At 2:30 Tuesday afternoon the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on an important felon voting case. Madison v. Washington is an appeal of a King County Superior Court ruling that said
Washington's law that bars felons from voting until they pay off all court-ordered payments violates the state and U.S. constitutions. In that March decision Judge Michael Spearman wrote:

"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights."

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of three four felons who were unable to pay their court-ordered fines and payments argues that Washington's law "has made affluence a voter qualification."

In its brief to the Supreme Court the state argues instead that felons make a personal choice in committing a crime, so they choose to give up the right to vote.

"Commission of a felony, unlike other potential barriers to the exercise of the franchise, is at root an individual choice. Disenfranchisement resulting from a felony conviction stems ultimately from a 'conscious decision to commit a criminal act for which they assume the risk of detention and punishment.' Wesley, 791 F.2d at 1262. It hardly is irrational to require a person who chooses to commit a felony to complete the terms of their punishment — to fully pay their debt to society — prior to being restored to their civil rights and allowed to again participate in the political process. A person who makes the conscious decision to break the law can fairly be regarded as having abandoned the right to further participate in making the law, or in electing officials who do so. Green v Bd. Of Elections, 380 F.2d at 451."

The ACLU says in its brief that the state has created a "wealth-based classification."

"The State's invocation of a Lockian social contract theory may explain the reasons for felony disenfranchisement, but it is not a rational basis for selective vote restoration. On the state's theory, both rich felons and poor felons are 'perpetrators of serious crimes' who have 'proven themselves unwilling to abide by the laws' and thus 'can fairy be regarded as having abandoned the right to further participate in making the law.' Brief of Appellants at 21. It is not rational to deem Plaintiffs unqualified to vote for these reasons, while deeming other ex-felons qualified to vote simply because they had the financial resource to pay their LFO (legal financial obligations) balance in full."

The case has gotten a lot of national attention. The New York Times said in an editorial that Washington's law was an example of Dickensian Democracy.

There are three friends of the court briefs filed on behalf of the felons. One filed by, among others, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of law, the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and minority bar associations, argues:

"Washington's law is exceptionally harsh, even within the domestic spectrum, and the United States enforces some of the most restrictive felony disenfranchisement laws in the world. Washington's law also has a severe disproportionate impact on the state's minority communities. Felony disenfranchisement is tainted by racial oppression in this country, and the continuing disproportionate impact of the practice reflects this history."

You can watch the oral arguments Tuesday at 2:30 on TVW.

You can read more at the Secretary of State's site, the ACLU of Washington and the Brennan Center.