Tennessee fights to reinstate felon voter regulations at appeals court

CINCINNATI (CN) — The state of Tennessee argued Tuesday that a federal judge contradicted Supreme Court precedent and unlawfully limited the state’s authority to regulate voter rolls when he invalidated a law outlining procedures to reinstate felons’ voting rights.

Assistant Solicitor General Philip Hammersley claimed the Tennessee Conference of the NAACP lacked standing to challenge the law and urged a Sixth Circuit panel to dissolve the injunction.

He told the appeals court Tennessee’s “documentation policy,” which requires certain convicted felons provide additional documentation for re-enfranchisement, does not violate the National Voter Registration Act, putting aside the NAACP’s standing issues.

The NAACP sued Republican Governor Bill Lee and Secretary of State Tre Hargett in 2020 and claimed the policy required them to divert significant financial resources toward voter registration efforts.

U.S. District Judge William Campbell Jr., an appointee of Donald Trump, granted the NAACP’s motion for summary judgment in April 2024 and determined Tennessee’s registration application form for felons violated the National Voter Registration Act.

Several months later Campbell permanently enjoined enforcement of the state’s statutory scheme regarding convicted felons who seek to restore their right to vote.

He found the state’s application forms lacked crucial information about the types of convictions that render individuals ineligible to vote, and noted that convictions prior to 1973, save for a few “infamous crimes,” do not affect a person’s right to vote.

Attorney Danielle Lang from the Washington, D.C., firm Campaign Legal Center argued Tuesday on behalf of the NAACP and told the court her client established standing through a “classic application” of the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman .

The Havens court determined organizational standing could be established through a “drain on the organization’s resources,” which in that case included testers that applied for housing with a company suspected of race discrimination.

Hammersley disputed his opposing counsel’s view of the case and argued the NAACP’s expenditures could not be traced to the state.

“The felon might have standing, but the resource cost is too far attenuated from the challenged conduct of the documentation policy because of all the different steps third parties must take before the NAACP incurs these costs,” he told the court.

The state’s attorney said a convicted felon must attempt to register to vote, seek out the NAACP for assistance, gather the required documentation and then submit that documentation with the help of the organization.

U.S. Circuit Judge Joan Larsen, a Trump appointee, was skeptical of the need for a direct link between the policy and the NAACP’s expenses.

“The policy makes it directly harder for a felon to vote. The NAACP’s core business is getting people registered to vote,” she said.

Lang cited a declaration from an executive with the NAACP and said its lawsuit did not stem from an isolated incident.

“The organization handles weekly registration of voters, with a focus on helping people with convictions, and this is an ongoing problem. The NAACP is willing to eat the costs, but there is no question this is an ongoing unlawful policy,” she said.

The panel that heard Tuesday’s arguments granted Tennessee’s motion for an emergency stay of the injunction in June 2024, and included two other Trump appointees, U.S. Circuit Judges John Bush and Eric Murphy.

Murphy asked Lang why the lower court was able to grant such a sweeping injunction to her client.

“It seems strange to me that the NAACP can get more expansive relief than an actual voter,” he said.

“First and foremost, Tennessee was given the opportunity to suggest a tailored injunction before the lower court, but they failed to do so,” the attorney answered.

Lang said an injunction tailored to several specific voters not only would require her client to return to court every time the organization faced a similar issue, but also would throw the state into a “legal trap” because of the lack of uniformity in its application of election laws.

During his rebuttal, Hammersley told the panel remand was unnecessary and that it could dissolve the injunction on its own because the NAACP lacked standing as a matter of law.

No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.

Follow @kkoeninger44