Tennessee Supreme Court Rules Against Felon Seeking to Restore Voting Rights

The Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville on March 29, 2023. Chase Smith/The Epoch Times

A decision to deny a man the right to register to vote in Tennessee after receiving clemency in Virginia for a crime he committed in 1986 was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court on June 29.

The 3–1 decision (pdf) came after Ernest Falls, a Tennessee resident since 2018, tried to register to vote in 2020 after he was granted clemency by then Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam for an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

The clemency reinstated Mr. Falls’ rights of citizenship in Virginia, but a local election commission in Tennessee did not recognize the automatic restoration of his voting rights, citing “incomplete/insufficient documents” as the reasoning.

The court wrote in its opinion that the central question at the appeal was whether Mr. Falls was immediately reenfranchised in Tennessee when his rights were restored in Virginia or whether he is subject to the “additional preconditions to re-enfranchisement” established in Tennessee law.

Suit Filed

Mr. Falls and another man left off the voter rolls under similar circumstances filed suit in a Nashville Chancery Court in 2020, arguing that Tennessee Code 2-19-143 requires the state to reenfranchise persons convicted of “out-of-state infamous crimes” as soon as they are pardoned or their rights are restored in another manner.

Three public election officials sued in their official capacity, noting Mr. Falls is also required to comply with requirements set forth in another Tennessee law which requires someone convicted of infamous crimes out of state to “pay outstanding court costs, restitution, and child support obligations” before they can be reenfranchised.

In 2018, Tennessee law clarified that any crimes deemed felonies under Tennessee’s laws are considered “infamous crimes,” of which Mr. Falls’ conviction was.

When he registered to vote, he disclosed his out-of-state conviction and verified that his rights had subsequently been restored in Virginia.

Voters cast their ballots during early voting at a Nashville Public Library building in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 14, 2020. Brett Carlsen/Getty Images

In his suit, Mr. Falls argued he and others in similar situations should be immediately issued voter registration if requested and state election officials should be enjoined from denying voter registration applications in these situations in the future.

He filed a separate motion for summary judgment after the trial court’s ruling, asserting the trial court’s “erroneous interpretation of Tennessee law” violated his constitutional rights. The Chancery Court ruled in favor of the three state officials.

Appeals Made

The Tennessee Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court also upheld the lower court’s rulings, while concluding that in order to regain his right to vote in Tennessee, Mr. Falls or other similarly situated individuals must comply with both sections of Tennessee law.

Mr. Falls was the only remaining plaintiff in the two appeals, according to court records.

“The State Officials argued that … Mr. Falls’ ability to obtain a voter registration card was contingent upon proof of payment of any outstanding court costs, restitution, and child support obligations,” the state Supreme Court opinion stated. “Because Mr. Falls had not provided such evidence, the State Officials asserted that Mr. Falls’ voter registration application was properly denied.”

The appellate court noted they could not put one Tennessee law “into a silo and ignore subsequent legislative enactments regarding re-enfranchisement.”

“The requirements of [one law] supplement the provisions of [the other] by providing additional requirements for the reinstatement of voting rights for convicted felons regardless of their state of conviction.”

In its ruling, the appellate court noted “there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Falls actually owes any fees, restitution, or child support,” only that “he has not provided evidence that he does not owe any of these financial obligations.”

The court noted that it was not ruling on the issue of whether he hypothetically would be eligible to vote in Tennessee had he been granted clemency prior to moving to Tennessee.

Gwinnett County election workers handle ballots as part of the recount for the 2020 presidential election at the Beauty P. Baldwin Voter Registrations and Elections Building in Lawrenceville, Ga., on Nov. 16, 2020. Megan Varner/Getty Images

“We express no opinion as to the outcome of a hypothetical case in which a person convicted of an infamous crime in another state regains citizenship and voting rights in that person’s state of prosecution before establishing residency and attempting to register to vote in Tennessee.”

Criticism and Dissent

Critics of the laws and ruling say they amount to creating a “pay-to-vote” law, where someone has to provide evidence they do not owe court costs, fines, or other fees, even if they have proof of their conviction no longer hindering their voting rights.

During oral arguments before the Tennessee Supreme Court last year, Mr. Falls’ attorney, William Harbison, argued that someone who has full rights of citizenship shouldn’t be subjected to having to get their voting rights restored.

In her dissent, Justice Sharon G. Lee wrote that the right to vote is a “fundamental matter in a free and democratic society” and the restoration of Mr. Falls’ rights in Virginia should stand in Tennessee without having to provide proof of restitution paid in another state.

“It makes no sense to deprive a Tennessee citizen of the right to vote because he moved to Tennessee before having that right restored,” she wrote. “And it makes no sense for Tennessee to become a debt collector for Virginia by depriving a Tennessee resident of the right to vote because he provided no evidence to show that he did not owe court costs or restitution in Virginia from a case over forty years old.”