Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mixon v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 18, 2000Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcGINLEY, Judge

I concur in part to the majority’s conclusion: that “incarcerated felons are not *454qualified absentee electors”; that non-registered felons are not permitted to register to vote while incarcerated; and that Petitioner Williams does not have standing “to attack the statutory provisions that she challenges.” However, I respectfully dissent in part to the majority’s conclusion that “the prohibition against registration [of ex-incarcerated felons] for five years after release from confinement is constitutionally infirm....”1

In Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 94 S.Ct. 2655, 41 L.Ed.2d 551 (1974)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Richardson v. RamirezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Paul B. Owens v. William Barnes, Dauphin County Bureau of Elections, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  3. Martin v. HaggertyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API