Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "Hayden v. Pataki is a legal challenge to New York State's law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The initial pro se complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Joseph Hayden on September 12, 2003.The plaintiff, Joseph Hayden, a former incarcerated felon and Campaign Director at Unlock the Block, argues that the law has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violates Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race, in addition to violating the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case as not violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, nor of violating any of the Constitutional Amendments.In an en banc rehearing of a panel decision, the Second Circuit held that the law did not violate the Voting Rights Act. See Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2nd Cir. 2006)."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Hayden_v._Pataki abstract "Hayden v. Pataki is a legal challenge to New York State's law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The initial pro se complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Joseph Hayden on September 12, 2003.The plaintiff, Joseph Hayden, a former incarcerated felon and Campaign Director at Unlock the Block, argues that the law has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violates Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race, in addition to violating the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case as not violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, nor of violating any of the Constitutional Amendments.In an en banc rehearing of a panel decision, the Second Circuit held that the law did not violate the Voting Rights Act. See Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2nd Cir. 2006).".