the constitutionality of a time-bar statute, arguing that the statute violated the equal protection rights of indigent prisoners because they are unable to acquire legal representation quickly enough to collaterally attack their convictions. 121 Wash.2d at 448, 853 P.2d 424. We upheld the statute because it made no distinction among rich or poor prisoners and applie[d] equally to both. Id. at 449, 853 P.2d 424. Similarly, in this case, Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not distinguish between rich or poor felons but instead requires all felons to complete all of the terms of their sentences before they may seek reinstatement of their civil rights. Thus, we conclude that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not classify based on wealth. [10] ¶ 34 Respondents assert that even if Washington's disenfranchisement scheme may appear facially neutral, the scheme discriminates in operation. Respondents cite Williams, 399 U.S. at 242, 90 S.Ct. 2018 (quoting Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 17 n. 11, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956)), in which the Court noted that `a law nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its operation.' In Williams, the Court held that an Illinois statute that allowed for the continued incarceration of prisoners beyond the statutory maximum sentence because the prisoners had failed to pay their fines violated the equal protection rights of those indigent prisoners. 399 U.S. at 241, 90 S.Ct. 2018. However, as the State notes, Williams is distinguishable from this case because it involved an individual's fundamental right to be free from involuntary confinement, whereas this case concerns the right of felons to vote, which is not constitutionally protected. ¶ 35 In another case cited by respondents, Bearden, 461 U.S. at 672-73, 103 S.Ct. 2064, the Court held that the state violated the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment by revoking probation for failure to pay fines without inquiring into the reasons for the failure to pay. Bearden, like Williams, also involves a deprivation of conditional freedom and has the effect of turning a fine into a prison sentence. Id. at 672, 674, 103 S.Ct. 2064. Additionally, both Williams and Bearden involve additional punishments imposed on individuals for failure to pay their fines. Here, no additional punishment is imposedall felons simply cannot seek restoration of their civil rights until they have completed all of the terms of their sentences. ¶ 36 Respondents also argue that the requirement that felons complete all the terms of their sentences, including full payment of their LFOs, constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax. Respondents rely largely on Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 670, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966), in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia poll tax because it violated the equal protection clause. However, the poll tax in Harper applied to all Virginia citizens, individuals who possessed a fundamental right to vote under the United States Constitution. Convicted felons, on the other hand, no longer possess that fundamental right as a direct result of their decisions to commit a felony. Additionally, while Harper holds that wealth is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process, that is not the inquiry in this case. Id. at 668, 86 S.Ct. 1079. The correct inquiry is whether a felon's completion of the terms of his or her sentence is germane to one's participation in the electoral process. Thus, Harper is distinguishable on the basis that it involved a fundamental right, whereas this case does not. As a result, we need consider only whether there is a rational relationship between requiring felons to satisfy all of the terms of their sentences, including full payment of their LFOs, and any legitimate governmental interests, such as punishment, before a felon may receive reinstatement of his or her voting rights. [11] ¶ 37 The parties also dispute how the issue in this case should be framed and whether the correct inquiry is if Washington's disenfranchisement scheme is constitutional or if Washington's scheme to restore voting rights to felons is constitutional. The respondents argue that although the State has the right to disenfranchise felons, it may not condition the restoration of their voting rights on the payment of LFOs. [12] The State, on the other hand, argues that the respondents reframing of the issue creates a fiction because [t]he so-called conditions for reinstatement that Respondents claim to challenge are nothing more than a description of the period of disenfranchisement  a description of its duration. Br. of Appellants at 10. As the State argues, the provisions in the state and federal constitutions allowing for disenfranchisement of felons do not state a time limit. In fact, a state may permanently disenfranchise a felon without violating his or her constitutional rights. ¶ 38 Moreover, it is not Washington's reenfranchisement statute that denies felons the right to vote but rather the continuing applicability of its disenfranchisement scheme. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted in Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir.2003), when considering the constitutionality of Washington's felon disenfranchisement scheme under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, that the felon plaintiffs in that case had not been denied the right to vote because of the restoration process, but rather due to the disenfranchisement provision . . . and because they ha[d] not satisfied all the requirements of their sentences to become statutorily eligible for discharge of their convictions. Additionally, we conclude that the requirement that felons pay their LFOs should not be divorced from the context in which that requirement arose, which was as a result of the individual's commission of a felony. Thus, the requirement that felons must pay their LFOs is not merely a condition for reinstatement of voting rights, it is a requirement that felons must satisfy to complete the terms of their sentences. ¶ 39 Even if the correct inquiry in this case were whether Washington's re-enfranchisement scheme passes constitutional muster, we would hold that it does. Richardson involved three individual felons who had completed their sentences and paroles. 418 U.S. at 26, 94 S.Ct. 2655. The Court noted that when it had previously considered exclusions of some or all felons from the franchise, it had indicated approval of such exclusions on a number of occasions. Id. at 53, 94 S.Ct. 2655. Additionally, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit observed about the Richardson decision, although the analysis engaged in by the Court focuses on a state's power to disenfranchise persons convicted of a felony generally, the specific holding of the Court was that a state may deny the franchise to that group of `convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles.' Shepherd v. Trevino, 575 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir.1978) (quoting Richardson, 418 U.S. at 56, 94 S.Ct. 2655). The Shepherd court, in upholding the constitutionality of a Texas re-enfranchisement scheme, concluded that the [Richardson] Court clearly envisioned that a state could grant the right to vote to some persons convicted of a felony while denying it to others. Id. at 1114. Thus, we conclude that Washington's re-enfranchisement statute is constitutional so long as the classification drawn is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. ¶ 40 Respondents also argue that the State's asserted interests in requiring felons to pay their LFOs before having their voting rights restored are not legitimate state interests that provide a rational basis for Washington's disenfranchisement scheme. Respondents challenge the State's asserted interests in limiting political participation of those unwilling to abide by laws and in requiring the completion of all sentence elements before the right to vote is restored. [13] Respondents argue that a felon's ability to pay his or her LFOs immediately does not indicate whether he or she is law-abiding. Additionally, respondents argue that the State may not justify otherwise unconstitutional laws simply by asserting its interest in having its laws followed and that such an argument is circular. Br. of Resp'ts at 21. ¶ 41 However, in Green v. Board of Elections, 380 F.2d 445, 451 (2d Cir.1967), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognized the legitimate interest in denying the right to vote to those who have committed felonies. [I]t can scarcely be deemed unreasonable for a state to decide that perpetrators of serious crimes shall not take part in electing the legislators who make the laws, the executives who enforce these, the prosecutors who must try them for further violations, or the judges who are to consider their cases. Id. Respondents' argument that the State's asserted interest in having its laws followed is circular is not persuasive. The State clearly has an interest in ensuring that felons complete all of the terms of their sentence, and there is no requirement that the State restore voting rights to felons until they do so. ¶ 42 As a result, respondents fail to establish that the requirement that felons complete all of the terms of their sentence, including full payment of any LFOs, is wholly irrelevant to any legitimate state objective. Therefore, we hold that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution because it is rationally related to legitimate state interests. We reverse the trial court and uphold Washington's statutes and constitution as written. [14]