Muntaqim v. Coombe, 01-7260.
| Decision Date | 29 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-7260.,01-7260. |
| Parties | Jalil Abdul MUNTAQIM, a/k/a Anthony Bottom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip COOMBE; Anthony Annucci; Louis F. Mann, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
A poll of the judges in regular active service having been requested and conducted, and a majority of the active judges of the court having voted to rehear the appeal in this case in banc, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be reheard in banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(a). The in banc panel will consist of the active judges of the court and Senior Judges Meskill and Cardamone, both of whom were on the original panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). We invite amicus curiae briefs from interested parties.
The question presented is whether, on the pleadings, a claim that a New York State statute, Section 5-106 of the New York Election Law, that disenfranchises currently imprisoned felons and parolees results in unlawful vote dilution, can state a claim for violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The parties are requested to address, inter alia, the following issues in their briefs:
(1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can constitutionally be applied to a state statute like Section 5-106, that disenfranchises persons currently incarcerated as felons and parolees, in light of the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence regarding Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) Whether the Supreme Court's "clear statement rule," articulated in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460-61, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991), requires Congress to have clearly stated that the Voting Rights Act was intended to infringe upon the states' discretion to deprive persons currently incarcerated as felons and parolees of the right to vote, and whether Congress did in fact make that intent clear;
(3) (a) If the judgment of the district court were modified or vacated and the cause remanded for further presentation of questions of fact (either on a motion for summary judgment or a trial before a factfinder), what kinds of data demonstrating racial bias in conviction and sentencing, statistical and otherwise should the factfinder rely upon in assessing the claim? (b) What type and quantum of statistical evidence would plaintiff have to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayden v. Pataki
...currently incarcerated felons and parolees, N.Y. Election Law § 5-106, results in unlawful vote denial and vote dilution. Muntaqim v. Coombe, 396 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.2004). We consider two cases that were consolidated for the purpose of oral argument: Muntaqim v. Coombe, which was dismissed by ......
-
Johnson v. Governor of State of Florida
...York's felon disenfranchisement statute), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 480, 160 L.Ed.2d 356 (2004), and reh'g en banc granted, 396 F.3d 95 (2004) with Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d 1009, 1014-15 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that Section 2 applied to Washington's felon disenfranchise......
-
Muntaqim v. Coombe
...denial of certiorari, 543 U.S. 978, 125 S.Ct. 480 (2004), we revisited the case and agreed to rehear it en banc. Muntaqim v. Coombe, 396 F.3d 95, 95 (2d Cir.2004). The en banc court was convened to determine "whether, on the pleadings, a claim that a New York State statute, Section 5-106 of......
-
Felon disenfranchisement: law, history, policy, and politics.
...(212.) Muntaqim v. Coombe, 385 F.3d 793 (2d Cir. 2004), denying reh'g en banc to 366 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2004). (213.) Muntaqim v. Coombe, 396 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2004), granting reh'g en banc to 366 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. (214.) 338 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2003). (215.) Id. at 1011. (216.) Id. (217.) Id......
-
Felon Disenfranchisement
...T. (2004). Felon disenfranchisement and voter turnout. Journal of Legal Studies,33,85–128.Muntaqim v. Coombe, 396 F.3d 95, 95 (2d Cir. 2004).Pettit, B., & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and classinequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review,......