Harness v. Watson

The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law that takes away voting rights for certain crimes. The case asked if small changes made to a law originally passed with racist intent in 1890 could make the law constitutional today. By not taking the case, the Court let stand a lower court ruling that found the state had sufficiently updated the law.

This decision means that thousands of people in Mississippi who were convicted of specific crimes will remain unable to vote. It sets a precedent that states may not have to completely rewrite laws that were first created to discriminate against Black citizens. This affects how civil rights groups can challenge old laws that still have a disparate impact on minority communities.

The case centers on the 14th Amendment and how it applies to laws with a history of racial bias. Mississippi's 1890 constitution was designed to maintain white supremacy by choosing crimes for disenfranchisement (losing the right to vote) that they believed Black people were more likely to commit. The legal debate is whether later amendments can 'cleanse' that original discriminatory purpose.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari (a request to hear the case) on June 30, 2023.

The Supreme Court will not intervene in a dispute over whether Mississippi's felony disenfranchisement law is unconstitutional due to its racist origins.

Advocates must now watch for how lower courts and state agencies respond to the ruling in similar cases. Since the Supreme Court did not overturn the lower court, the current list of crimes that lead to losing voting rights stays in place. Future challenges would likely need to prove that modern amendments themselves were also motivated by racial discrimination.

The case disputes whether a state can keep a law that was originally passed to discriminate against Black voters. It asks if minor changes to the law over time are enough to make it legal under the 14th Amendment.

Many citizens convicted of specific crimes will continue to be barred from voting for the rest of their lives. This disproportionately affects Black residents because of the way the crimes were originally selected in 1890.

The lower court ruled that a state's burden is satisfied if they consider the law later, even if the changes are minor. To win, challengers must prove the new amendments were also motivated by racial bias.

Because the Supreme Court denied the request to hear the case, the legal process for this specific lawsuit has ended. Observers will now monitor how other courts apply this logic to similar state laws.

This case reflects a larger national struggle over laws that limit voting access based on criminal records. It highlights the difficulty of using the court system to overturn laws with deep historical roots in the Jim Crow era.