Blog
Voting After Criminal Conviction
By Myrna Pérez – 03/10/08
Things are looking pretty grim for Mississippi citizens who want to exercise
their right to vote. Recently, Mississippi
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann advocated a plan that would have scrapped all
existing voter registrations and required everyone to reregister. Then came news that approximately 11,000
registered voters were illegally purged from the voting rolls just one week
before tomorrow's primary.
But, that's not all. Secretary
Hosemann is concerned that the Mississippi Constitution does not go far enough
in disenfranchising people with past criminal convictions. Currently, state law lists ten kinds of crimes that will result in
a person losing their voting rights. The
remedy he supports, House Bill 969, disenfranchises all persons convicted of
ANY felony until two years after the person fully completes all terms of the
sentence and satisfies other conditions.
It is estimated that right now, more than 146,000
Mississippians are disenfranchised - more than 92,000 of them are African
Americans. About 121,000 of those people
are not incarcerated and are living, working and paying taxes in their communities. During a time when the rest of the country is
excited about how many people are participating in our electoral process, the
chief elections officer of Mississippi
is supporting a proposal that will make even more people ineligible to vote.
Not only is this bad public policy, it is inconsistent with
the existing trend of expanding franchise opportunities for persons with
criminal convictions. Indeed, even in Kentucky - one of only two
states that permanently disenfranchises everyone with a felony conviction
unless the governor grants an individual clemency application - Governor Steve
Beshear announced that he is removing some barriers in the application process
to restore voting rights to convicted felons.
In just over ten years, sixteen states have reformed their policies to
bring more people with past felony convictions back into the democratic
process.
Secretary Hosemann explains his support for expanding the list of disenfranchising crimes with a statement that reveals how out of touch this kind of proposal is: "All of the nine states
fully covered by the 1965 Voting Rights Act disenfranchise felons or suspend
their right to vote upon conviction." To
be "fully covered" by the Voting Rights Act means that the state's voting
practices history is so discriminatory that the entire state is still required
by law to obtain permission from the Department of Justice or a court before
certain election changes are allowed to be made. Mississippi
is one of those covered states. With
that group being the benchmark, the progress we can expect out of Mississippi is not
encouraging.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, State-Based Advocacy, Voting Rights & Elections, Purges, Voter Registration Drives
By Andres Idarraga – 03/04/08
In 2006, the Brennan
Center for Justice provided counsel to
the Rhode Island
Right To Vote campaign. Andres Idarraga was
one of the primary spokespeople for the campaign, and he is one of 15,000 Rhode
Islanders with a conviction in their past who had their right to vote restored
when voters approved a ballot referendum in November 2006. Andres is now a Senior at Brown University. He voted for the first time today, and he
shares these thoughts. —Erika Wood
I
just voted! For first time in my life, I stepped inside the polling place
and "completed the arrow" that selects the candidate I think would
best run our country. It was a simple action that took only a few
minutes, but far too many years to achieve.
I
was sent to prison nine years ago when I was twenty years old. When I was released six years later, I hit
the ground running—determined to give back to my community and become the
role model that I never had. I got a job
and I was accepted into Brown
University. But under Rhode Island's state constitution, I would have
to wait more than thirty years to be able to vote. I couldn't wait that long. So I joined the Rhode Island Right to Vote
campaign and began to work to change the law.
In
November 2006, my fellow Rhode Islanders were the first in the nation to go to
the polls and approve a ballot referendum to restore voting rights to people as
soon as they are released from prison.
Today, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections hands everyone leaving
prison a voter registration form. Today
was the first election in which 15,000 newly eligible Rhode Islanders were able
to cast their ballot, and I was one of them.
Before
voting this morning, I drove my eight-year old nephew to school. My
nephew spent time with me as I worked on the Right to Vote campaign and he came
with me on the day I registered. On the way to school, I asked him if he
knew that today was the day voting took place in Rhode Island. He said he did and asked
me who I was voting for. I told him I was still thinking through my options
and we talked about the various candidates.
This was a conversation I relished. Coming from a family in which
voting had rarely, if ever, been discussed, this was a new beginning. I
hope we have similar conversations in the years to come.
There
is something undeniably inspiring about this election. The historical
significance of having a woman and an African American as viable candidates has
energized the voting public to a level I have never seen before. At my
school, students have been tirelessly advocating for their respective
candidates. At my barbershop, my barber proudly displays a picture of his
candidate on his mirror, a place usually reserved for sports figures or
entertainers. This election is bringing out apathetic voters and first-time
voters, and making both groups feel invested in the future of their
country. I am so proud to be one of them.
As I walked out of the polling place, a local elementary school where
children were playing outside waiting for the school day to begin, I decided to
go back in. I forgot to get an "I Voted" sticker, and, for many
reasons, I wanted to wear one today.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, State-Based Advocacy, Voting Rights & Elections
By Kahlil Williams – 03/01/08
Yesterday, the
New York Times reported that America's incarceration rate has reached an all time high, with more than one of every 100 adults behind bars. Over the past three decades, prison populations have nearly tripled, with the current tally reaching 1.6 million, in addition to the more than 700,000 serving time in jail. These figures are especially pronounced among communities of color, with one in fifteen Black men (11% of Black males aged 20-34 are currently serving time) and one out of 36 Hispanic adults behind bars.
This startling trend should compel lawmakers to rethink sentencing practices. But while so many pundits and politicians are focused on a close primary race this weekend, we should also consider the impact these record incarceration rates have on our electoral process.
Most states still strip citizens of the right to vote upon conviction of a felony, restoring that fundamental right with varying expediency. Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote while serving their prison sentences, while Kentucky and Virginia disenfranchise everyone with a felony conviction permanently, refusing to restore the right to vote unless the Governor grants an individual application for clemency. Thirty-five states continue to deny voting rights after people have served their prison time and returned to the community.
The consequences of these disenfranchising policies are tremendous. In Texas, nearly over 520,000 citizens will be
barred from voting in Tuesday's primary, because of felony convictions. The following week, Mississippi—the state with the highest proportion of African-Americans—will see nearly 92,000 Blacks shut out of the political process come primary time.
Contrast these states with Rhode Island, which also hosts a primary on Tuesday. Last year, Rhode Island voters
passed a referendum that restored the right to vote to people on probation and parole. Under the new law, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections hands everyone a voter registration form on the day they leave prison. Fifteen thousand Rhode Islanders are newly eligible to vote on Tuesday.
The
number of Americans locked behind bars is truly tragic. But the lesser known consequence is the number of people locked out of the political process for years, often for decades, and sometimes for life. Even after returning to our communities, millions of our fellow citizens cannot participate in one of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and essential to a functional democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Voting Rights & Elections
By Erika Wood – 02/23/08
Senator Russ Feingold and Secretary Jack Kemp joined together last week
to propose the Democracy Restoration Act—a federal law that seeks to restore voting rights to U.S. citizens on probation and parole. The proposal is noteworthy for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is made by two prominent political figures: a Democrat and a Republican. The bipartisan proposal makes it clear that restoring voting rights is about democracy, not about politics.
More than 5.3 million American citizens are denied the vote in our country because of a criminal conviction in their past. Nearly four million are people who have been released from prison but continue to be disenfranchised for years, often for decades, and sometimes for life.
As Senator Feingold and Secretary Kemp note, there has been significant momentum in the states to end these draconian disenfranchisement laws. In the last decade, 16 states have eased voting restrictions on people with conviction histories. In 2007 alone, Florida, Maryland, and Rhode Island all took steps to restore voting rights. But disenfranchisement is a national problem. Thirty-five states continue to deny the vote to people who have been released from prison and rejoined society.
The right to vote forms the core of American democracy. Once a privilege reserved for a few white men, Americans have fought hard to make it a right guaranteed for all. The Democracy Restoration Act would make this ideal into a reality. It is a proposal that we can all come together to support, not as Democrats or Republicans, or liberals or conservatives, but as Americans who believe in our democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, Voting Rights & Elections
By Judith Joffe-Block – 11/15/07
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
For the first time in 40 years, New York’s hodge-podge sentencing procedures are poised for a thorough review and revision.
In March Governor Spitzer tasked the State Commission on Sentencing Reform, an 11-member body of law enforcement officials, state legislators and criminal justice experts, with creating a proposal for streamlining the state’s sentencing structure.
The Commission’s preliminary report, which was released last month, includes an enlightened recommendation to restore voting rights to people on parole in New York.
It’s about time. A quick peek into the history of the state’s felony disenfranchisement law reveals ugly origins:
Back in 1821, delegates at the state’s Constitutional Convention brainstormed how new requirements could be used to exclude African Americans from the polls. Their efforts resulted in Article II of the state constitution which imposed special property requirements on African Americans and established a felony disenfranchisement provision which the delegates believed would target African Americans.
Fast-forward to the present, and that same misguided felony disenfranchisement provision remains in tact today, and it has achieved its intended result: 87% of those currently disenfranchised in New York are Latino and African American.
The disenfranchisement provision not only makes election administration more confusing (Brennan Center surveys have revealed that even a good portion of Board of Elections officials get confused about who can vote), but also dilutes the voting power of New York’s communities of color.
On Tuesday, advocates and experts had a chance to give the Commission comments at a public hearing at the New York City Bar Association. (A hearing in Albany is being held today, and one is scheduled for next Monday in Buffalo).
The Brennan Center’s Erika Wood testified in favor of restoring voting rights upon release from prison and outlined how the Governor could change the current law through executive order.
The Commission recognizes that fostering civic participation is one way to facilitate the re-entry process, and that restoring the right to vote to people on parole is fundamental to that participation. Hopefully the Governor will heed the Commission’s wise counsel.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, State-Based Advocacy, Racial Justice
By Michael Waldman – 07/10/07
*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post
As progressives prepare for the political season, we might rue the "one
that got away." There's a rare chance to reform voting laws to expand
the electorate and strengthen democracy, not just next year but for the
next decade. But election reform in 2008 must start in 2007 -- and time
is slipping by.
Voting is the heart of democracy. Yet millions of Americans face
huge obstacles when they try to register, cast their ballot, or have it
counted. We now know that last year partisans waged a frenetic effort
to disenfranchise voters -- orchestrated, remarkably, by the Justice
Department itself. Happily, a growing grassroots voter protection
movement pushed back. (The Brennan Center for Justice, to cite just one
example, stopped the disenfranchisement of some 300-700,000 voters,
with lawsuits and advocacy.) That was needed, and right, but ultimately
defensive.
Now we can go on the offense: to change voting laws and reform
election administration, in states across the country. Why the
opportunity? The new Congress, of course, but even more, twelve new
secretaries of state elected on voter protection platforms; sixteen
states with potentially sympathetic Democratic governors and
legislatures (up from eight); in some places, competition among both
parties to be "pro reform." Rarely do the stars align as now. Key
goals:
* Keeping eligible citizens on the voter list. State officials
routinely purge voters from the rolls -- a secret process prone to
partisan manipulation. A purge list of "potential felons" in Florida in
2004 included 22,000 African-Americans and only 63 Hispanics, in the
one state where those blocs vote for different parties. (What a
coincidence!) Now we can end the system of secret and partisan purges
of the voter rolls. Several Secretaries of State are preparing to
reform their own systems. And the Brennan Center plans lawsuits in
other states to force standards and accountability.
* Ending felony disenfranchisement, an ugly relic of Jim Crow.
Florida's new Republican governor, Charlie Crist, with a stroke of a
pen created the chance to restore the vote for about 500,000.
Virginia's laws disenfranchise for life one out of three black men. The
Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, could -- and should -- do what
Florida's conservative Republican governor did, and change the state
forever.
* Allowing Election Day Registration. States with EDR have 5-7%
higher voter turnout. That's an astounding jump, far higher than even
the best voter registration or GOTV drive could muster. Recently Iowa
and Montana joined six other states with EDR, and North Carolina is
poised to be the ninth. Drives are underway in a half dozen other
states.
* Fixing electronic voting. A Brennan Center task force of the
nation's top computer scientists concluded emphatically that every one
of the nation's electronic voting systems is insecure. Next week, the
U.S. House of Representatives votes on the bill introduced by Reps.
Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Tom Davis (R-VA), a strong measure that would ban
touchscreen machines that lack an audit record, require random
auditing, and prohibit wireless components in voting machines. Numerous
states can be pushed to require paper trails and audits.
* Stopping onerous ID requirements. An individual is more likely to
be killed by lightening than to commit voter fraud. The U.S. Attorney
scandal has revealed the "voter fraud" scare for the political witch
hunt that it is. But it has proven a highly convenient way for
partisans to push for proof of citizenship and other ID requirements
that are end up preventing voting, not fraud. (The necessary paperwork
can cost up to $200. By contrast, the notorious poll tax was $8.97 in
current dollars when it was declared unconstitutional in 1966.) For the
first time in years, civil rights proponents are able to push back --
which helps clear the field for pro-enfranchisement reform.
It all adds up to a rare opportunity for lasting change. But
progressives must be truly strategic. In 2004 they spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to register and mobilize voters. Activists plan
similar, even larger efforts next year. Voter mobilization is vital.
But this time there's a difference: a fraction of that significant
investment, sharply targeted, can help sweep away barriers to civic
participation. Soon it will be too late. Most state legislatures will
finish their work just a few months into next year, and the polarized
political season looms. For needed changes to have a chance to empower
voters in November 2008, the activism must start now.
Stakes are achingly high. Voting rights should be a nonpartisan
issue, but not everyone got the memo. In a moment of candor about just
one obstacle to voting, the former Political Director of the Texas
Republican Party told the Houston Chronicle "that requiring
photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic
voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote." That's an affront not
to a party, but to democracy.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Voting Rights & Elections, Other Voter List Issues, Voter ID, Voter Registration Drives, Voting Technology
By Erika Wood – 04/09/07
*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post
Florida, the scene of infamous election-day chaos and massive voter
purges during the 2000 presidential election, took an important step
towards resolving its democratic crisis yesterday. With the stroke of a
pen, Governor Charlie Crist issued new Rules of Executive Clemency that
restore voting rights to potentially hundreds of thousands of Florida
citizens who had been permanently disenfranchised as the result of a
felony conviction.
Governor Crist's bold
action was just the latest in a national movement that has gained
significant momentum in the past year. Across the country, states are
moving to reinvigorate our democracy by removing the last of the Jim
Crow-era barriers to the ballot box--the laws that disenfranchise
people with felony convictions, even after they have been released from
prison and are living, working, paying taxes, and raising families in
our communities.
Florida's voting ban was one of the harshest in the nation,
disenfranchising more people than any other state. Over 950,000
Floridians, including one in three African-American men, remained
permanently disenfranchised even after they had served their entire
sentence. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
challenged the state's voting practices in a federal lawsuit--Johnson
v. Bush, which helped focus national attention on Florida's criminal
disenfranchisement scheme.
Florida's old clemency rules required everyone with a felony
conviction who wanted to vote to apply individually to the Governor and
the Clemency Board. The burdensome process took years, and even then
there was no guarantee that one's rights would be restored. In fact,
former Governor Jeb Bush denied over 200,000 applications during his
tenure.
Unlike his predecessor, Crist seems to understand that increasing
access to the polls only strengthens our democracy. But even with the
new rules, Florida's felony disenfranchisement laws lag far behind most
of the country. Large numbers of would-be voters are still required to
navigate a slow, complicated, and expensive bureaucratic process and be
subject to the whim of the Clemency Board. The new rules also condition
the right to vote on an applicant's ability to pay restitution. And
there is no easy way for people who finished their sentence long ago to
have their rights restored.
Crist's actions come just one week after legislators in Maryland
took a better route to reforming their complicated felony
disenfranchisement scheme. Last week the Maryland General Assembly
passed a simple bill that would take voting rights away from those
convicted of only the most serious crimes, and will streamline the
process by which people get their voting rights restored once they have
served their sentence. The bill now awaits Governor Martin O'Malley's
signature.
Maryland law disenfranchises anyone who has been convicted of an
"infamous crime" - an archaic legal term that is as hard to apply as it
is to understand. Until the current bill is signed into law, Maryland
was one of only six states that took voting rights away from those
convicted of misdemeanors, and one of only two states in which someone
could lose the right to vote even if he never spent a single night in
jail. A complicated series of qualifications and waiting periods
created needless barriers to people regaining their voting rights even
after they had served their entire sentence. All this will be
simplified by the Assembly bill.
While it would be better if Florida's law were more like Maryland's,
it's a step in the right direction. Five years ago, Maryland changed
its law, from a lifetime ban to the complicated system it now has in
place. But the new law proved difficult to understand and administer,
and the frustration with it helped build momentum for this year's
change. No doubt as the Florida Executive Clemency board applies its
complicated rules, it too will begin to see the wisdom of a simple and
fair restoration process.
But the larger point remains: in the 2000 election, both Florida and
Maryland had lifetime felon voting bans. In the 2008 election, neither
will. Lawmakers are truly beginning to understand the fundamental
unfairness of banning persons with criminal convictions from the ballot
box. And it is not just lawmakers that have come to this understanding.
The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of welcoming voters back
into the political process. A 2002 Harris Interactive poll found that
eighty percent of Americans favor returning voting rights to citizens
who have completed their sentences.
This public support was confirmed this year in Rhode Island. For the
first time in history, voters went to the polls on Election Day and
cast a vote in favor of reenfranchsing persons with criminal
convictions. The voters of Rhode Island amended their state
constitution to restore the right to vote to their fellow citizens as
soon as they are released from prison. A coaltion of Democrats,
Republicans, law enforcement officials, religious organizations, labor
unions, affected communities and civil rights and advocacy groups
banded together to place the measure on the ballot to let the people
decide who should participate in voting. And they chose to invite
people who had paid their debt back onto the voter rolls.
In the last ten years, seventeen states have reformed their laws or
policies to reduce barriers to voting for people with criminal
convictions. Dozens of states, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Iowa, New York, and Washington are currently considering new measures
to bring more voters back to the polls. The time has come for Kentucky
and Virginia, the only states that continue to permanently ban all
people with felony convictions from voting, to join Florida and the
rest of the country by bringing people into the democratic process, not
shutting them out.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, State-Based Advocacy, Voting Rights & Elections
By James Sample – 04/03/07
Stating "I believe in my heart that everybody deserves a second chance," Florida's Republican Governor Charlie Crist is hoping to announce
this week that Florida will restore voting rights for most people with
felony convictions who have completed their criminal sentences.
Restoration is a long-overdue reform. Nationally, it is also a reform
on which the left and the right increasingly agree.
Still, the relic of disenfranchisement is not entirely without
defenders. In order to effect the change in Florida, Governor Crist
needs the support of two other members of the four-member Board of
Executive Clemency. One of those cabinet members is state Attorney
General Bill McCollum, who took to the op-ed pages of the St. Petersburg Times
yesterday in a misguided attempt to perpetuate the myths and
half-truths propagated by supporters of the status quo. For example, in
a glaring non sequitur allegedly supporting his position, he states
that "more than 70 percent of arrestees test positive for drugs, and studies show that drug traffickers live lives of violence." (emphasis added).
McCollum emphasizes concerns about recidivism but he completely
elides -- or simply misses -- the contradiction of his lamenting that
ex-offenders "would be able to acquire a state-licensed job, whether as
a household pest exterminator, residential building contractor or alarm
system installer." Just as restoring the right to vote reintegrates
individuals into a participatory society -- and thus helps reduce
recidivism -- removing overly-broad barriers to gainful employment
serves democracy and criminal justice alike.
Governor Crist's proposal accelerates a trend that already has
momentum. Since 1997, sixteen states have reduced barriers to voting by
people with criminal records. Leaders embracing the trend span the
political spectrum. Ten years ago then-Texas Governor George W. Bush --
hardly known as soft on crime -- signed a bill into law that restored
voting rights to people who completed their sentences. Likewise, the
bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, which
last fall released its report, "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,"
agreed that re-enfranchisement of ex-felons is a voting-rights issue,
not a punishment issue, and that states should restore voting rights to
persons who have completed their sentences.
On the left, Iowa Governor Thomas Vilsack issued an
Independence Day Executive Order in 2005 restoring the right to vote to
tens of thousands of Iowans who had completed their sentences. And last
week, the heavily Democratic Maryland legislature passed a bill
restoring the right to vote to 50,000 Maryland citizens, which Maryland
Governor Martin O'Malley is expected to sign into law soon.
Politicians' efforts to restore voting rights have been
surpassed by the political rank-and-file. Last November a majority of
Rhode Island voters approved a ballot measure amending the state
constitution and restoring the right to vote to 15,000 of their fellow
citizens as soon as they are released from prison--even prior to the
completion of supervised release.
The United States is the only democracy in the world that
disenfranchises people who have completed their criminal sentences. By
comparison, in most European nations, some or all prisoners
are entitled to vote. Although the practice of disenfranchisement
predates the Civil War, many states enacted or modified their felony
disenfranchisement laws in the Jim Crow era as a way to suppress the
voting power of black citizens. Make no mistake; the laws continue to
have that effect. Nationwide, 13% of black men are disenfranchised
because of a felony conviction, a rate that is seven times the national
average. In Florida that figure is a startling 18.8%.
It is the role of the criminal justice system, not the
electoral process, to punish individuals based on the severity of their
crime. The durations of criminal sentences reflect agreed-upon societal
norms, and when those sentences are fully completed we should encourage
participation in one of society's most constructive acts. Yet many
states have complex, multi-tiered restoration schemes that predictably
lead to confusion, chilling effects, intimidation, manipulation and
delay. In short, recall Katherine Harris and Florida's "voter cleansing" program
immediately prior to November 7, 2000--a program marked by incompetence
on a Katrina-esque scale and driven by nefariously partisan purposes.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose the political chicanery and
disenfranchisement such systems produce. A 2002 Harris Interactive poll
found that eighty percent of Americans favor returning voting rights to
citizens who have completed their sentences for felony convictions. In
other words, Governor Crist is marching in lockstep with
Americans--liberals and conservatives--who believe in the redemptive
value of second chances.
Restoring voting rights to people who have completed their
sentences is a goal that conservatives and progressives can share. And
to that point, the Sunshine state may soon be a shining example.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, State-Based Advocacy
Page 7 of 7 pages « First < 5 6 7
Permalink