Sixth Circuit to Hear Case on “Unequal” Tennessee Felony Reenfranchisement System 

Potter Stewart U.S. Federal Courthouse, which houses the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Warren LeMay/Flickr)

On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral argument over a Tennessee policy requiring individuals with prior felony convictions to produce additional documents to prove eligibility when registering to vote. A district court last year said the policy violated federal law.

The class action lawsuit was filed in December 2020 on behalf of the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP and five individuals whose attempts to restore their voting rights before the November 2020 election were denied. 

According to the complaint, the implementation of Tennessee’s policy for restoring voting rights has been “unequal, inaccessible, opaque, and error-ridden,” in violation of the Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Individuals with prior felony convictions who meet certain criteria can restore their voting rights by submitting a Certificate of Restoration of Voting Rights (COR) to a county election administrator. CORs are used to prove eligibility when Tennesseans with prior convictions submit their voter registration forms. The plaintiffs alleged that the process of determining eligibility for reenfranchisement and finding a local official willing to process a COR varies across counties, forcing many Tennesseans on a “wild-goose chase.” 

The plaintiffs asked for the court to order Tennessee to create a uniform, formal process for COR requests and decisions, as well as ensure an undue burden — like requiring additional documentation — is not placed on any eligible citizen registering to vote.

The state justified the existing process, saying in a brief that “Tennessee’s practice is rationally related to its legitimate interest in combatting voter fraud, safeguarding voter confidence, and ensuring accurate record keeping.”

In 2023, Tennessee was ranked 49th in its treatment of voters with felony convictions. The Sentencing Project found that the state denied voting rights to over 470,000 citizens, second only to Florida. Tennessee has the country’s highest rate of disenfranchisement for both Black and Latinx Americans; approximately one in five Black voting-age Tennesseans do not have the right to vote due to a past criminal conviction. Between 2016 and 2023, less than 1% of Tennesseans with prior felony convictions who are eligible to vote have successfully restored their right to vote.

In April 2024, the federal district court in Nashville found that Tennessee violated the NVRA by requiring voters with past convictions to produce additional documents to prove their eligibility when registering to vote. The judge ruled that because county election officials already have access to the information needed to check eligibility, requiring potential voters to provide that documentation creates an undue burden that other citizens do not face.

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) and Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins (R) appealed and successfully requested a pause of the order while the appeal is being litigated. Tennessee was allowed to continue requesting proof of eligibility documentation ahead of the 2024 election.

On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit will hear arguments on whether the district court’s judgment was correct, and even whether the NAACP has standing to challenge the policy. Referencing a Supreme Court decision that allowed Arizona to demand proof of citizenship before voting in state and local elections, Tennessee argued that states have a constitutional authority to establish voter qualifications, including the authority to “request documentary proof of eligibility for applicants using state-created voter-registration forms.”

The Tennessee NAACP maintained that state forms still have to comply with NVRA guidelines. The NVRA requires voter registration forms to only ask for information that is necessary for election officials to conduct an eligibility review — as opposed to any and all useful information — and demands that voters are registered in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.

Oral argument starts Jan. 14 at 10 a.m. EST.

Learn more about the case here.