Opinion ID: 1107735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is Alabama's statutory framework for removing a person from office unconstitutional?

Text: Reed contends that Alabama's statutory framework for removing a person from public office based on a felony conviction is unconstitutional because, he says, it is disproportionately applied to African-American males. In footnote 7 to his initial brief to this Court Reed states: Reed, an African American male, also argues that Code of Alabama (1975) § 36-2-1(a)(3) is unconstitutional in that it disproportionately disenfranchises African American males in Alabama. In Alabama, 6.4% of the total population are disenfranchised, while 14% of African Americans are disenfranchised, according to www.righttovote.org. Approximately, one third of all African American males of voting age are disenfranchised in Alabama. Chisun Lee, ` Political Prisoners: Minorities Struggle to Break Free of Felon Voting Bans, ' The Village Voice (Oct. 12, 2004). Reed does not show with particularity how this statistical compilation relates to the facts of this case. Those facts show that Reed was convicted of a felony in the State of Georgia nearly 30 years ago. Reed did not seek a pardon to have the consequences of that conviction removed until he learned that he might be removed from office because of the conviction. Reed does not show that any statute, constitutional provision, or instrumentality of the State of Alabama in any way blocked or prohibited him from seeking a pardon in Georgia at any time before he was elected to public office. Reed's ineligibility to hold public office was the result of his own inaction over nearly three decades; it was not the result of any constitutional infirmity arising from the Alabama statute that establishes who is eligible to hold public office in this state.