See Richardson, 418 U.S. at 54-55, 94 S.Ct. 2655. There, the Court rejected a non-race-based equal protection challenge to the felon disenfranchisement provision of California’s constitution. The Supreme Court has continued to adhere to Richardson. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) (describing principle that states may disenfranchise a convicted felon as “unexceptionable”). Richardson, to be clear, does not hold that a state felon disenfranchisement law may never raise equal protection concerns. If a state enacts a law which disenfranchises felons “with the intent of disenfranchising blacks,” that state has run afoul of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 229, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living
holding proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose required to show equal protection violation holding alabamas disenfranchisement for commission of petty crime or misdemeanor provision unconstitutional recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation holding misdemeanor conviction for petty larceny triggered disenfranchisement holding alabamas petty crime and misdemeanor disenfranchisement provisions unconstitutional under equal protection clause based on evidence of discriminatory intent