Beacham v. Braterman, Civ. No. 68-748.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 68-748. |
| Citation | 300 F. Supp. 182 |
| Parties | Rufus BEACHAM, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Martin BRATERMAN, as Supervisor of Registration for Dade County, Florida; Claude Kirk, Governor, Tom Adams, Secretary of State, Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., Comptroller, Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture, as members of the Pardon Board; and their successors in office, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
William D. du Fresne, Legal Services Program, Inc., Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., T. T. Turnbull, James McGuirk, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.
Before SIMPSON, Circuit Judge, and ATKINS and EATON, District Judges.
Judgment Affirmed October 20, 1969. See 90 S.Ct. 153.
Plaintiff, a convicted felon attempted to register to vote in Dade County, Florida, and was refused the right to register solely because he was a convicted felon whose civil rights had not been restored. He applied for a pardon, which would have included a restoration of his civil rights, and his application was denied. Neither the Governor of Florida nor members of the State Cabinet have established specific standards to be applied to the consideration of petitions for pardon.
The cause was filed as a class action. However, by agreement of the parties, the matter was heard on stipulated facts, memoranda briefs and oral argument. It was understood by the parties that the procedural steps outlined in Rule 23(c) (2) and (3), Fed.R.Civ.P., would not be followed. Therefore, the cause has not been maintained as a class action.
The Plaintiff challenges the following Florida constitutional and statutory provisions:
Article IV. Section 8, Florida Constitution, 1969, F.S.A.:
Article VI, Section 4, Florida Constitution, 1969:
Florida Statute 97.041(5) (d), F.S.A.
Florida Statute 940.05, F.S.A.
He says that each violates the rights of citizenship, equal protection of law and due process of law secured by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He seeks to enjoin the Supervisor of Registration for Dade County, Florida, from enforcing those Florida constitutional and statutory provisions. As an alternative to an injunction entered against the Supervisor of Registration, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Governor of Florida from continuing to grant and deny petitions for pardons in a purely discretionary manner without resort to specific standards which are not more stringent than those required of registrants who have not been convicted of a felony.
During oral argument counsel for the Plaintiff stressed that the attack here is upon the constitutional and statutory provisions and not upon the pardon power itself. However, for all practical purposes, Florida's right to disenfranchise convicted felons is being challenged and the discretionary exercise of the pardon power by the executive branch of Florida's government is being challenged.
I. The initial question before the Court is whether a state may constitutionally exclude from the franchise persons otherwise qualified to vote who have been convicted of a felony. We hold that the state may do so and that the Florida constitutional and statutory provisions which effect that exclusion are valid.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Green v. Board of Elections of the City of New York, 380 F.2d 445 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1048, 88 S.Ct. 768, 19 L.Ed.2d 840, recently addressed itself to that question and decided that it presented an insubstantial issue which did not require the convening of a three judge court. We agree with that Court that "even though the precise issue has not arisen before the Supreme Court, the propriety of excluding felons from the franchise has been so frequently recognized — indeed put forward by the Justices to illustrate what the states may properly do — that such expressions cannot be dismissed as unconsidered dicta." (Emphasis theirs.) See such expressions in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 346-347, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890); Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 122, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567 n. 13, (1946); Tropp v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 96-97, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (Warren, C. J.); Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 51, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959) (Douglas, J.); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) (Douglas, J.); and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 673, 675 n. 4, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966) (dissenting opinion of Black, J.).
II. The succeeding question is whether it is a denial of equal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Brown
...Board of Elections of City of New York (2d Cir. 1967) 380 F.2d 445; Kronlund v. Honstein (N.D.Ga.1971) 327 F.Supp. 71; Beacham v. Braterman (S.D.Fla.1969) 300 F.Supp. 182, motion to affirm granted without opinion, 396 U.S. 12, 90 S.Ct. 153, 24 L.Ed.2d 11.) Later federal decisions have appro......
-
Jones v. Governor of Fla., No. 20-12003
...due process grounds both the disenfranchisement and the reenfranchisement provisions of the 1968 constitution. See Beacham v. Braterman , 300 F. Supp. 182, 183 (S.D. Fla.), aff'd , 396 U.S. 12, 90 S.Ct. 153, 24 L.Ed.2d 11 (1969). A three-judge panel of the Southern District of Florida uphel......
-
Richardson v. Ramirez 8212 1589
...felons. Fincher v. Scott, 352 F.Supp. 117 (MDNC1972), aff'd, 411 U.S. 961, 93 S.Ct. 2151, 36 L.Ed.2d 681 (1973); Beacham v. Braterman, 300 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.Fla.), aff'd, 396 U.S. 12, 90 S.Ct. 153, 24 L.Ed.2d 11 (1969). Both District Courts relied on Green v. Board of Elections, 380 F.2d 445......
-
Hand v. Scott
...felons who are more than six-feet tall").Defendants assert two cases foreclose Plaintiffs' equal protection claim. Beacham v. Braterman , 300 F.Supp. 182, 183 (S.D. Fla. 1969)aff'd 396 U.S. 12, 90 S.Ct. 153, 24 L.Ed.2d 11 (1969), and Shepherd , 575 F.2d 1110. But this Court finds neither ca......
-
Felon disenfranchisement: law, history, policy, and politics.
...F. Supp. 117 (M.D.N.C. 1972), aff'd, 411 U.S. 961 (1973); Kronlund v. Honstein 327 F. Supp. 71 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Beacham v. Braterman, 300 F. Supp. 182 (S.D. Fla. 1969), aff'd, 396 U.S. 12 (1969)). Challenges have also been made under other theories, but none have been very successful. See H......
-
Civil death is different: an examination of a post-Graham challenge to felon disenfranchisement under the Eighth Amendment.
...Green, 380 F.2d at 452; Fincher, 352 F. Supp. at 119; Kronlund v. Honstein, 327 F. Supp. 71, 74 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Beacham v. Braterman, 300 F. Supp. 182, 184 (S.D. Fla. 1969), aff'd, 396 U.S. 12 (59) See infra Part III for a more detailed analysis of the Green court's holding that felon dise......