Blog
Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights
By Myrna Pérez – 04/25/12
I was born after Watergate. That is how I justify to myself the fact I had not realized that the Charles Colson I read about in those political history books that I like so much was the same Chuck Colson who founded Prison Fellowship. My father-in-law, a professor of religious studies and my favorite consultant on the religious doctrines of redemption, made the connection for me while we were sitting at his kitchen table in Scranton. I needed a minute to absorb the length of Colson’s journey — from being one of the “Watergate Seven” to founding an influential evangelical organization that ministers to prisoners and former prisoners. While I could not fault someone for being skeptical that a transformation of Chuck’s kind was possible, as a Christian I believe a lot of things that provoke skepticism in others. Chuck’s story made sense to me as a modern-day conversion of Saul.
I was probably one of the very few people who knew Chuck best as a colleague advocating for mercy and redemption, and not for his role as special counsel to President Nixon, or as a key political figure jailed for the Watergate scandal. But when I found out more about his life before Prison Fellowship, it made me respect him and his ministry even more.
My connection to Chuck is through Prison Fellowship’s partnership with the Brennan Center. Prison Fellowship is a member of the Brennan Center’s Community of Faith Initiative, which seeks to restore voting rights to the four million Americans living and working in our communities who cannot vote because of a criminal conviction in their past.
During the course of the Brennan Center’s partnership with Prison Fellowship, my admiration for Chuck Colson and his organization had good cause to grow. I cheered when, earlier this year, Chuck penned an op-ed in the Washington Post shortly after the candidates at a Republican primary debate sparred over the issue of criminal disenfranchisement to remind readers that “demonizing an entire class of Americans for electoral gain is wrong.” I was also charmed by Prison Fellowship’s Angel Tree program, an initiative that makes sure that hundreds of thousands of children whose parents are incarcerated receive Christmas presents and I am proud to say my church participated in this program.
More recently, the Brennan Center and Prison Fellowship have been working together to prepare for a briefing on the Democracy Restoration Act. This federal legislation, introduced by Senator Ben Cardin and Representative John Conyers, would restore voting rights in federal elections to people with criminal convictions after they have been released from prison and return to their home communities. The bill would also ensure that people on probation never lose their right to vote in federal elections, and would notify people leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of misdemeanors of their voting rights.
Everyone at the Brennan Center who expressed condolences about Chuck to members of Prison Fellowship heard basically the same response:“Chuck would want us to do our job and complete our mission.”
While there are many markers of a great man or woman, surely they must include possessing a humility that precludes overemphasizing the importance of one person, a dedication that inspires others to continue the work, and a compassion for the “least” in our society. Even his staunchest critics must concede Chuck had these virtues, and many others, in spades. He will be missed.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Communities of Faith Initiative, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights
By Rev. H. David Schuringa – 03/20/12
The following post is from Rev. H. David Schuringa, President of the Crossroad Bible Institute. As a leader in the religious community, Rev. Schuringa believes in restoring the right to vote to persons with past criminal convictions.
Recently, the Kentucky House of Representatives passed H.B. 70, a bill that would give Kentucky voters a chance to decide whether to restore voting rights to former prisoners and probationers who have completed their sentences. This bill would repeal an antiquated Kentucky law that disenfranchises people with past criminal convictions, even after they’ve served their time. The Senate should follow the House’s lead and pass this bill.
I am President of Crossroad Bible Institute, a faith-based reentry organization which seeks to equip the church to disciple people in prison with the Word of God. It is a personal program designed to help incarcerated people grow dramatically in a life-transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, preparing them for successful reentry upon release. I support H.B. 70 because Scriptures enjoin us to “be a voice for the voiceless” and to “speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves” (Prov. 31:8-9). These Scriptures are held sacred by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. What better way to be a voice for the voiceless than to give them a voice? Moreover, like Moses and David from these traditions, I know that people can be redeemed. Redemption is a universal concept that resonates across all religions. Yet for redemption to impact the nation, people must be restored to their communities, and full restoration requires an opportunity to vote.
Kentucky is currently one of just four states that permanently disenfranchises people with criminal convictions—even after their release from prison — unless the Governor pardons them. Kentucky now has an opportunity to redeem itself from this archaic law.
No doubt, some think the criminal justice system is too lenient on offenders. But such people should recognize that when the criminal justice system has deemed someone ready to rejoin the community, the most prudent course of action is to make reentry successful. Restoring the right to vote to people who have paid their debt to society will do much more for their successful reentry — and the health and safety of the community as a whole — than will continued shunning and stigmatization. It will encourage them to invest themselves in their communities productively — as workers, neighbors, and family members — where, with voting rights restored, they can have a meaningful voice and stake in society.
The State Senate should pass this bill.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Communities of Faith Initiative, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights
By Ashbel T. Wall II – 03/20/12
The following post is from Ashbel T. Wall II, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. As a leader in the law enforcement community, Mr. Wall believes in restoring the right to vote to persons with past criminal convictions.
I have learned that last month the Kentucky House of Representatives passed H.B. 70, a bill that would allow Kentuckians to vote on a referendum this November to restore voting rights to former prisoners and probationers after they have completed their sentences. As Director of Corrections in a state where the re-enfranchisement of convicted felons upon release from prison was authorized through a voter referendum in 2008, I strongly support the restoration of voting rights.
Kentucky is one of four states in the country that permanently disenfranchise people with criminal convictions, even after they have completed their sentences. I am unaware of any credible evidence that denying voting rights to people after release from prison reduces crime. In fact, restoring the right to vote gives reason for those individuals to invest in our democracy. Bringing them into the political process supports their reintegration as productive and law-abiding members of their communities.
Once the criminal justice system has determined that someone is ready to return to the community, that person should receive both the responsibilities and the rights that come with full citizenship. Nearly every other state in the nation has reached this conclusion. I encourage Kentucky to do the same.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights
By Myrna Pérez – 02/20/12
Crossposted at Sojourners.
On Ash Wednesday, Catholics and many others will walk around with ashen crosses (or, by the end of the day, what look like indeterminate smudges) on our foreheads. Those ashes are strong symbols of core principles of the Catholic faith — symbols of repentance, identity, reconciliation, and renewal of baptism in the faith.
As a voting rights lawyer who is about as passionate about my work as I am about my faith, I can’t help but see parallels between the moral guidance I am given by my faith, and the policy choices that confront us in the secular world. These principles are reflected in the way we worship – and also in the actions we take in the secular world. This has led me and others to the conclusion that the 4 million Americans who lost their voting rights while incarcerated, and now live in our communities, deserve the chance to vote again upon release. It is both the just and the moral thing to do.
As we approach Ash Wednesday during this Holy Season, I encourage all Christians, guided by their core beliefs, to consider this idea.
Here’s why:
Repentance suggests regret for a wrongful act, and attempting to make restitution for a wrong. By voting, a person with a criminal conviction is able to demonstrate that he cares about his community and the laws and political leaders that affect its well-being. Someone formerly incarcerated because of the commission of an anti-social act, would, by voting upon their release, now engage in decidedly pro-social behavior.
Identity comes from the reminder by the ashen cross that our body is merely dust and to dust it shall return. We must identify with all the parts of ourselves that are so much bigger than our corruptible bodies, namely, as souls known and loved by God with all those attendant responsibilities to ourselves and others. When a person is released from prison, our hope should be for that person to identify themselves as a citizen with responsibilities like every other citizen living and working in the community. The people in this country willing to cast a ballot are members of a select and special group of Americans who understand the importance of civic participation and are willing to make sacrifices to help guide our nation. Allowing people with criminal convictions to identify as part of this select and special group of Americans will help keep them on a path of righteousness.
Reconciliation means restoring oneself as a member of the body of Christ and ending estrangement from the teachings of God. Incarcerated persons are the ultimate outsider — they are banished, frequently far from their homes and loved ones, to live apart from the rest of us. When they are released, they can return to their communities as the prodigal son or as the stranger. In either case, we as Christians are called to welcome them. Restoring voting rights to people upon their release from prison is a strong and tangible statement we as a country can make: namely, that we want and expect reconciliation from our fellow citizens with whom we have been estranged.
Renewal means to make new. The lord who turned water into wine, cured those afflicted by leprosy, and raised people from the dead can easily burnish a tarnished person and give them new life. A person who has been released from prison also has a chance at a renewed life. And in that new life, one should develop the habit of voting as it reinforces other moral values. As the great civil rights historian Taylor Branch frequently comments, the vote is a piece of non-violence — it is a peaceful way to resolve our political disagreements. Voting teaches patience and the value of engaging in a shared endeavor. Voting also teaches the importance of doing something even if the benefits to you are attenuated.
As we begin this Holy Season, let us remember to practice the tenets of our faith in all aspects of our lives — the moral, personal, and political. To me, this means supporting policies that strengthen our ties to the “least of” our fellow citizens as we strengthen our ties to God and his Son. There are many laudable ways to do this, but by restoring voting rights to people with criminal convictions upon release from prison, we have a concrete way to set these citizens — our brothers and sisters — toward a path to success and positive re-entry, as opposed to making them second-class citizens without a voice in our democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Communities of Faith Initiative, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights
By Yanick Saila-Ngita – 12/08/11
I can clearly recall the image sprawled across the cover of my local newspaper back in 2005: a photograph of a group of Iraqi women, dressed in niqabs, proudly waving their purple inked thumbs shortly after casting their ballots in the first election following the fall of the Hussein regime. Seventy-five percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. This momentous occasion came on the heels of a presidential election convened in Afghanistan. American politicians who had supported the invasion and subsequent wars viewed this as an example of the United States transporting its values of freedom and democracy across the globe. But one must ask if these values are truly being protected and promoted within our own borders.
We often talk about voter suppression laws, as running afoul of the basic American right to vote. However, these measures also contradict our obligations as a country under international agreements. Felon disenfranchisement laws, limits on early voting—especially Sunday voting—and voter ID laws disproportionately affect minorities. This exacerbates our failure to uphold a UN convention to eliminate racial discrimination, adding yet another reason to reject these suppressive measures.
This year we have seen states impose strict voter ID laws under the guise of ensuring that the voting process is secure. These laws disproportionately impact the right to vote for communities of color, as the Brennan Center has documented. The United States is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which requires nations, including our own, to "pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms.” In 2001, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called into question the “political disenfranchisement of a large segment of the ethnic minority population [in the United States] who are denied the right to vote by disenfranchising laws and practices.” They urged the United States to take necessary steps to ensure that all of its citizens are able to access the vote without any form of discrimination.
We are moving backwards from this goal. Currently, numerous state laws prohibit inmates and the formerly incarcerated from participating in the vote. The result? 8 percent of African Americans are disenfranchised, three times the national average. Allowing these individuals to vote would be one way to decrease disparity and comply with human rights law.
Photo ID requirements to vote disproportionately impact minority citizens who, for a variety of potential reasons, are more likely to lack required identification documents. The NAACP is presenting evidence of these suppressive measures this week to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. In March, the organization will send a delegation to Geneva to gather support from the UN Human Rights Council.
Even though many of our nation’s political leaders point to the United States as a superior model of participatory democracy, other countries far outmatch the U.S. in eliminating discriminatory voting practices. The Constitutional Court of South Africa has struck down measures that disenfranchise prisoners, remarking, “The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and of personhood.”
The same cannot be said for judges here in the U.S., and the Brennan Center estimates that more than 5 million Americans are ineligible to vote due to a criminal conviction. Only two states allow prisoners to vote. However, in the case of Sauvé v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that laws that sought to eliminate prisoners’ ability to vote failed to further any reasonable state aim.
The U.S. must take bigger steps to comply with the obligations it has agreed to and promoted internationally by enacting measures that improve minority access to the ballot box. There exists a troubling contradiction when so many of our resources continue to be invested in making sure people abroad are able to vote and our own citizens find it difficult to do so in their own neighborhoods. As Congressman Emanuel Cleaver passionately expressed in a recent House hearing on voter suppression laws, “we're trying to get folks around the world to vote and stopping it at home."
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter ID
By Lee Rowland – 06/17/11
On June 3, the Nevada legislature passed Assembly Bill 301, and today, Governor Sandoval ignored the bipartisan will of the legislature and vetoed A.B. 301. By issuing a veto for this bill, Governor Sandoval failed to seize a significant opportunity to expand voting rights and support racial justice in Nevada. The bill had aimed to make the voting rights restoration process more efficient and help Nevada move closer to a fair and fully functioning democratic system.
A.B. 301 was written to streamline and simplify Nevada’s incredibly complicated patchwork of laws governing the restoration of voting rights after a criminal sentence. The bill would have automatically restored voting rights to anyone who honorably completes a felony sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole. The Brennan Center, along with key allies including the American Probation and Parole Association and the ACLU of Nevada, worked hard to shape and support this important voting rights bill. Brennan Center attorney Lee Rowland introduced the bill in March 2011 and again gave testimony in support of the bill in May of 2011. In the legislature, the bill had bipartisan support. As many who supported A.B. 301 testified, including the APPA, investing individuals in their democracy by giving them a vote – and a voice – is a proven way to reduce recidivism and protect public safety. Furthermore, A.B. 301 would have been consistent with substantive reform that has taken place across the country. Since 1997, 19 states have eased the restoration process to varying degrees or restored voting rights for people with criminal convictions in their past.
Governor Sandoval’s decision to veto A.B. 301 marks a missed opportunity for restoration efforts in Nevada. Disenfranchisement after criminal conviction remains the most significant barrier to voting rights. Nationally, 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of a criminal conviction – 4 million of whom live, work, and raise families in their communities. According to current disenfranchisement law, more than 40,000 Nevadans are unable to vote due to a past criminal conviction, half of whom have completed their full sentences and are living in the community. Nearly a third of the disenfranchised individuals in Nevada are African-American. Unfortunately, Governor Sandoval failed to take advantage of a great opportunity to remove existing barriers to voting rights in Nevada.
Nevada’s voting rights restoration laws continue to be notoriously and unnecessarily complicated. Nevadans with felony convictions are permanently disenfranchised, unless the government approves individual rights restoration. Nevada’s laws governing the restoration of civil rights are among the most restrictive in the country, and are difficult to navigate for both election officials and individuals with criminal histories. A 2010 survey by the ACLU of Nevada examined widespread confusion by election officials over how Nevada’s restoration laws work, and who is entitled to cast a vote. Because of the gubernatorial veto today, the confusion and misinformation about how voting rights can be restored in Nevada persists.
Felon disenfranchisement laws are a relic of our discriminatory past – and yet they remain a barrier to civic engagement and reentry. With the veto of A.B. 301, Governor Sandoval disregarded the will of the legislature, ignored bipartisan support for the bill, and missed his chance to make the Silver State a beacon for civil rights and racial justice.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, State-Based Advocacy, Voting Rights & Elections
By Lee Rowland – 05/06/11
On Thursday, the Florida Legislature declared war on voter registration. Both houses of the legislature passed a bill that takes the state a huge step backwards by making it harder to register voters, prohibiting registered voters who move before an election from updating their address at the polls, and greatly reducing early voting opportunities.
The burdens of Florida’s misguided elections bill will fall disproportionately on the shoulders of low-income and minority voters, renters, and students: eligible voters that already face the biggest hurdles to vote. And the groups that try to register these voters, from student organizers to the League of Women Voters, will be penalized for their attempts to bring more eligible citizens into our democracy.
Making Voter Registration Harder
Remember when church groups or boy scout troops could sign up new voters on a card table outside the supermarket? That civic participation will be a thing of the past if Florida lawmakers have their way. Registration groups will now have to pre-register every single volunteer or employee and turn in every registration form they get within 48 hours. And they’ll have to sign on to a new electronic database the state will set up to ensure that every voter registration group regularly submits updates on every registration card that every volunteer distributed at every registration drive they organized.
Pre-registration means a student council member can’t swap in to take a turn to pass out registration forms without first signing a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, with the state. The unbelievably tight turnaround time means that registration groups will be unable to follow up with voters who leave forms incomplete, and will incur high fines for going a minute over the deadline.
Registration groups have already started to indicate that they may just close up shop in Florida because they simply can’t navigate the onerous new burdens on registration drives. Who ends up getting hurt? Voters who these drives would otherwise register – and studies show that African-American and Latino voters are more than twice as likely to register in these drives.
Making Voting Harder
In addition, Florida is making it harder for voters who move to cast a ballot. Florida has a longstanding policy permitting voters who have changed their address before an election to update their new address at the polls on Election Day, where the voters’ existing registrations are carefully cross-checked in a state database before the voters are given a ballot. This bill eliminates that right, so that voters who move between Florida’s 67 counties will not have their vote counted.
To add insult to injury, the bill also chops in half the number of days when Floridians can vote by reducing early voting days from two weeks to one. Since its adoption, Florida’s early voting has been a resounding success with both elections officials and voters. Early voting periods have helped to spread out the crush of votes that election officials have to process, making electoral rhythms more manageable. Voters who in the past stood in long lines at voting precincts have experienced some relief; now, they can expect those lines to balloon again.
Even worse, this bill doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It follows closely on the Florida Clemency Board’s vote last month to revoke past Governor Crist’s reforms restoring the right to vote to nonviolent offenders who had paid their debt to society. The Board’s new policy creates a second class of up to a million Floridians with past criminal convictions who are working and living in their communities but have no voice in their democracy. A full quarter of these individuals are African-American.
Penalizing Civic Engagement
Rather than making it more convenient for eligible voters to cast a ballot, Florida has instead erected new barriers to the voting booth. If and when Governor Scott signs this bill, Florida will rise to the head of the class when it comes to penalizing civic engagement. Florida politicians seem to believe that voting is a privilege reserved for the few – not for students, minority voters, or voters who move. Our nation has taken long strides to expand the franchise and eliminate the shadows of Jim Crow; unfortunately, Florida has just taken a giant – and ugly – step backwards.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter Registration Drives
By Lee Rowland – 04/13/11
Last night, in a decisive, bipartisan victory for voting rights, the Nevada Assembly’s Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections unanimously voted Assembly Bill 301 to the floor of the House. The bill will streamline and simplify Nevada’s unbelievably complicated patchwork of laws governing the restoration of the right to vote after a criminal conviction. The bill automatically restores voting rights to anyone who honorably completes a felony sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole. The Brennan Center for Justice helped craft the bill, and I had the privilege of introducing the original bill at a meeting of the Assembly Committee early this month.
Disenfranchisement after criminal conviction remains the most significant barrier to voting rights. Nationally, 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of a criminal conviction – 4 million of whom live, work, and raise families in our communities. Nevada’s disenfranchisement law is one of the most restrictive in the country (PDF). Under the current law, more than 40,000 Nevadans are unable to cast a vote due to a past criminal conviction, half of whom have completed their full sentences and are living in the community. Nearly a third of the disenfranchised individuals are African-American.
Those figures simply don’t paint the picture of a fair and fully functioning democratic system. Fortunately, the Nevada Legislature now has a wonderful opportunity to change that by passing AB 301.
Yesterday’s committee hearing was notable for its thoughtful discussion of the importance of restoring voting rights, with legislators from both sides of the aisle speaking in favor of the bill. One Assemblywoman told a personal story about a close friend with a 15-year old felony DUI conviction who has been trying, unsuccessfully, to navigate Nevada’s restoration laws ever since.
No one should have to pay a lawyer just to find out whether they have the right to have their voice heard in our democracy. Not only is this confusion unfair to voters, it places a huge burden on election administrators, who have a tough job determining if a Nevadan has the right to register and vote. AB 301 will fix this unhelpful administrative morass.
In addition, AB 301 will strengthen public safety. Law enforcement officials and criminal justice experts across the nation agree that restoring the right to vote after completion of a sentence strengthens community ties, which in turn supports reentry into the community and prevents recidivism. There is broad agreement: civic engagement, including voting, is a crucial part of enhancing public safety. AB 301 would restore voting rights to Nevadans who work and live in their communities but lack a full voice in our democracy.
At the end of yesterday’s hearing, legislators of all political stripes agreed that simplifying the law and enhancing public safety were a common sense solution to Nevada’s disenfranchisement problem. The committee members unanimously approved the bill, which now heads to the Assembly floor. We will continue to monitor AB 301 in hopes that it passes all the way through the Nevada Legislature – and strengthens our democracy in the process.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, State-Based Advocacy
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Permalink