Hunter v. Underwood

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[pjroving the motivation behind official action is often a problematic undertaking” when the action is undertaken by a multi-member government body
• holding that where racial bias motivated its original enactment, a facially neutral felon disenfranchisement law violated the Equal Protection Clause
• holding that where racial bias motivated its original enactment, a facially neutral felon disenfranchisement law violated the Equal Protection Clause
• holding that Alabama’s constitutional provision disenfranchising citizens convicted of a crime of moral turpitude was unconstitutional
• holding that facially neutral Alabama law adopted in order to discriminate against blacks and which continued to have a disparate impact against blacks violated the equal protection clause
• stating that “an additional purpose ... would not render nugatory the purpose to discriminate against all Blacks”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).