Richardson v. Ramirez
United States Supreme Court
418 U.S. 24 (1974)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
After three convicted felons, Ramirez, Lee, and Gill (plaintiffs) fully served their prison sentences and paroles, they sought to register to vote in their respective California counties. The county clerks (defendants) denied registration on the basis of Article XX, § 11 of the California Constitution, which excluded convicted felons from voting in state elections even after any prison time and parole ended. Ramirez, Lee, and Gill filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court, seeking an order requiring the county clerks to register them as voters. Ramirez, Lee, and Gill asserted that the state constitutional provision disenfranchising felons violated felons’ equal-protection rights under § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The clerks countered that § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment supported that disenfranchising felons did not violate § 1. The California Supreme Court held in Ramirez, Lee, and Gill’s favor, holding that the California disenfranchisement provision violated federal equal protection. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.