Voting Rights and Democracy

Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, et.al., v. Christine O. Gregoire, et. al

Farrakhan v. Gregoire involved a challenge to Washington State’s felon disenfranchisement statute under the Voting Rights Act’s nationwide prohibition on voting qualifications that have the result of discriminatorily denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race.

Case Summary

On June 11, 2011, CAC filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Farrakhan v. Gregoire, arguing that the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment give Congress broad power to proscribe racial discrimination in voting, including felon disenfranchisement laws that operate in tandem with racial discrimination in the criminal justice system to discriminatorily deny the vote to African Americans.

Farrakhan involves a challenge to Washington State’s felon disenfranchisement statute under the Voting Rights Act’s nationwide prohibition on voting qualifications that have the result of discriminatorily denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. The critical constitutional issue in the case is the relationship between Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the subsequent Fifteenth Amendment. CAC’s brief offers a comprehensive analysis of the text and history of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and demonstrates that Congress has ample power under the Fifteenth Amendment to ban racial discrimination in voting, including felon disenfranchisement statutes that result in a discriminatory denial of the right to vote. As the brief shows, the mention of criminal disenfranchisement in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not affect Congress’ power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination voting.

On October 7, 2010, the en banc Ninth Circuit held, in an unsigned and flawed per curiam opinion, that “a section 2 Voting Rights Act challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law based on the operation of a state’s criminal justice system must at least show that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional discrimination or that the felon disenfranchisement law was enacted with such intent.”

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
April 29, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority, Once Again, Guts the Voting Rights Act and Further Enables Racial Discrimination in Voting

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, a...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
April 15, 2026

David Gans on the History of the Reconstruction Amendments, and the Connection to Current Supreme Court Cases, including Callais

Election Law Blog
CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans' article in Slate about...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

The Alito Wing of the Supreme Court Sure Sounds Sold on Trump’s Voter Fraud Lies

Slate
CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans' article...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

The Supreme Court’s Conspiracy-Brained Justices Are Ready to Limit Mail-In Voting

Balls and Strikes
Balls & Strikes summarized the arguments in Watson v. RNC, linking to CAC's brief. Read more at...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 21, 2026

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick: The Roberts Court’s Internal Reckoning

Slate
The Constitutional Accountability Center's brief in Watson v. RNC was discussed on Slate's Amicus podcast. Listen to the full...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

CAC Release: The Conservative Attack on Voting By Mail Comes to the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Watson v....
By: David H. Gans, Simon Chin