Hunter v. Underwood
471 U.S. 222 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A facially neutral state law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in its enactment and that the law would not have been adopted 'but for' this discriminatory purpose.
Facts:
- Article VIII, § 182 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 provided for the disenfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes, including a broad category of offenses 'involving moral turpitude.'
- Carmen Edwards, a Black man, and Victor Underwood, a white man, were both barred from voting in Alabama after being convicted of the misdemeanor of presenting a worthless check, which was classified as a crime of moral turpitude.
- The 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention, which drafted § 182, was convened with the publicly stated purpose of establishing white supremacy in the state.
- The drafters of § 182 expanded the list of disenfranchising crimes from the previous constitution, deliberately including misdemeanors like adultery and wife-beating, which were believed by the delegates to be more frequently committed by Black people.
- Immediately following its enactment, § 182 was estimated to have disenfranchised approximately ten times as many Black voters as white voters, and this disproportionate racial impact persisted to the time of the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Carmen Edwards and Victor Underwood filed a lawsuit against the County Boards of Registrars in the U.S. District Court, alleging § 182 violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The District Court certified a plaintiff class of persons disenfranchised for misdemeanor convictions and a defendant class of all Alabama County Boards of Registrars.
- The District Court ruled in favor of the Boards of Registrars, finding that the plaintiffs had not proven that the disenfranchisement provision itself was based on the racism present at the constitutional convention.
- The plaintiffs (appellees) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that its finding on intent was clearly erroneous and that the provision violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Boards of Registrars (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision of a state constitution that disenfranchises persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black voters, even if it was also intended to disenfranchise poor white voters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The provision violates the Equal Protection Clause because its enactment was motivated by racial discrimination. A facially neutral law is unconstitutional if racial discrimination was a 'substantial' or 'motivating' factor in its passage, and the law would not have been enacted but for this motivation. The Court found overwhelming evidence that the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention's purpose was to establish white supremacy and that § 182 was a tool to achieve that end. The state's argument that the provision was also intended to disenfranchise poor whites does not save it; an additional impermissible motive does not negate the fact that racial animus was a 'but-for' cause of the law's enactment. The provision's original discriminatory taint is not cleansed by the passage of time, as it continues to have a racially discriminatory effect.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the 'motivating factor' test from Arlington Heights to voting rights laws with historical discriminatory intent. It clarifies that a law enacted with a 'but-for' racially discriminatory purpose violates the Equal Protection Clause, even if other motivations, such as disenfranchising poor whites, were also present. The decision makes it difficult for states to defend facially neutral laws that have clear, documented origins in racial animus and continue to produce a disparate racial impact. It affirms that courts can and should look behind the text of a law to its historical context and purpose to adjudicate Equal Protection claims.
Unlock the full brief for Hunter v. Underwood