Perry v. Beamer
Decision Date | 23 July 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 2:96cv265.,2:96cv265. |
Citation | 933 F. Supp. 556 |
Parties | George Earl PERRY, Plaintiff, v. Betsy Davis BEAMER, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
George Earl Perry, Suffolk, VA, for plaintiff.
James Walter Hopper, Office of Attorney General-VA, Richmond, VA, for defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on a motion by the defendant, Betsy Davis Beamer ("Beamer"), to dismiss this action because of the plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the defendant's motion.
When deciding a motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court assumes the truth of the allegations set forth in the complaint. See Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 828, 114 S.Ct. 93, 126 L.Ed.2d 60 (1993). The plaintiff, George Earl Perry ("Perry"), avers that he attempted to register to vote on December 13, 1995 in Suffolk, Virginia. Upon informing Suffolk's Registrar of Voting, Patsy P. Bremer ("Bremer"), of his felony conviction, however, Bremer denied him the opportunity to register to vote.
On December 29, 1995, Perry wrote to Beamer, Secretary of the Commonwealth, concerning his attempt to register. Beamer responded to Perry's letter, explaining that Perry, thereafter filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff contends that, by denying convicted felons the right to vote, the Constitution of Virginia violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 Perry bases this contention on the fact that, like all Americans — felons and nonfelons — are required to do, he pays his taxes. In effect, Perry claims that, as a felon, he suffers "taxation without representation."
Perry concludes that amending the United States Constitution would provide the only constitutional method by which felons can lose their right to vote. Based on this conclusion, the plaintiff asks this Court to declare unconstitutional Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia.2 Perry, thereafter, would require an order from this Court enjoining the Commonwealth of Virginia from disenfranchising him and other felons in state and federal elections.
The question of whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the States from disenfranchising felons arose repeatedly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Nearly every court considering the question held that the States were well within their constitutional boundaries to prohibit felons from voting. See, e.g., Fincher v. Scott, 352 F.Supp. 117, 119 (M.D.N.C.1972), aff'd 411 U.S. 961, 93 S.Ct. 2151, 36 L.Ed.2d 681 (1973) (three-judge District Court panel) ("We think that a state may constitutionally continue the `historic exclusion' of felons from the franchise without regard to whether such exclusion can pass muster under the Equal Protection Clause."); Kronlund v. Honstein, 327 F.Supp. 71, 73 (N.D.Ga.1971) (three-judge District Court panel) ("A State has an interest in preserving the integrity of her electoral process by removing from the process those persons with proven anti-social behavior whose behavior can be said to be destructive of society's aims."); Beacham v. Braterman, 300 F.Supp. 182, 184 (S.D.Fla.), aff'd, 396 U.S. 12, 90 S.Ct. 153, 24 L.Ed.2d 11 (1969) (three-judge District Court panel) ("a state may constitutionally exclude from the franchise persons otherwise qualified to vote who have been convicted of a felony") that ; Green v. Bd. of Elections of City of New York, 380 F.2d 445, 451 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1048, 88 S.Ct. 768, 19 L.Ed.2d 840 (1968) ( ). One court, however, found that New Jersey's specific practice of disenfranchisement violated equal protection. See Stephens v. Yeomans, 327 F.Supp. 1182, 1188 (D.N.J.1970) (three-judge District Court panel) (statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because of its "totally irrational and inconsistent classification" of crimes that gave rise to disenfranchisement) that New Jersey's disenfranchisement . But see Fincher, 352 F.Supp. at 118 ().
The Supreme Court's authoritative decision in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 94 S.Ct. 2655, 41 L.Ed.2d 551 (1974) effectively "closed the door on the equal protection argument in a challenge to state statutory voting disqualification for conviction of crime." Allen v. Ellisor, 664 F.2d 391, 395 (4th Cir.) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 454 U.S. 807, 102 S.Ct. 80, 70 L.Ed.2d 76 (1981). Writing for the Court, then-Justice Rehnquist explained that "the understanding of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of § 2 and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment's applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise which have been held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause by this Court." Richardson, 418 U.S. at 54, 94 S.Ct. at 2671.
The Court in Richardson specifically rejected the respondents' argument that the Supreme Court's "decisions invalidating other state-imposed restrictions on the franchise as violative of the Equal Protection Clause require the Court to invalidate the disenfranchisement of felons as well." Id. at 54, 94 S.Ct. at 2670-71; see, e.g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972), Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); ( that Texas' primary election filing fee system violated equal protection)Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969) ( ); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969) ( ). The Court discounted this argument because of the "affirmative sanction in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment" that permitted the States to disenfranchise convicted felons. Richardson, 418 U.S. at 54, 94 S.Ct. at 2670-71. According to the Justices, the Fourteenth Amendment's express language excepting from the franchise those involved "in rebellion, or other crime" means exactly what it says — the States may disenfranchise criminals. Id.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Richardson, at least two courts in this Circuit have upheld efforts by individual states to disenfranchise criminals. See, e.g., Allen, 664 F.2d at 399 ( ); Thiess v. State Administrative Bd. of Election Laws, 387 F.Supp. 1038, 1041 (D.Md. 1974) ( ); see also Wilson v. Goodwyn, 522 F.Supp. 1214, 1216 (E.D.N.C. 1981) (). Despite this impressive collection of authority arrayed against him, the plaintiff asks this Court to declare unconstitutional Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and to enjoin state election officials from enforcing its provisions.
In his brief, the plaintiff repeatedly relies upon U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995). Thornton, however, has no bearing on the issue before this Court. The Court in Thornton held that the States, consistent with the Constitution, could not add to or alter the qualifications of their federal representatives. Id. at ___, 115 S.Ct. at 1866. In fact, none of the Justices — neither those in the majority nor those in the dissent — even cited to Richardson, the controlling authority in this case.
Id. (emphasis added). The readmission of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Dunham v. HOTELERA CANCO SA DE CV
-
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children v. Bowen
...the different provisions address different subjects . . . .'" (Harvey v. Napolitano, supra, 2008 WL 4277951 at p. *6.) Perry v. Beamer (1996) 933 F.Supp. 556 is similar. There, the plaintiff challenged Virginia's disenfranchisement of all persons "convicted of a felony." Noting that one of ......
-
El-Amin v. McDonnell
...in a previous case, but it considered no events past the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. See Perry v. Beamer, 933 F. Supp. 556, 559 (E.D. Va. 1996) (Doumar, J.), aff'd, 99 F.3d 1130, 1996 WL 614688 (4th Cir. 1996). One of El-Amin's main arguments centers on the re-adoption......
-
Felon disenfranchisement: law, history, policy, and politics.
...T. READ & LUCY S. MCGOUGH, LET THEM BE JUDGED: THE JUDICIAL INTEGRATION OF THE DEEP SOUTH 308 (1978). (76.) See Perry v. Beamer, 933 F. Supp. 556, 558 (E.D. Va. 1996) (citing Fincher v. Scott, 352 F. Supp. 117 (M.D.N.C. 1972), aff'd, 411 U.S. 961 (1973); Kronlund v. Honstein 327 F. Supp......