Fighting permanent felony disenfranchisement in Tennessee
- March 6, 2024
Moses v. Goins
Protect Democracy, along with a team of attorneys from Arnold & Porter, are fighting to overturn Tennessee’s permanent felony disenfranchisement law, arguing that it violates Tennessee’s Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law, due process, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and guarantee of free and equal elections.
Tennessee’s draconian and wide-ranging permanent felony disenfranchisement statute, which today prevents thousands of Tennesseans from ever voting again, is rooted in a tradition of discrimination and racism. The constitutional provisions authorizing such disenfranchisement were used for decades after the Civil War to discriminate and wrongfully prevent newly freed Black Tennesseans from voting. The disparate impact of this law can still be felt today.
Tennessee has the second-highest rate of disenfranchised citizens in the nation, with over 470,000 of its citizens unable to vote due to felony convictions. This has had a disproportionate impact on Tennessee’s Black and Latino communities, where over 20% of eligible Black voters and 8% of eligible Latino voters are disenfranchised — the highest rate of felony disenfranchisement of Black and Latino voters in the country.
BackgroundBackground
The permanent disenfranchisement of Tennesseeans with felony convictions violates the State’s Constitution. It breaches the guarantees of equal protection, due process, free and equal elections, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Much like other states around the country, felony disenfranchisement disproportionately impacts Americans of color, particularly Black Americans. This violates both the guarantees of Equal Protection and Free and Equal Elections clauses found in the Tennessee Constitution. Moreover, when Tennesseeans are considering pleading guilty or going to trial they are not informed that they may permanently lose their voting rights, which violates the guarantee of due process. Like the Mississippi plaintiffs in Hopkins v. Hosemann, this case argues that Tennessee’s policy of permanent disenfranchisement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Tennessee Constitution.
This lawsuit is critical to fighting back against the nation-leading disenfranchisement regime in Tennessee:
In recent years, Tennessee has stepped up its efforts to criminalize voting and make rights restoration work more difficult. In mid-2023, the Secretary of State issued a legal memorandum making it exponentially harder for formerly incarcerated people to restore their voting rights. In late 2023, a district attorney north of Nashville indicted at least 10 people for voter fraud based on their efforts to have their voting rights restored, while promising more prosecutions to come. This follows a pattern of prosecutions in Tennessee, starting with the prosecution of Ms. Moses. In early 2024, the Secretary of State announced an extreme interpretation of a recent case to change the rights restoration policy to block any formerly incarcerated person unable to restore their right to possess a firearm from ever voting again.
Thousands of Tennesseans who have been convicted of a felony are being denied their fundamental right to vote and an equal say in choosing their representatives, despite having served their time and paid their debts to society. This case fights back against malicious attempts to distort the electoral process and intimidate would-be voters like Ms. Moses from participating in elections.
The PlaintiffThe Plaintiff
Pamela Moses, a longtime and outspoken civil rights activist in Memphis, has a history of speaking truth to power. After reluctantly pleading guilty to a series of minor charges in 2015, Ms. Moses attempted to restore her voting rights in 2019. Unbeknownst to her, she was not eligible to have her rights restored under current state law. Nevertheless, because of a mistake made by the court clerk, Ms. Moses’ voting rights were temporarily restored. What happened next is the stuff of nightmares. As chronicled by The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and others, Ms. Moses was prosecuted by an overzealous district attorney for what amounted to an innocent mistake, and one that someone else made. Refusing to take a plea, Ms. Moses was tried and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Thankfully, the judge ordered a new trial based on evidence not provided by the defense, and the new district attorney chose not to retry the case. Ms. Moses then took on a new challenge: transforming a pending petition to restore her citizenship rights into a full-scale constitutional challenge to the pernicious and unconstitutional felony disenfranchisement regime in Tennessee. After initially being litigated by private pro bono counsel, Protect Democracy took over as counsel in 2023.
DefendantsDefendants
- Mark Goins, Tennessee Coordinator of Elections
- Tre Hargett, Secretary of State of Tennessee
- Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee Attorney General
Case Documents
Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment Jan. 12, 2026 Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dec. 22, 2025 Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Dec. 22, 2025 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Dec. 19, 2025 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dec. 19, 2025 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Defendants' Memorandum of Law is Support of in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dec. 12, 2025 Defendants' Memorandum of Law is Support of in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Dec. 12, 2025 Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Supplement to the Expert Report of Dr. Philippa Holloway Nov. 25, 2025 Supplement to the Expert Report of Dr. Philippa Holloway
Expert Report of Dr. Frank Baumgartner May 26, 2025 Expert Report of Dr. Frank Baumgartner
Expert Report of Dr. Traci Burch April 15, 2025 Expert Report of Dr. Traci Burch
Expert Report of Dr. Philippa Holloway April 15, 2025 Expert Report of Dr. Philippa Holloway
Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Jan. 17, 2025 Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Dec. 12, 2024 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Compel
Defendant Skrmetti's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Dec. 11, 2024 Defendant Skrmetti's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Renewal of Motion to Compel Aug. 23, 2024 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Renewal of Motion to Compel
Order Denying Defendant Skrmetti's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Aug. 23, 2024 Order Denying Defendant Skrmetti's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Plaintiff's Notice of Renewal of Motion to Compel Aug. 8, 2024 Plaintiff's Notice of Renewal of Motion to Compel
Defendant Skrmetti's Reply in Support of his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings July 10, 2024 Defendant Skrmetti's Reply in Support of his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Skrmetti's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings July 5, 2024 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Skrmetti's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Order on Non-Party Office of Legal Services’ Motion to Quash June 25, 2024 Order on Non-Party Office of Legal Services’ Motion to Quash
Order Granting Motion to Compel June 25, 2024 Order Granting Motion to Compel
Order on Defendants' Motions to Quash June 25, 2024 Order on Defendants' Motions to Quash
Defendant Skrmetti's Memorandum of Law in Support of his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings June 6, 2024 Defendant Skrmetti's Memorandum of Law in Support of his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery May 23, 2024 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery
Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery May 21, 2024 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery April 29, 2024 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery
Non-Party Office of Legal Services’ Reply in Support of its Motion to Quash March 1, 2024 Non-Party Office of Legal Services’ Reply in Support of its Motion to Quash
Defendants' Joint Reply in Support of Their Motions to Quash March 1, 2024 Defendants' Joint Reply in Support of Their Motions to Quash
Plaintiff's Response to the Office of Legal Services' Motion to Quash Feb. 21, 2024 Plaintiff's Response to the Office of Legal Services' Motion to Quash
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motions to Quash Feb. 21, 2024 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motions to Quash
Non-Party Office of Legal Services’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Quash Subpoena Jan. 2, 2024 Non-Party Office of Legal Services’ Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Quash Subpoena
Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Quash Subpoena to the Office of Legal Services for the Tennessee General Assembly Jan. 2, 2024 Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Quash Subpoena to the Office of Legal Services for the Tennessee General Assembly
Order on the Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal Dec. 28, 2023 Order on the Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal
Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Quash Subpoena to Tennessee Department of Corrections Dec. 11, 2023 Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Quash Subpoena to Tennessee Department of Corrections
Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal Oct. 25, 2023 Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal
Answer to Second Amended Complaint Aug. 29, 2023 Answer to Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal Aug. 18, 2023 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal
Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal Aug. 18, 2023 Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Revise the Order on Motion to Dismiss and to Permit Interlocutory Appeal
Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss July 19, 2023 Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss March 1, 2023 Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Feb. 14, 2023 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Dec. 7, 2022 Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss
Second Amended Complaint Oct. 13, 2022 Second Amended Complaint
Related Content
Join Us.
Building a stronger, more resilient democracy is possible, but we can’t do it alone. Become part of the fight today.
DonateSign Up for Updates Sign Up for Updates
Explore Careers Explore Careers
How to Protect Democracy How to Protect Democracy