Richardson v. Ramirez

5-4

Prologue Projects

News Commentary, News, Government

4.6 • 3.2K Ratings

🗓️ 21 November 2023

⏱️ 39 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

We want to dedicate this episode to Vermont and Maine, the only two states in this whole goddamn country that let everyone exercise their Constitutional right to vote. What are they putting in that syrup? Everywhere else, you've got Richardson v. Ramirez to thank for the movement to disenfranchise people who've been caught up in the criminal punishment system.

If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.

5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.

Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	We'll hear arguments next in 72-1589 Richardson against Ramirez and others.
0:10.0	Hey everybody this is Leon from fiasco and prologue projects, but you can just call me
0:18.0	Dad. On this episode of 5-4, which I am so happy to be introducing after all that time away
0:24.3	raising my new baby. My other children, Peter, Rianen, and Michael are talking
0:29.8	about Richardson v. Ramirez. As you will hear in this episode,
0:34.0	there is a rarely discussed provision of the 14th Amendment
0:37.0	punishes states for denying citizens the right to vote.
0:40.0	The penalty, losing seats in the House of Representatives.
0:44.0	So, in 1974, when a group of formerly incarcerated men brought suit against California,
0:50.0	arguing that they could not be denied voting rights on the basis of a felony record.
0:55.4	What do you think the Supreme Court had to say about it?
0:58.5	We further hold that the California does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by disenfranchising convicted felons who have completed
1:06.6	their sentences and paroles.
1:08.6	Ever since this decision, the voting population in the United States has been warped and fragmented,
1:14.3	because depending on where you live, being in prison or having a felony on your record,
1:19.1	may or may not strip you of your right to vote. The result is a nationwide patchwork of laws and
1:25.8	a lot of Americans who are unclear on whether they can vote or not. This is 5 to 4, a
1:31.8	podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.
1:37.0	Welcome to 5 to 4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have burned down our civil
1:45.2	rights like a person trying to deep fry a turkey burning down their home.
1:49.2	It's that time of year.
1:51.4	Those videos make me l-o-l every time.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Prologue Projects, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Prologue Projects and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.