The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit yesterday issued this interesting opinion in Young v. Hosemann, rejecting a constitutional challenge to Mississippi’s disenfranchisement of felons. Although it’s an equal protection case, the outcome turns primarily on the meaning of Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution. Plaintiffs maintain that this section permits them to vote in presidential elections and, therefore, that Mississippi has denied them equal protection by preventing them from registering.
Section 241 generally disqualifies a person from voting if he or she has been convicted of certain enumerated felonies, but then says: “…except that he shall be qualified to vote for President and Vice President of the United States if he meets the requirements established by Congress therefor and is otherwise a qualified elector.” Judge Edith Jones’ opinion for the court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that this language creates an exception to the ban on felons voting. According to Judge Jones, plaintiffs’ intepretation “defies logic.” The court instead concludes that one must both meet the requirements set by Congress and be qualified to vote under state law — which includes not having been convicted of an enumerated felony — in order to vote in presidential elections. Finding the language “perfectly clear and perfectly contrary to the construction” urged by plaintiffs, the court declines to abstain or certify the question to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Is the language really so clear? I don’t think so. If anything, plaintiffs’ intepretation seems more natural to me — but then I come at this from a very different perspective than does Judge Jones.