In the case of Richardson v. Ramirez, decided in 1973, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to deny convicted felons from voting. The plaintiffs were three ex-felons who had completed their sentences and probation but were denied voter registration by California officials due to a state law prohibiting former felons from voting. They argued this violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights for equal protection under the law. However, Justice William Rehnquist wrote for a 5-4 majority that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to restrict suffrage rights based on participation in "rebellion or other crime". Therefore, it was constitutional for states like California to disenfranchise individuals with felony convictions even after they've served their time.

In the dissenting opinion for Richardson v. Ramirez, Justice Marshall argued that the majority misinterpreted Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to allow states to disenfranchise felons. He contended that this section was designed as a penalty against states who denied suffrage, not an endorsement of such denial. Furthermore, he pointed out that at the time of its ratification in 1868, many states did not deny voting rights based on criminal convictions and thus it would be incorrect to assume this practice was universally accepted or intended by framers. Marshall also criticized California's law specifically for being overly broad and arbitrary in denying voting rights without considering individual circumstances or nature/severity of crimes committed. Lastly, he emphasized how such laws disproportionately affect racial minorities due to systemic biases within criminal justice system.