Blog
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
By Andrew Goldston – 03/22/11
Here’s some great news out of Nevada, where the Brennan Center has been working with the Chairman of the State Assembly’s Elections Committee to assist with the drafting of one bill and with amendments to a second. The two bills, together, would make Nevada a national leader on voting rights and voter registration.
Nevada’s voter registration system is still essentially paper-based. This makes the maintenance of basic voter registration records extra-costly and extra error-prone – a bad combination. Inaccurate, outdated registration rolls pose problems for election authorities, increasing the cost of election administration and voter mailings, making it difficult to properly plan for elections, and rousing fears of possible fraud.
An amended version of Nevada Assembly Bill 108 which will be introduced later today will propose to solve this problem by updating the voter registration system. The amended version of Bill 108 will propose full voter registration modernization, and would provide for:
- One-stop automated voter registration available for eligible citizens when they interact with a range of government agencies
- Portable voter registration, so that Nevada voters stay registered even if they move within the state. This is particularly important in a state like Nevada – according to the Census’ 2006 American Community Survey, nearly 400,000 Nevadans moved within the state in just a year – about 16% of the state’s population at the time of the estimate. Now, post-foreclosure crisis, that number is probably even larger.
- A statewide online voter interface where Nevadans can register to vote and find polling place information.
- Election Day registration, to ensure that every eligible Nevadan may register and vote on Election Day.
This combination of modern voter registration systems and policies would ultimately make election administration easier and help as many eligible citizens vote as possible. It would also be a good call for Nevada’s taxpayers – states that have adopted modernized registration have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on election administration, with savings likely to run into the millions after just a few years of implementation. Among the cost statistics that the Brennan Center has collected:
- It cost Arizona less than $130,000 and Washington just $279,000 to implement both online voter registration and automated voter registration at DMVs.
- Delaware’s paperless voter registration at Department of Motor Vehicles offices saves election officials more than $200,000 annually on personnel costs, above the savings reaped by partially automating the process in the mid-1990s. Officials anticipate further savings.
- Online and automated DMV registrations saved Maricopa County, Arizona over $450,000 in 2008. The county spends 33¢ to manually process an electronic application, and an average of 3¢ using a partially automated review process, compared to 83¢ for a paper registration form.
The version of Bill 108 that will be introduced this afternoon would give Nevada’s voters the 21st-century voter registration system they deserve.
Meanwhile, Nevada’s patchwork of laws and policies concerning the restoration of voting rights for people with past criminal convictions needs work, too. Nevada has become one of the most restrictive states in the Union when it comes to restoring the right to vote to those who have served their time, and the rules for recovering voting rights in Nevada are so complicated and variable, often neither the voter registration agency nor the voter himself knows when or how to reclaim this basic right of citizenship, according to this study from the ACLU of Nevada.
Nevada Assembly Bill 301 would make the rules for Nevadans who have served their time consistent, restoring voting rights upon completion of felony sentences of prison, probation, or parole, and notifying citizens of their right to vote when they become eligible.
These two bills give Nevada dual opportunities to both be a leader on voting rights and to make a thoughtful investment in a long-term cost-saver for taxpayers. As the Nevada legislature considers these bills this week, let’s hope legislators keep them moving in the right direction!
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter Registration Modernization
By Erika Wood – 03/11/11
In less than an hour yesterday, Florida Governor Rick Scott denied the right to vote to hundreds of thousands, maybe as many as a million, Florida citizens, turning back the clock decades and making Florida the most punitive state in the country when it comes to disenfranchising people with criminal convictions in their past.
The Florida constitution denies the right to vote for life to anyone with a felony conviction, unless he is granted clemency by the governor. Essentially it gives the governor, an elected official, the power to decide who will (or won't) be allowed to vote in the next election.
The new clemency rules not only roll back reforms passed by former Governor Charlie Crist, they are far more restrictive than those in place under former Governor Jeb Bush. Under the new rules:
- People with even nonviolent convictions must wait five years after they complete all terms of their sentence before even being allowed to apply for restoration of civil rights.
- The clock resets if an individual is arrested for even a misdemeanor during that five-year period, even if no charges are ever filed.
- Some people must wait seven years before being able to apply, and must appear for a hearing before the clemency board.
- A provision allowing people to apply for a waiver of the rules, in place under Bush and Crist, was eliminated.
- Everyone applying for clemency must provide various documents with their application - Bush and Crist had made an exception for those applying for restoration of civil rights.
All of this has to happen just to have the opportunity to ask for one's rights back. Even after the waiting period, the application, and the hearing, anyone could be summarily denied with no reason or explanation. And if that happens, he would have to wait another two years before he can start the process all over again.
Governor Scott is playing three-card Monte with one of our most fundamental rights and steering his state straight back to Jim Crow. Florida's disenfranchisement law is a relic of a discriminatory past, enacted after the Civil War in response to the Fifteenth Amendment, which forced the state to enfranchise African-American men. The voting ban was a direct attempt to weaken the political power of African Americans, and it continues to have its intended effect today. Even prior to yesterday's change, African Americans were excluded from the polls at more than twice the rate of other Florida citizens. Not counting those currently serving a criminal sentence, 13% of the voting-age African-American population in Florida has lost the right to vote. Nearly a quarter of those who are disenfranchised in Florida are African-American.
These numbers are sure to go up under the new rules. The new "arrest-free" waiting period requirement will undoubtedly increase the disproportionate impact on minorities. Government statistics show that nearly 35% of all arrests, and 43% of drug arrests, in Florida in 2009 were African-American, even though African Americans make up just 16% of the state's population.
By shutting the door of democracy in the face of those trying to rejoin the community, Governor Scott ignored broad consensus among law enforcement and criminal justice professionals that allowing people to vote when they are back in the community encourages participation in civic life and helps rebuild ties to the community that motivate law-abiding behavior. The country's premier law enforcement organizations, including the American Correctional Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the Association of Paroling Authorities International and the National Black Police Association have all passed resolutions supporting automatic restoration of voting rights.
Florida's law is now the most restrictive in the country. Since 1997, 23 states have either restored voting rights or eased the restoration process; nine of these states repealed or amended lifetime disenfranchisement laws. These changes have occurred under both Republican and Democratic governors. There has been a national recognition that harsh criminal disenfranchisement laws are a relic of a discriminatory past, are antithetical to the fundamental principles of our democracy, and do nothing to protect public safety or promote successful reentry.
Several times during the brief public meeting yesterday, Governor Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi referred to voting as "privilege" that should be "earned." But the right to vote is not something to be kept in the Governor's pocket, handed out only as a special treat to his favorite Floridians. To be sure, there once was a time in our country when only the privileged - wealthy, white men - were allowed to vote. But Americans have fought in the streets and in the courts to realize the true promise of our democracy - that all Americans should have a voice in our government. The Governor cannot bury that history under a bunch of bureaucratic hurdles.
Tags: Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights
By Lee Rowland – 01/26/11
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post.
It took just a stroke of newly-elected Governor Terry Branstad's pen to turn the clock back on Iowans' voting rights by decades. Immediately upon taking office this month, Governor Branstad rushed to revoke Executive Order 42, a policy signed in 2005 by former Governor Tom Vilsack, which automatically restored voting rights to individuals with criminal convictions once they had completed their sentences. Now, Iowa has become one of just three states that permanently disenfranchise all citizens after a criminal conviction. Prior to Executive Order 42, Iowa disenfranchised adults at a rate twice the national average, and had the nation'shighest rate of African-American disenfranchisement. Governor Branstad has resurrected one of the most punishing and discriminatory voting bans in the country.
Currently, 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of a criminal conviction. As many as 4 million of these people live, work and raise families in our communities, but because of a conviction in their past they are still denied the right to vote. Nevertheless, in the last decade 23 states have either restored voting rights or eased the restoration process. Governor Branstad, however, just placed Iowa in the shrinking company of just two other states - Virginia and Kentucky - that permanently disenfranchise their citizens.
A broad coalition of Iowans representing Methodists, Catholics, Quakers, social workers, juvenile justice advocates, and the disabled wrote to the Governor before he took office, urging him to reconsider his campaign promise to revoke Executive Order 42. Perhaps most notably, two well-regarded national law enforcement organizations, the American Correctional Association and the American Probation and Parole Association, wrote personally to the Governor urging him to continue the policy of restoring voting rights. As the American Correctional Association, the oldest and largest association of correctional officers in the world, explained: restoring voting rights "encourages [ex-offenders] to lead law-abiding lives, thereby reducing recidivism."
Although Governor Branstad chose to ignore the views of the law enforcement and community advocates, both Republicans and Democrats understand the need to address reentry on a national scale. Just last week, Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan announced the "Right on Crime Campaign," a conservative effort to support reentry and community-based rehabilitation. Although the group does not yet have an official position on voting, Gingrich and Nolan note that a more community-oriented criminal justice model achieves huge reductions in both budgetary cost and recidivism. There is no question that the right to vote is the very definition of having a full stake in one's community.
In addition to being good policy, restoring voting rights is an important civil rights issue. Prior to Executive Order 42, Iowa permanently denied the right to vote to nearly 40% of the African-American population in the state. Compounding this racial disparity is the fact that the only way to get one's right to vote back is through an application to the Governor - but only after having paid all fees and fines associated with a criminal conviction. The only difference between an ex-offender who is entitled to apply for clemency and one who is not? An ability to pay. The state NAACP held apress conference denouncing this modern-day poll tax and its disparate impact on African-Americans. Many who go through the criminal justice system return to the community saddled with multiple debts. It often takes years if not decades to pay off the fees and fines. Voting should never be contingent on one's wealth or ability to pay.
In spite of hearing many voices of experience and reason, Governor Branstad has taken a giant step backward for democracy and fairness. Fortunately, the principles of democracy are winning the broader war: more states than ever have dismantled these misguided and discriminatory laws. And the full-throated reaction to Governor Branstad's order shows that Iowa has a strong coalition of leaders, advocates and activists eager to convince current and future policy makers that it's never too late to advance the cause of democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, Voting Rights & Elections
By Erika Wood – 08/04/10
This summer the New York legislature took decisive action to create two important policy reforms: requiring that people in prison be allocated to their home communities for redistricting purposes; and requiring criminal justice agencies to provide voting rights information to people who are again eligible to vote after a felony conviction. While Albany has long been labeled “dysfunctional,” these particular reforms actually stand to make aspects of our state government models for democratic fairness and participation.
Both proposals are long overdue and have been introduced again and again and again, and both have garnered strong support in the legislature. Nevertheless, political wrangling repeatedly stymied their progress. This year, democracy trumped politics. Well, not quite. The legislation was pushed through in the budget revenue bill with no public hearing or debate. We will continue to criticize Albany for passing legislation behind closed doors with no opportunity for public input. But that’s for another post. Here, we hail the result.
The first reform assures that long under-represented communities have a full and fair voice in our state government. At present, incarcerated individuals are counted for federal Census purposes as residents where they are incarcerated rather than as residents of their home communities. In New York, where people are often imprisoned far from home and incarceration rates have skyrocketed in the last decade, this policy has produced increasingly harmful results. Public officials in prison districts have an incentive to build their districts on the backs of “ghost voters,” packing in prisoners who count toward the district size but who are not permitted to vote. So while officials who profit from the prison economy have an outsized voice in incarceration policy, the voting strength of the home communities – to which the vast majority of incarcerated people return – is diluted, resulting in under-representation in our state government.
The new legislation requires the Department of Correctional Services to provide the legislature with the necessary information to determine the home addresses for people in prison, and it instructs that incarcerated people should be allocated back to their home communities for redistricting purposes. This corrects a skew that has decimated the voting strength of poor and minority communities for decades, and assures that all communities in New York have equal representation and an equal voice in our government. Both Maryland and Delaware recently passed similar legislation.
The second policy reform is no less urgent. It will correct years of misinformation, promote successful reintegration and help protect public safety, while building civic participation among traditionally disenfranchised communities. Reliable information about voting rights is needed to address widespread, persistent, and well-documented misinformation in New York. Under New York law, people convicted of a felony lose the right to vote while in prison and parole. People on probation do not lose the right to vote. Once someone serves his maximum prison sentence or is discharged from parole, his right to vote is automatically restored. He need do nothing more than fill out a voter registration form like everyone else. Nevertheless, New York election officials have consistently misapplied the law and some have required people to provide unnecessary (and sometimes nonexistent) paperwork before being allowed to register. Not surprisingly, this confusion among election officials has affected the public. In 2005, researchers found that nearly 30% of people with criminal convictions surveyed in New York thought they would never be eligible to vote again.
New York’s new law is the latest in a national trend. Twenty-four other states and New York City already require certain state and local agencies to inform people when their voting rights are restored following a criminal conviction. It is a simple, workable policy that promises to have a major impact in assuring successful reintegration and reduced recidivism. Last year a retired New York parole chief testified before the New York Senate Elections Committee, “having the right to vote and learning how to exercise that right gives one a voice and a stake in the community; it promotes positive behavior and serves as a powerful conduit for making the transition from criminal to becoming a law abiding member of the community.”
The political jousting and escalating rhetoric of this seemingly endless New York budget season have been baffling, and at times excruciating. But this legislation shows that sometimes behind the shenanigans important policy reforms can be achieved. These two proposals in particular have the potential to make at least some aspects of our representative government a model for the rest of the country, and that’s not something we say lightly.
Tags: Democracy, Redistricting, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, State-Based Advocacy
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Permalink