X

Dear ProCon.org readers: This non-partisan non-profit oasis of truth on the Internet simply cannot exist without your support. Your donations keep the research flowing, the servers on, and millions of minds fed. Would you consider making a one-time (or monthly) tax-deductible donation to ProCon.org of at least $10? Thank you.
Dear ProCon.org readers: You know the world needs reliable, unbiased information on important issues – now more than ever. That's why you love ProCon.org, a nonprofit educational organization that provides – for free and without ads – nonpartisan facts, well-researched pros and cons, and a platform for critical thinking on today’s hottest topics to millions of students, teachers, and others. Please support ProCon.org with your tax-deductible donation in our fund drive.

If everyone who used ProCon.org donated $1, the charity would be around for decades. Millions visit but few give. This oasis of truth on the Internet simply cannot exist without your support.Your donations keep the research flowing, the servers on, and millions of minds fed. Would you consider donating at least $10 a year or becoming a recurring monthly donor? Thank you for supporting ProCon.org.
SUPPORT PROCON.ORGX





In Madison v. Washington, a 5-2 decison was handed down on July 26, 2007 by Washington's Supreme Court, which stated:

"We hold that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. [...]

The privileges and immunities clause does reflect, in part, our framers' concerns with 'undue political influence exercised by those with large concentrations of wealth' and 'avoiding favoritism toward the wealthy.' Grant County II, 150 Wn.2d at 808. However, such concerns are not triggered by Washington's felon disenfranchisement scheme because it grants the 'privilege' of restoration of voting rights 'upon the same terms . . . equally . . . to all citizens.'"
July 26, 2007 Madison v. Washington (PDF 158 KB)

(Read more about this issue in our question "Should felons have to pay all fines, fees, and restitutions related to their conviction before regaining their vote?")

Published Opinion in Madison v. Washington:
  1. Majority Opinion (PDF 158 KB) (written by Justice Mary Fairhurst, co-signed by Justices Susan Owens and Bobbe J. Bridge)
  2. Concurrence (by Justice Barbara Madsen) (PDF 81 KB)
  3. Concurrence (by Justice James Johnson) (PDF 89 KB)
  4. Dissent (by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander) (PDF 87 KB)
  5. Dissent (by Justice Tom Chambers) (PDF 71 KB)