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

Heading: The respondents lack standing to bring their cross-appeal

Text: ¶ 43 On cross-appeal, respondents challenge the limitation of the trial court's order invalidating Washington's disenfranchisement scheme only for felons who have satisfied the terms of their sentences except for paying legal financial obligations, and who, due to their financial status, are unable to pay their legal financial obligations immediately. CP at 433. Respondents assert that all felons who have satisfied the terms of their sentences, except for full payment of their LFOs, should be allowed to vote, regardless of their financial statuses. We note initially that respondents likely lack standing to bring this cross-appeal because they are not an aggrieved party under RAP 3.1, which states that [o]nly an aggrieved party may seek review by the appellate court. All of the respondents were covered by the trial court's order holding that the respondents were entitled to register to vote. Thus, the respondents were prevailing parties, not aggrieved parties. ¶ 44 Respondents also argue that, as the United States argued in its amicus brief in Harper, merely prohibiting a poll tax in relation to indigents would create an ongoing hardship because `it would be necessary to require evidence of poverty, and the furnishing of such evidence would itself constitute a burden on the exercise of the franchise.' Reply Br. of Resp'ts/Cross-Appellants at 11 (quoting Br. for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169, 1965 WL 130114, ). However, the court in Harper did not explicitly adopt that reasoning. Moreover, the respondents cannot argue that they are so burdened because the trial court already ordered that they be allowed to register to vote without any further qualification. Thus, respondents have failed to prove that they are aggrieved parties for the purpose of bringing a cross-appeal. ¶ 45 Furthermore, even if we assume that the respondents have standing, we hold that respondents' cross-appeal lacks merit. Because we have determined that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the constitutional rights of felons who are unable to pay their LFOs, we must necessarily hold that the scheme does not violate the constitutional rights of those who are able to pay their LFOs.