Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Second District Court of Appeals
Our fifth amicus brief in a series challenging Florida’s prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The Florida Second District Court of Appeals found that the OSP did not have jurisdiction and reserved the trial court’s conviction. You can read the decision here.
We thank Matthew R. Tuchman of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellees
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief challenges Mississippi’s voter disenfranchisement laws. The Fourteenth Amendment authorizes States to restrict citizens’ right to vote “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” But Mississippi’s system has ventured far beyond the bounds of that limited authority. The state disenfranchises people for life with felony convictions of bribery, perjury, timber larceny, bad checks, etc. This is a clear and arbitrary departure from the States that understand permanent disenfranchisement for what it is—among the most severe penalties our society can inflict.
Filed with Cato Institute.
In a 13-6 rehearing en banc decision, Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban was found to not violate the Eighth Amendment. You can read the decision from July 18, 2024 here.
We thank David Weiner, Andrew Tutt, Katie Weng, Kyle Lyons-Burke, Joseph Greenaway Jr, and Avishai Don of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Our fourth amicus brief in a series challenging Florida’s prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal unfortunately upheld Florida’s prosecutions. You can read the decision from July 17, 2024 here.
We thank Matthew R. Tuchman and Rachel R. Goldberg of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Our third amicus brief in a series challenging Florida’s prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled the trial court correctly dismissed the information against Washington because the OSP did not have authority to prosecute for the alleged crime of unauthorized voting. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Patricia J. Peña of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Our second amicus brief in a series challenging Florida’s prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The court held that the Office of Statewide Prosecution had authority under section 16.56(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes to bring voting fraud charges against a voter because the offense occurred in two Florida Judicial Circuits. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Matthew R. Tuchman of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
In this amicus brief, we argue the state’s prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so violates fundamental principles of fairness and due process. Voters assume that Florida’s actions—providing voter-information cards, failing to check eligibility in a timely fashion despite systems purportedly designed to do so, and actively permitting ineligible voters to remain on the rolls for years and cast ballots—qualify as the State’s assurance that the voters legally may vote, even if that is not correct. The State is best positioned—and legally required—to determine eligibility, and it should focus its resources on those efforts instead of prosecuting unwittingly ineligible voters.
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal unfortunately upheld Florida’s prosecutions. You can read the decision from July 17, 2024 here.
Due Process Institute thanks David Gossett, Matthew R. Tuchman, MaryAnn Almeida, and Rachel R. Goldberg of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellees
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief tackles the issue of disenfranchisement of individuals who have been convicted for certain crimes in Mississippi. DPI and amici argue that the broad nature of the state’s disenfranchisement practices are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Filed with Cato Institute and DKT Liberty Project.
The Fifth Circuit ruled Mississippi’s disenfranchisement for life law was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment. You can read the opinion from August 3, 2023 here.
We thank David Weiner, Andrew Tutt, Katie Weng, Kyle Lyons-Burke, and Avishai Don of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This amicus brief analyzes the intersection of the significant increase in the number of acts considered a felony and a practice in North Carolina that bars individuals with any felony record from voting. This brief argues that overcriminalization and the growth of “user-funded” justice in the United States make disenfranchisement look very different from its original intent.
Filed with Cato Institute.
The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s disenfranchisement law on April 28, 2023. You can read the decision here.
Due Process Institute thanks Abraham Rubert-Schewel of Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen and Tyce R. Walters of Latham & Watkins for their amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Superior Court of Wake County
TOPICS: disenfranchisement, right restoration
This amicus brief analyzes the intersection of the significant increase in the number of acts considered a felony and a practice in North Carolina that bars individuals with any felony record from voting. This brief argues that overcriminalization and the growth of “user-funded” justice in America make disenfranchisement look very different from its original intent.
The Superior Court of Wake County agreed with Due Process Institute and found that North Carolina’s statute barring individuals from voting simply because of a failure to pay fines and fees violated the state’s Constitution. You can read the court’s full order here.
Due Process Institute thanks Cheyenne N Chambers of Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen and Tyce R. Walters of Latham & Watkins for their amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Plaintiff
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
TOPICS: fines and fees, drivers license suspension
This amicus brief tackles the practical impacts of state policies that suspend an individual’s driver’s license solely on account of court debt. This practice has been found to be counterproductive for public safety, government revenue collection, and local economic growth. This brief summarizes the body of recent research and calls for the end of this practice in the state of Alabama.
The Eleventh Circuit returned this case to the US District Court for decision. You can read that decision here.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
Supreme Court of Florida
Our sixth amicus brief in a series challenging Florida’s prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
We thank David M. Gossett, Matthew R. Tuchman, MaryAnn Almeida, and Rachel R. Goldberg of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.