US Supreme Court rebuffs Virginia's bid to scuttle felon voting ban challenge
WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear Virginia's bid to scuttle a lawsuit challenging an 1869 state constitutional provision that imposes a lifetime voting ban on convicted felons, one of the toughest restrictions in the United States.
The justices turned away an appeal by Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, a Republican, of a lower court's ruling that let the lawsuit led by two would-be voters in the state with felony records proceed.
Virginia is one of just three U.S. states that imposes a lifetime ban on voting for all people with felony convictions unless the government restores an individual's ability to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice public policy institute.
In 2023, Virginians Tati King and Toni Johnson, who were disenfranchised due to past felony convictions, and an advocacy group filed a class action lawsuit aiming to block state officials from enforcing the ban.
King was convicted in 2018 of felony drug possession, according to court papers. Johnson was convicted in 2021 of multiple felonies including drug possession and child endangerment. The plaintiffs are backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Their convictions triggered the disenfranchisement provision of Virginia's constitution adopted in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865 stating that no person who has been convicted of a felony "shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the governor or other appropriate authority."
The plaintiffs argued that their disenfranchisement violated an 1870 federal law known as the Virginia Readmission Act that restored the state's congressional representation after the Civil War. Virginia, which had allowed slavery, was one of the states that had seceded during the Civil War.
While the 1870 federal law did allow Virginia to punish felons by stripping them of their vote, the statute said this penalty applied to "such crimes as are now felonies at common law." The plaintiffs, backed by the ACLU, argued that only crimes that were felonies at the time of the law's enactment can lead to disenfranchisement - which would exclude the convictions of the plaintiffs in the case.
"The act's purpose was to prevent Virginia from manipulating statutory criminal law to disenfranchise Black voters - specifically, from convicting and disenfranchising newly freed Black residents based on statutory crimes that were not felonies at the time Virginia entered the Union," the plaintiffs wrote in court papers.
Following the Civil War, policies of racial segregation and disenfranchisement of Black people were broadly enforced by white leaders in numerous U.S. states including Virginia using what were called Jim Crow laws.
Virginia's attorney general sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it was barred by a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity that allows a government to be sued only if it has consented.
A federal judge in a March 2024 ruling held that the lawsuit satisfied an exception to sovereign immunity and could proceed against state officials. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the suit could move forward, prompting state officials to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The justices in January declined to hear a challenge to Mississippi's lifetime ban on voting by people convicted of a wide range of felonies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump comes, not to bury Nato, but to save it
This week Nato will mark its first 76 years at its summit in The Hague. All eyes will be on Donald Trump and his robust 'America First' approach on the world stage, which has already involved the use of decisive military force against Iran's nuclear facilities. The US president has been a firm critic of Nato, but has also been responsible for a dramatic revival of the alliance. Trump has made it clear that Nato's survival depends on America's fellow members stepping up to fully participate in burden sharing with the US. The Russians have clearly viewed Nato as weak and divided and are increasingly willing to test its resolve. The US presidency must apply concerted pressure on America's allies to do far more to foster partnership rather than dependency, especially as the United States must increasingly focus on the immense threat in the Indo-Pacific presented by Communist China. In 2024, only 22 Nato members spent the 2 per cent of GDP on defence agreed to by the alliance in 2014. This is unacceptable. It leaves the alliance dangerously vulnerable when it should be projecting strength and resolve. Countries that spent less than 2 per cent of real GDP on defence last year included Italy (1.5 per cent), Canada (1.4 per cent), Spain (1.3 per cent), and Belgium (1.3 per cent). In contrast, Poland (4.1 per cent), Estonia (3.4 per cent), Latvia (3.2 per cent), and Greece (3.1 per cent) all spent above 3 per cent of GDP. Justin Trudeau's now departed Canadian government was among the very worst Nato slackers, consistently underinvesting in Canada's military with shockingly low figures for a nation with the 10 th largest GDP in the world. His successor as prime minister, Mark Carney, has vowed to raise Canadian defence spending to 2 per cent, but this is simply not enough. Ottawa needs to be serious about Nato's mission, and playing a full part in the alliance in the coming decades. As Heritage Foundation research has shown, 'European Nato members have collectively underfunded their own defence by $827.91 billion since 2014 – nearly equal to the entire annual US defence budget.' This is a staggering figure – a damning indictment of a culture of complacency and dependency in many Nato allies over the past decade. Not only should every Nato member immediately invest the minimum agreed level of spending on their own defence, they should also commit to matching the current US level of 3.5 per cent of GDP, and pledge to reach 5 per cent of GDP, which is expected to be the new benchmark set at the forthcoming Nato summit according to Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte. President Trump's pressure on Nato partners to spend more on defence is already having a major impact. After decades of reckless underinvestment, Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy and the biggest in Europe, has announced plans for a dramatic increase in defence spending, and has accepted in principle that German spending must eventually rise to 5 per cent of GDP if it is serious about defending its own borders from a potential attack by Russia. France, which has barely reached the agreed minimum 2 per cent of GDP on defence in recent years, has announced that it will push European defence spending levels to 3-3.5 per cent of GDP ahead of the Hague summit. Even Belgium, one of Nato's most lacklustre members, has declared it will boost defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. The UK has just announced a $20 billion investment in its nuclear warhead programme, and the construction of 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines, as part of its new Strategic Defence Review, released this month. The Baltic States and Poland are already building on their robust records by pledging significant further increases in the years ahead. Poland will spend 4.7 per cent of GDP on defence this year, while Estonia has committed to spending 5.4 per cent through until 2029. Lithuania will spend 5-6 per cent on defence from 2026 to 2030, and Latvia will spend 5 per cent by 2026. The positive developments in Europe should be warmly welcomed in Washington. In just the first few months of his presidency, Donald Trump has already significantly strengthened Nato. President Trump is not the alliance's destroyer, as his critics have alleged, but is in fact its saviour. Previous US presidents had urged European allies to do more, but their entreaties fell on deaf ears. It took the no-nonsense straight talk of Donald Trump to make European leaders sit up and take notice. In many ways the Trump presidency has been the antithesis of the weak-kneed Biden presidency. The humiliating debacle of Biden's reckless Afghanistan withdrawal would not have happened under Donald Trump, and nor would Russia's reckless invasion of Ukraine. With bold US leadership at the helm, Nato still has the vision, capacity and energy to thrive and prosper for another 76 years. American exceptionalism is the most powerful force for liberty in the world today. It is greatly strengthened by America's alliances with key partners, and Nato is at the very heart of the transatlantic partnership.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump rages at Russia's Medvedev for using ‘N-word' in threat to supply Iran with nukes: ‘That's why Putin's The Boss'
President Donald Trump on Monday hailed America's 'powerful' and 'lethal' nuclear-powered submarine fleet as he condemned Russian ex-president Dmitry Medvedev's suggestion that Moscow and Iran's allies could provide Iran with nuclear warheads following U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. Medvedev — who served as Russia's president from 2008 to 2012 and as prime minister from 2012 to 2020 — had criticized the attack on Iran's Fordow, Esfahan and Natanz facilities that had been carried out on Saturday by seven B-2 bombers and a group of fighter aircraft accompanying them into American airspace. He wrote that 'a number of countries' were 'ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads' as a result of the U.S. strikes, which were intended to degrade or destroy Iran's capacity to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels and assemble working nuclear or thermonuclear weapons. Trump reacted with incredulity on his Truth Social platform on Monday. 'Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the 'N word' (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran?' the president wrote. 'Did he really say that or, is it just a figment of my imagination? If he did say that, and, if confirmed, please let me know, IMMEDIATELY,' he said. The 'N word' — which Trump has repeatedly invoked as a euphemism for 'nuclear' — 'should not be treated so casually,' he wrote. The president added a dig at Medvedev for having been seen as a figurehead or placeholder president who lacked autonomy and authority compared with Putin. 'I guess that's why Putin's 'THE BOSS,'' he wrote. Trump also appeared to confirm the use of a guided missile submarine in the attack on Iran, writing that 'anyone' who 'thinks out 'hardware' was great over the weekend' should consider America's submarine fleet, calling them 'far and away the strongest and best equipment we have' and '20 years advanced over the pack.' 'They are the most powerful and lethal weapons ever built, and just launched the 30 Tomahawks — All 30 hit their mark perfectly,' he said. The president's mention of the U.S. submarine fleet's role in Saturday's events appeared to be an allusion to the variant of the Ohio -class boats which were designed — and are still used — to carry and launch American-made Trident II ballistic missiles topped with thermonuclear warheads. The U.S. Navy operates 18 such submarines, with four having been converted to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles and the remaining 14 serving as one-third of America's strategic nuclear 'triad' along with manned bombers and ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Trump has boasted that the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities using bunker-busting bombs and Tomahawks left each of the targets ' completely and totally obliterated,' writing on Truth Social that the 'biggest damage took place far below ground level' and calling the result a 'bullseye!!!" Satellite photos taken in the aftermath of the airstrikes show significant damage to Tehran's nuclear sites — but not necessarily to the extent claimed by the president. The pictures published by Maxar Technologies showed several craters and new holes on top of the ridge at the Fordow underground complex as well as tunnel entrances blocked by dirt. Iran has vowed to retaliate for the attacks and on Monday launched ballistic missiles at an American airbase in Qatar.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New York will build first major new US nuclear power plant in over 15 years
Kathy Hochul has announced plans to build a nuclear-power plant in New York, the first major new US plant in over 15 years, and one designed to add to add at least 1GW of nuclear power generation. The governor said in a statement that she had directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop and construct a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in upstate New York to support a reliable and affordable electric grid. 'As New York state electrifies its economy, deactivates aging fossil fuel power generation and continues to attract large manufacturers that create good-paying jobs, we must embrace an energy policy of abundance that centers on energy independence and supply chain security to ensure New York controls its energy future,' Hochul said. The governor described the plan as 'a critical energy initiative' that would complement the construction of renewable energy and the state agency would 'safely and rapidly deploy clean, reliable nuclear power for the benefit of all New Yorkers'. Hochul said that the nuclear plant would add zero-emission baseload power and help to advance New York's goal to achieve a clean energy economy. Renewable energy groups slammed the decision. 'NYPA has the power and mandate to build 15GW of renewables and should not let Trump promises lead New Yorkers away from it. After appointing a Republican to lead NYPA while remaining silent on its mandate to build wind and solar, Hochul's decision to step in based on promises from Donald Trump shows just how unserious she is about New Yorker's energy bills and climate future,' said a statement from the Public Power NY Coalition. It added: 'NYPA should be laser focused on rapidly scaling up their buildout of affordable solar and wind which is the only way to meet the state's science-based climate goals and lower energy bills.' The development will be a test of Donald Trump's executive orders to accelerate nuclear-power development in the US. But a site and reactor design has not been decided. One gigawatt of production is enough energy to power around a million homes. Nuclear plants currently produce about 19% of the country's electricity, down 4% from its 2012 peak. It is expected to decline further, though big technology companies have recently licensed power from ageing reactors to meet the demands of AI computing centers. Only five new commercial reactors have come online in the US since 1991 and electric utilities companies have forecast the US will need the equivalent of 34 new, full-size nuclear power plants over the next five years to meet power requirements. Last year, Microsoft signed a 20-year purchase agreement with the private generator Constellation that will see one of the reactors at Three Mile Island in Pennslyvannia restarted. Amazon signed a deal to purchase nuclear-generated power from the Susquehanna nuclear power plant, also in Pennsylvania, to supply data centers. Separately, Google announced a deal to purchase nuclear energy from small modular reactors (SMRs) and Amazonsaid it had signed agreements to invest in four SMRs in Washington state to power data centers in Oregon. Oracle is designing an AI data center to be powered by three SMRs. Given its geography, water supply and proximity of IBM and university tech research centers, Hochul is supporting plans to develop upstate New York into a tech center akin to Silicon Valley. But the state retired the Indian Point nuclear plant 40 miles from Manhattan in 2021 in part due to environmental concerns and because the hijacker-pilots of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade center used the twin reactor's domes along the Hudson river as sign posts. As one consequence of the closure, New York had to burn more fossil fuels, raising greenhouse-gas emissions even as local and state legislatures demanded a reaction. 'There was no Plan B,' Hochul told the Wall Street Journal on Monday. Trump's order to speed up regulatory approval of new nuclear power production could jump-start an industry that's been in decline for three decades because of safety concerns, cost overruns and an unfavorable political environment. But environmental groups have warned that the push for nuclear could also reduce regulatory controls related to health and safety. Earlier this month, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a plan that would repeal a landmark climate rule that aims to mostly eliminate greenhouse gases from power plants by the 2030s. Hochul told the outlet that she suggested to Trump that Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' should turn its attention to streamlining regulatory approval at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 'Why does it take a decade?' she said. 'That's why no one is doing it; the barriers are too high.'
