Blog
Voting After Criminal Conviction
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 Bonnie Ernst – 09/16/10
This week, the Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Conference will feature the Democracy Restoration Act (DRA) to raise awareness about the importance of restoring the right to vote to people with criminal histories. Two meaningful events that will focus on the issue will take place in Washington, D.C. on Friday, September 17: the CBC’s Judiciary Braintrust, and the National Black Law Students Association’s Social Action Rally.
At 9:00 a.m. on Friday at the Washington Convention Center- Room 145-B, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) will host a panel titled “Criminal Justice Reform: The Continuing Challenges to Equality” to examine racial disparities in the legal system. Erika Wood will speak about the importance of restoring the right to vote for formerly incarcerated people and why it is crucial that representatives support the DRA. The DRA will restore the right to vote in federal elections to over 4 million Americans who are living in their community but have been barred from having their voice heard in elections. The DRA also ensures that people on probation will be able to vote and that people are provided with voter registration information upon ending their sentence or beginning their time on federal probation. Among others, Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, and Ronald Hampton from the National Black Police Association, will be speaking on the panel.
Later in the morning, the National Black Law Students Association will host a Social Action Rally at the University of the District of Columbia. The rally will begin at 11:30 a.m. and allies of the DRA and those impacted by the current law will be speaking to encourage Congress to pass the bill. It should be an exciting day to raise awareness about the right to vote.
Save the Date: November 1, 2010 will be a national call-in day to support the Democracy Restoration Act. Visit www.brennancenter.org/dra for details.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction
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
By Garima Malhotra – 07/06/10
In a political climate where the partisan divide makes allies and alliances more predictable every day, last week's USA Today shed light on a rather unusual set of allies: cops and individuals recently released from prison. As USA Today reports, re-entry programs in Michigan and Rhode Island pair corrections officers with inmates before and after their release in an effort to aid them with their transition back into society, with the ultimate goal of preventing future crime.
It is surprising that such a logical approach is untraditional – and it is not surprising that it is effective. For example, in the western region of the Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative program, only 11% of the program’s 713 participants have been convicted of new crimes in last four years – compared to 70% nationally. It goes without saying that job training, mentoring, counseling and support help the transition from prison to community and prevent recidivism.
But the idea is not new to the Brennan Center. Since 2007, we have been building a similar partnership. After a national convening of law enforcement and criminal justice allies, we created a Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice Advisory Council with whom we partner on both on state and federal reform of criminal disenfranchisement laws. Current members include police chiefs, prosecutors, heads of probation, parole and corrections departments, and presidents of leading professional law enforcement and community supervision associations.
These law enforcement professionals recognize that restoring the right to vote after release from incarceration affirms the returning members’ value to the polity, encourages participation in civic life, and helps to rebuild the ties that motive law-abiding behavior.
The Brennan Center Law Enforcement Advisory Council has been enormously effective. The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the National Black Police Association (NBPA), the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI) and the American Correctional Association (ACA) have all passed resolutions in favor of voting rights restoration. Members of the law enforcement community have supported campaigns to restore the right to vote to people with prior convictions across the country, including in Kentucky, New York, Rhode Island, Washington and Virginia. In December 2009, high ranking law enforcement and criminal justice professionals wrote to members of Congress urging them to sign the Democracy Restoration Act, legislation that seeks to restore the right to vote to individuals upon release from prison. And just recently, a group of law enforcement submitted an amicus curiae brief in a case that challenges Washington’s felony disenfranchisement law, arguing that the laws impede rehabilitation and successful reintegration.
When testifying recently before a United States House Judiciary Subcommittee, APPA Executive Director and Advisory Council member Carl Wicklund stated, “One of the core missions of parole and probation supervision is to support the successful transition from prison and jail to the community. Civic participation is an integral part of this transition because it helps transform one’s identity from deviant to law-abiding citizen.” Providence Police Chief Dean Esserman, another supporter of Rhode Island camping and Advisory Council member, explained, “denying the vote to people who completed their prison sentence disrupts the re-entry process and weakens the long-term prospects for sustainable rehabilitation.” And Gil Kerlikowske, now the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, wrote when he was Chief of Police in Seattle, “voting is an important way to connect people to their communities, which in turn helps them avoid going back to crime. . . . We want those who leave prison to become productive and law-abiding citizens. Voting puts them on that path.”
In fact, the relationship between Rhode Island Department of Corrections Director A.T. Wall and Andres Idarraga, described in the USA Today article, started well before Andres asked Director Wall for a recommendation to Yale Law School. Andres was one of the primary spokespeople for the Rhode Island Right to Vote 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. Rhode Island became the first state to approve Brennan Center’s model bill that not only restores voting rights to individuals upon release from prison, but requires the Department of Corrections to notify individuals in writing about their right and provide voter registration forms. It was through his work with the right to vote campaign that Andres caught the attention of Director Wall, who had endorsed the campaign and is currently a member of our Advisory Council.
This partnership between corrections/law enforcement individuals and people coming out of prison is exciting and promising. It shows an increasing commitment within the criminal justice community to help address some of the systematic problems that result in some individuals’ repeated contact with the criminal justice system. Hopefully, this collaboration among unusual allies will continue to grow across the country, and the intuitive link between civic participation and successful re-entry will no longer be ignored.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice Advisory Council, Racial Justice
By Garima Malhotra – 05/13/10
The effort to restore voting rights in New York is gaining momentum. Today, over 100 New Yorkers sent postcards to their legislators and Governor Paterson urging them to restore the right to vote to people in New York who are on parole and probation.
New York law disenfranchises individuals in prison or on parole. As we have mentioned in previous posts, this law has a stark impact on people of color. A new Brennan Center report, titled Jim Crow in New York, confirms that the current criminal disenfranchisement law traces back to a century-long effort to keep African-American citizens out of the voting booth. As a result, over 80% of those denied the right to vote in the Empire State are African-American or Latino.
And New Yorkers are finally calling on our state leaders to end this injustice.
This writing campaign stems from a lively public conversation held at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture on this very issue. The discussion included Rev. Dr. Calvin O. Butts III from the Abyssinian Baptist Church of the City of New York, Hazel Dukes from the NAACP New York State Conference, Glenn Martin from the Fortune Society, and Columbia Law Professor Theodore Shaw.
Hopefully Albany will heed its constituents’ demands. There are several bills pending in both the Assembly and the Senate that would restore the right to vote to people with a prior criminal conviction.
Among them is legislation introduced by Assemblyman O’Donnell and Senator Thompson that restores voting rights to people on parole. The bills have been referred to the Assembly Committee on Election Law and the Senate Committee on Elections.
Senator Montgomery and Assemblyman Wright have also introduced the Voting Rights Notification and Registration Act that would help eliminate some of the confusion about who is eligible to vote. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and the Board of Parole to provide information to individuals about their voting rights once they regain eligibility. The bill passed the full Assembly in June 2009 and is currently pending in the Senate Elections Committee. (The Brennan Center testified in favor of this bill in April 2009). Similar bills have passed the Assembly twice before.
Contact us to request postcards to tell your elected officials that it is time to restore voting rights to people with prior convictions.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Post-Incarceration Restoration of Voting Rights, State-Based Advocacy
Page 2 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Permalink