Thompson v. State, CASE NO. 2:16–CV–783–WKW
Citation | 293 F.Supp.3d 1313 |
Decision Date | 26 December 2017 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:16–CV–783–WKW |
Parties | Treva THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama |
Aderson B. Francois, Pro Hac Vice, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center, Danielle Lang, Joseph Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center, Jessica Ring Amunson, Pro Hac Vice, Jenner & Block LLP, Patrick D. Llewellyn, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, Armand Derfner, Derfner & Altman LLC, Charleston, SC, James Uriah Blacksher, Attorney at Law, Birmingham, AL, Joseph Mitchell McGuire, McGuire & Associates LLC, Montgomery, AL, Pamela Karlan, Pro Hac Vice, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew L. Brasher, James William Davis, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Brad A. Chynoweth, Laura Elizabeth Howell, Mary Mangan, Winfield James Sinclair, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.
Under Alabama law, an individual of voting age who commits a "felony involving moral turpitude" forfeits his or her right to vote. Ala. Const. art. VIII, § 177 (b). Restoration of the right to vote is available only after the felon has completed all the terms of his or her sentence, which includes full payment of all fines, court costs, fees, and restitution. Ala. Code § 15–22–36.1 (2016). In this putative class action against the State of Alabama and its officials, Plaintiffs contend that these laws—section 177(b) of Article VIII of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, and section 15 – 22 – 36.1 of the Alabama Code—violate the federal constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Plaintiffs allege that, due to their felony convictions or their financial inability to satisfy the monetary obligations associated with their convictions, they cannot vote in the State of Alabama.
In a prior Order, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and noted that a memorandum opinion would follow. (Doc. # 75.) This is that opinion. For the reasons to follow, Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are due to be dismissed either for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), (h)(3). But this action will proceed as to Counts 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13.
Subject-matter jurisdiction is exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, with the exception of the counts over which this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction for the reasons discussed below. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard articulated by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 provides that the complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. AvMed, Inc. , 693 F.3d 1317, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2012). However, the court need not accept mere legal conclusions as true. Id. at 1325.
To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Additionally, notwithstanding the alleged facts, Rule 12(b)(6)"[d]ismissal is ... permitted ‘when on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action.’ " Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc. , 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Marshall Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cty. Gas Dist. , 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993) ); see also Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 326–27, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) ( ).
"If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). " Rule 12(h)(3) motions are subject to the same standard as motions brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Peterson v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc. , 970 F.Supp. 246, 248–49 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). In this case, the mootness inquiry is resolved on the complaint and the undisputed post-suit enactment of HB 282, as discussed in Part V.E., and, thus, presents a factual challenge. See Williamson v. Tucker , 645 F.2d 404, 413–14 (5th Cir. 1981)1 ( ).
In the beginning, section 182 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 denied the right to vote to individuals convicted of "any ... crime involving moral turpitude," be it a misdemeanor or a felony. Ala. Const. art. VII, § 182 (repealed 1996). Eighty-four years after the adoption of section 182, on a challenge to its application to misdemeanors, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hunter v. Underwood , 471 U.S. 222, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), held that section 182's "original enactment was motivated by a desire to discriminate against blacks on account of race," the impact of which had continued up to that point. Id. at 233, 105 S.Ct. 1916. Thus, the Court struck down section 182's disenfranchisement provision as applied to misdemeanor offenses on grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court expressly declined to decide whether section 182"would be valid if enacted today without any impermissible motivation." Id.
A decade after the Court's decision in Hunter , the Alabama Legislature replaced section 182. In 1996, the Alabama Legislature unanimously passed Amendment 579, and the state's voters ratified the amendment thereafter. Amendment 579—hereinafter referred to and cited as section 177 (b)2 —provides that "[n]o person convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude ... shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil and political rights." Ala. Const. art. VIII, § 177(b). Section 177 (b) thus restricted disenfranchisement to individuals convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude and effectively re-enfranchised individuals convicted of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude.
Section 177 (b), the same as its predecessor, did not define "moral turpitude." The Alabama Constitution of 1901—and, until earlier this year, the Alabama Code—contained no definition of the phrase. As a result, the state's county boards of registrars had the unenviable task of sorting through "Alabama case law or, in absence of a court precedent, opinions of the Alabama Attorney General to determine whether" a given crime was a crime of moral turpitude. Hunter , 471 U.S. at 226, 105 S.Ct. 1916 ; Pippin v. State , 197 Ala. 613, 616, 73 So. 340 (1916) ( ). The Alabama Attorney General and the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts attempted to define the phrase in 2005, 2007, and 2008. (See Compl. ¶¶ 24–30, 32–35); see generally Chapman v. Gooden , 974 So.2d 972, 976 (Ala. 2007) ( ). But, as alleged in the Complaint, this administrative guidance "is non-exhaustive, non-authoritative, vague, and internally inconsistent." (Compl. ¶ 23.)
The phrase "moral turpitude" evaded an authoritative definition until after the filing of this lawsuit. In its 2017 regular session, the Alabama Legislature defined the phrase "moral turpitude" for the first time when it unanimously passed the Felony Voter Disqualification Act, House Bill 282 ("HB 282"). Governor Kay Ivey signed HB 282 into law on May 25, 2017, and HB 282 went into effect on August 1, 2017.
HB 282, which now is codified at section 17–3–30.1 of the Alabama Code, enumerates a list of more than forty Alabama felonies that "involv[e] ‘moral turpitude’ " within the meaning of section 177 (b). Only the Alabama felony convictions listed prohibit an individual from voting in Alabama. HB 282 sets out its purposes, which are:
Ala. Code § 17–3–30.1(b)(2) (2017).
Section 177 (b) provides an exception to voter disqualification where the individual convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude has had his or her "civil and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Easley
... ... Easley filed her written closing on September 6, 2016. [Docs. 33, 34]. STANDARD When ruling on a motion to suppress, the Court must state its essential findings on the record. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d) ("When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its ... at 14 (citing to U.S. v. Thompson , 546 F.3d 1223, 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) ("[t]he presence of other citizens during a police encounter is one factor suggesting its consensual nature") ... ...
-
Jones v. Desantis
...v. Bredesen , 624 F.3d 742, 751 (6th Cir. 2010) ; Harvey v. Brewer , 605 F.3d 1067, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ; Thompson v. Alabama , 293 F. Supp. 3d 1313, 1332-33 (M.D. Ala. 2017) ; Coronado v. Napolitano , No. cv-07-1089-PHX-SMM, 2008 WL 191987 at *4-5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2008).This does not, h......
-
Jones v. DeSantis
...v. Bredesen , 624 F.3d 742, 751 (6th Cir. 2010) ; Harvey v. Brewer , 605 F.3d 1067, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ; Thompson v. Alabama , 293 F. Supp. 3d 1313, 1332-33 (M.D. Ala. 2017) ; Coronado v. Napolitano , No. cv-07-1089-PHX-SMM, 2008 WL 191987 at *4-5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2008).This does not, h......
-
N.C. A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. The N.C. State Bd. of Elections
... ... factor." Hunter, 471 U.S. at 228 (internal ... quotation marks and citation omitted). "Only the first ... step [of this process] is relevant at the Rule 12(b)(6) ... motion-to-dismiss stage, where the pleadings are under ... scrutiny." Thompson v. Alabama, 293 F.Supp.3d ... 1313, 1321 (M.D. Ala. 2017) ... Here, ... considering the DA Defendants' arguments and taking the ... allegations in light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the ... undersigned concludes that the Amended Complaint states a ... ...
-
New Tricks for an Old Dog: Deterring the Vote Through Confusion in Felon Disenfranchisement.
...39 RUTGERS L.J. 1101, 1109 (2008). (78.) United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2333 (2019). (79.) Thompson v. Alabama, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1313, 1321 (M.D. Ala. (80.) Hunter v. Underwood, 730 F.2d 614, 615-16 (11th Cir. 1984); Thompson 293 F. Supp. 3d at 1316. For the ugly history of Alabama......