X

ProCon.org Feels Free, But It Isn't

You can always expect thoroughly researched pros, cons, and related information on today’s hottest topics at ProCon.org. Your tax-deductible donations keep this service free and ad-free for 25+ million students, teachers, journalists, and regular folks.
ProCon.org Feels Free, But It Isn't

You can always expect thoroughly researched pros, cons, and related information on today’s hottest topics at ProCon.org. Your tax-deductible donations keep this service free and ad-free for 25+ million students, teachers, journalists, and regular folks.

ProCon.org is needed now more than ever before. These are divisive times. Emotions are heightened. It’s harder to have respectful conversations and to find common ground. ProCon.org gives everyone an unbiased exploration of important issues to encourage understanding and critical thinking. We can all heal the increasing divide and ground conversations with facts. Millions use our site every year, but few give. We’re going to start changing that with your help. Thank you for making a donation today and for sharing ProCon.org with others.
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)