This was one of Beshear’s first acts as governor. Two days
earlier, he announced at his inauguration that he would restore the right to
vote for 140,000 “men and women who have done wrong in the past but are doing
right now.” His Christian faith, he said, teaches him forgiveness.
“They deserve to participate in our great democracy,” he
told the inaugural crowd in front of the state Capitol in Frankfort.
Kentucky joined 17 other states that have restored voting
rights over the past several decades to felons after they leave prison. In
every state except Maine and Vermont, felons are stripped of their voting
rights while in prison. In most states, that ban remains for a certain period (Iowa
has a lifetime ban, unless reversed by the governor) after they are released,
disenfranchising millions of people.
In the past year, however, six states implemented measures restoring voting
rights to people with felony convictions.
This shift is part of a broader reaction against the
tough-on-crime policies of the 1980s and 1990s. Across the political spectrum,
more people are questioning the incarceration of nonviolent offenders and
backing anti-recidivism efforts.
“The vast majority of people disenfranchised live in our
communities, own homes and pay taxes,” said Sarah Shannon, an associate
professor of sociology at the University of Georgia who has studied the impact
of reinstating voting rights to felons. “They’re not behind bars. So, what is
it that’s stopping us from allowing those folks from fully participating in our
democracy?”
Still, strong opposition remains from lawmakers and election
integrity advocates who say felons made a choice and must live with the
consequences. Other opponents say these measures are ploys by Democrats to gain
more voters, a charge Democrats deny.
For some former convicts, activists and lawmakers, last
year’s success was the culmination of years of effort. In New Jersey, for
example, Democratic state Rep. Shavonda Sumter has lobbied her colleagues since
she took office in 2012, slowly building an appetite for action.
In December, New Jersey enfranchised people with felony
convictions. The measure, which applies to people who leave prison but are
still on parole or probation, restored the voting rights of 80,000 people.
Sumter, who sponsored the measure, told Stateline she
is proud to have changed a policy that was “inherently, systematically wrong.”
African Americans are far
more likely to be incarcerated and disenfranchised in New Jersey than
residents of other races, according to data compiled by the Sentencing Project,
a Washington, D.C.-based criminal justice nonprofit.
“When we start carving people out just because of a crime
they committed that had nothing to do with voting, we start stripping them of
humanity,” Sumter said.
She hopes that on Election Day in November, she can walk
around her hometown of Paterson, handing out “I Voted” stickers, and not have
disenfranchised constituents tell her they can’t accept one.
But Republican state Rep. Hal Wirths, who previously served
on a New Jersey parole board, voted against the measure. He says those on
parole or probation haven’t yet served their sentences and shouldn’t be allowed
to vote until they do. Around 20 states allow felons to re-register to vote
after their parole or probation period and after they’ve paid any fines.
“I believe in everyone getting second chances,” Wirths said.
“We all make mistakes. The main thing here is that they haven’t finished their
sentences yet.”
In California and Iowa, measures to restore voting rights to
felons made it through one legislative chamber but stalled in the other amid
disagreement over whether to include felons with murder or rape convictions.
Legislation in New Mexico stalled after making it out of committee, while
measures in six other states didn’t progress.
Elsewhere, proponents for enfranchising felons have turned
to the courts. In Minnesota, four residents with criminal records are suing
Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon, in his capacity as the state’s top
election official, to reinstate their and other formerly incarcerated
residents’ voting rights.
Elizer Darris, 35, has never had the right to vote. As a
juvenile he was sentenced to life in prison for murder, but his sentence was
later reduced and he was freed in 2016. Now, he works as an organizer with the
local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and he said he wants to
help choose the elected officials who make decisions that affect him.
“It’s like being invisible,” Darris said. “It doesn’t make
our communities safer to relegate people to the corners.”
While he would not comment on the pending lawsuit, Peter
Bartz-Gallagher, communications director for Minnesota’s secretary of state,
said even as Simon is the defendant in this case, he remains in favor of
restoring the right to vote to people as soon as they get out of prison. Around
50,000 felons who have finished their sentences remain disenfranchised in
Minnesota, he said.
“It is an investment in helping people connect with their
community,” Bartz-Gallagher said. “It leads to a stronger democracy and makes
communities safer. This isn’t a niche issue. It affects a lot of people who are
trying to rebuild their lives.”
Some opponents such as the Minnesota Voters Alliance, a St.
Paul-based election integrity group, do not think the secretary of state’s
defense of the state law disenfranchising felons is strong enough. The
group has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit and
join the defense.
Andy Cilek, executive director of the alliance, which calls
itself nonpartisan, said the previous support for felon enfranchisement from
Simon and Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison, who will lead the state’s
defense, make them biased in the case.
Further, Cilek thinks this issue should be resolved through
the legislature by amending the state constitution. And he says measures that
enfranchise felons really are about helping Democrats boost voter registration.
“That’s what it’s all about,” Cilek said. “There’s no doubt
about it.”
The lawsuit is currently in discovery, which will take
several more months, said David McKinney, a staff attorney with the ACLU of
Minnesota, which is representing the four plaintiffs in court. After trying for
years to get bills through the legislature, McKinney said
The future of a Florida measure that would restore the
voting rights of 1.4 million felons is also in the hands of the courts.
After nearly two-thirds of Florida voters passed a
constitutional amendment in 2018 that would enfranchise people with felony
convictions, Republican lawmakers and GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis have sought to
limit the measure. A new law requires that all court fees and fines and other
criminal restitutions be paid before people can vote.
This was met by a series of lawsuits from civil rights
groups, who argued the measure constituted a poll tax. Daniel Smith, a
University of Florida political science professor, testified in October this new law prevents 80% of
otherwise eligible felons from voting.
“We thought we were on a good track to get these rights
restored, but we’ve had all of these obstacles thrown in the way,” said
Patricia Brigham, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, one of
the organizations suing the state. “We’re waiting on further court decisions.
There is a lot up in the air.”
The organization has held several training sessions for
lawyers who want to work pro bono to help felons determine whether they can
register to vote or have outstanding fines and fees.
In October, a federal judge ruled the state couldn’t deny voting
rights to people who are “genuinely unable” to pay legal fees. Republicans have
argued that these fees are part of a criminal sentence and must be paid before
voting rights are restored.
Florida lawmakers are expected to draft new legislation when
they return to work this month. In the meantime, DeSantis has asked the Florida
Supreme Court to weigh in.
Other states are trying to ease some of that confusion. In
Iowa, felons leaving prison will now be handed filled-out forms by the Department
of Corrections to make it easier for them to apply to get their voting rights
restored by the governor. Previously, discharged inmates had to fill out a
complicated form on their own.
Iowa lawmakers failed in 2019 to pass a constitutional
amendment that would have restored voting rights for felons. Republican Gov.
Kim Reynolds has said she will wait on the legislature instead of signing an
executive order.
States will continue to explore ways of giving voting rights
back to felons, said the University of Georgia’s Shannon. While some states
will make sweeping changes applying to all felons, others might limit
enfranchisement to people who committed certain crimes. It’s unlikely, she
said, that many states would go a step further and start giving those in prison
voting rights.
To read more CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment