FairVote Feed: Felon Disenfranchisement

Takoma Park Promotes the Vote: Will More Cities, Campuses and Organizations Take Action?

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:52:21 -0700

Last night, the Takoma Park city council passed a charter amendment by a 6-1 vote on first reading that, if approved when before the council again in the coming month, will be in the best tradition of cities and states leading the nation in advancing voting rights. It would establish same-day voter registration and extend voting rights to residents after they turn 16 and after incarceration. Here's why we think it's important.

FairVote's motto is "respect for every vote and every voice." Our reforms are grounded in the belief that bringing more people to the table is the best way to strengthen democracy. Elections with high turnout, real voter choice and fair representation are a nonpartisan way to help representative democracy in our nation, states and cities.

Although changing the Constitution should be an option, most of our reforms can be won by statute, such as the: National Popular Vote Plan to guarantee election of the winner of the most popular votes in presidential elections; fair voting forms of proportional representation to elect Congress and state and local legislators; ranked choice voting(instant runoff) for our single winner offices; and voting access reforms designed to provide for high rates of participation with election integrity.

The one proposed constitutional amendment we highlight is establishing an affirmative right to vote. Adding such language to the Constitution would underscore our nation's commitment to the right to vote and raise the level of scrutiny to any laws that fail to uphold voting rights.

Guided by that vision, we have designed our Promote Our Vote project to encourage immediate action in cities, campuses and organizations to put life into the goal of a constitutional right to vote through concrete action to boost turnout. As underscored by our report on mayoral elections, single digit voter turnout is all too common in city elections, with particularly stark disparities as measured by race, income, education and age.

Last year, we did a voter survey in a hotly contested special election in our hometown of Takoma Park (MD) that showed remarkable differences in who participated. Turnout was up overall from the most recent mayoral election, but was still less than 20% of registered voters. Furthermore, we found that: people of color were 74% of residents, but only 35% of voters; younger adults were 42% of residents but only 7% of voters; and people with graduate or professional degrees were 56% of voters, but only 10% of residents.

Historically, states and cities have been the laboratories of democracy in expanding suffrage and voter access. Promote Our Vote advances resolutions for cities, campuses and organizations to endorse an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution and commit to concrete actions to improve voter turnout, protect voter access when threatened and consider expansion of suffrage rights.

Takoma Park city councilor Tim Male liked the right to vote resolution. Finding a strong ally in fellow councilor Seth Grimes and support from Mayor Bruce Williams, he introduced it to his council colleagues. In so doing, the council decided to move forward on changes for this November's election. The council last night voted to approve the first reading of a charter amendment that would establish same day voter registration in city elections, extend voting rights to more people with felony convictions and make Takoma Park the first city in the United State to join what has become an international movement to extend suffrage rights to people after they turn age 16. The council may also form a task force to consider other ways to increase turnout such as a revision of the landlord code to ensure candidates have greater access to speak with tenants in apartment buildings.

These ideas came directly from councilors' experience. After Grimes introduced Election Day registration, councilors talked about spending time on the campaign trail with residents only to find out they weren't registered and it was past the registration cutoff date. With Maryland this year adopting a new law to establish same day registration during early voting, it was all the easier for the city to go one step farther. Another councilor talked about residents who wanted to vote, but could not due to being on parole or under supervision.

The idea of ensuring candidate access to residents in apartment buildings grew from candidates discussing how much easier it was to engage with homeowners in single-family dwellings than tenants in apartment buildings that were closed to them. It turns out that Minnesota has a law with proven procedures for establishing candidate access to apartments in campaign season.

The proposal to extend voting rights to people after they turn 16 may surprise some readers, but the latest research is a revelation. All evidence suggests that cities will increase turnout by allowing citizens to cast their first vote after turning 16. The reason is simple. Many people at 16 and 17 have lived in their communities for years and are taking government classes in high school. That combination results in more people exercising their first chance to vote if they are 16 or 17 than if they are unable to vote until they have left home and school.

Keep in mind that a voting age of 18 means that many people won't get a chance to vote in city election until they are nearly 20. A detailed study of voting age and voters in Denmark found that 18-year-olds were far more likely to cast their "first vote" than 19-year-olds, and that every month of extra age in those years resulted in a decline in "first vote" turnout.

Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections will enable them to vote before leaving home and high school, and establish a life-long habit of voting.

Austria is among a growing number of nations like Argentina, Germany and the United Kingdom that have extended voting rights to people at 16 for national, regional or local elections. Evidence from Austria confirms that extending voting rights to people after they turn 16 promotes higher turnout for first-time voters and over time. Austria's experience also shows that 16- and 17-years-olds are ready for voting as far as making choices that accurately reflect their views.

Long-time backers of a lower voting age, like the National Youth Rights Association, make a fairness argument as well. Turning 16 has special significance in our culture. At age 16, we can drive, pay taxes and for the first time work without any restriction on hours. Many states already allow citizens under 18 to vote in Democratic and Republican primaries for president, Congress and governor. Many states like Maryland allow people to start registering to vote at 16, making it administratively easy to extend voting rights.

The idea has taken hold here. Testimony at a public hearing was overwhelmingly positive, the local Gazette endorsed a lower voting with a long editorial and letters of support have come in from our state senator Jamie Raskin (see letter), Congressman Keith Ellison (see letter) and leading scholars on youth engagement, such as CIRCLE's invaluable Peter Levine (see letter). I have little doubt that the practice will quickly spread. Indeed, already the mayor of Orange, Ohio has taken note of Takoma Park's potential action, and the one skeptic on Takoma Park's city council came up with excellent ideas of how to introduce local government and voting to young people if the amendment were adopted.

Democracy is too important to be a spectator sport. Let's vote, of course, but also consider getting directly involved in reform work. FairVote Action presents action ideas for all of our reform ideas. If you like the idea of your city, campus or organization having the kind of substantive, generative conversation on the right to vote that has taken place in Takoma Park, visit Promote Our Vote, look at its resources and take action.

The Disappearing Vote: A Spotlight on the Disenfranchised Felon Population of the US

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:26:42 -0700

The Disappearing Vote: A Spotlight on the Disenfranchised Felon Population of the US

It is common knowledge that citizens of the United States exercise their democratic liberties by voting in elections. Yet not all citizens are allowed to share in what should be the right to participate in electing the country’s leaders and officials.

A Merriam-Webster definition of someone who is a citizen is someone who is “entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman.” The word to focus on in the previous sentence is “freeman.” Citizens who have been convicted of a past felony are still citizens, and they are free people who have been deemed safe enough to enter back into society. They should be able to reap the benefits of being a citizen in America, but according to the NAACP, the ability to vote in elections has been stripped away from up to 5.3 million Americans who have a felony conviction.

Depending on the state in which a free citizen with a felony conviction may live, they may or may not be able to vote. But how are we to expect people convicted of felony charges to re-enter society and be law-abiding citizens if they have no direct say in what that law should be?

The disenfranchisement laws for these individuals send a message to those previously convicted that their voice, livelihood, and future success no longer matter to the rest of the country, and certainly not to the politicians who are supposed to be representing them. It is already hard enough for people with felony convictions to find places of employment and neighborhoods to live in where they are not ostracized, and these voting bans only lead to a cyclical pattern of alienation. Taking away their voting abilities shuts them out of the democracy for which this country stands, and has actually been shown to increase recidivism, or a reoccurrence of crime. It also sends an unfair message to these peoples' children; studies have shown that children are more likely to vote if their parents vote.

As if losing voting rights were not enough, the racial minority population, particularly African Americans, is faced with the reality that state laws forbidding citizens with felony convictions from voting has a disproportionate racial affect on their community. Marc Mauer, Assistant Director of The Sentencing Project, testified before Congress stating that nearly 1.4 million or 13% of African American men cannot vote because of disenfranchisement laws. This is seven times the national average. In the seven states refusing ex-offenders the right to vote, 1 in 4 African American men are affected.

Kentucky and Virginia are the two states with the harshest of policies surrounding the voting rights for people convicted of a felony. As a resident of the state of Virginia, I have seen first-hand the devastating effects of Virginia’s strict disfranchisement law. A dear friend of mine is faced to live in this country each day without the chance to systematically directly or indirectly impact the laws that affect his day-to-day life. Now a decade since making one life-changing mistake, he has become a great contributor to his community, yet still cannot go to the polls.

--Here is what he has to say about being a free citizen with a felony conviction in Virginia:

“As a citizen with a felony conviction in the United States, I feel like an alien in my own home. Millions of citizens with criminal records realize how detrimental it is to not be included in our country’s decisions. We all have a hand in changing the nation, or at least should. But once our civil rights have been stripped from us, we cannot vote, hold office, become a notary, or serve on jury duty. ” Read More…

The populations in the U.S. who are prohibited by law from voting in local or national elections consists of those persons under the age of 18, those who are mentally incompetent, those who are not citizens and those living in states that limit suffrage rights due to felony convictions. By disallowing citizens with felony convictions the chance to vote, we equate them to juvenile individuals who cannot effectively make decisions that will add to the overall good of society, a generalization that simply is not true.

There needs to be a widespread calling for an automatic restoration of rights, a system, for example, that isn’t built on conditional laws that require citizens convicted of a felony to take up the painstaking task of finding a job in order to pay their outstanding fines. They often cannot pay their fines because their history of having a felony conviction makes it difficult to get hired. This of course leads them to be ineligible to not only vote, but ineligible to even resubmit registration forms because their fines aren’t paid. It’s a vicious sequence of events that has the potential to boost the rate of voter apathy and indifferent attitudes in terms of obeying the law.

America strongly stands for democracy. For that reason, the government should know that democracy works best when as many people as possible are fulfilling their civic duty by voting. As stated by James Madison in the Federalist 10 paper, democracy does not work when there are majority factions out-speaking minority factions. Democracy does not work if those with voting rights deny the ability to vote to fellow citizens of voting age. It is time for all of our voices to be heard.

UPDATE: FairVote is pleased to announce that on September 28, 2011, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, granted a full restoration of rights for the man who gave his account of life in Virginia as a citizen convicted of a felony. Referred to in this blog as "Anonymous Voice," he has now regained his civil rights in its entirety, which includes the ability to vote, run for and hold public office, serve on juries, and serve as a public notary. The total process took eight months. While FairVote is extremely happy for this restoration of rights, the Anonymous Voice is but one happy story out of many stories where citizens convicted of felonies are still awaiting the day when they too will have their rights restored. There is still much work to be done to turn that dream goal into the reality that it should be.

H.R.2212 or the Democracy Restoration Act of 2011 (DRA) is federal legislation that aims to restore the voting rights for about 4 million Americans who are no longer incarcerated and are contributing members in their community. It was re-introduced by Rep. John Conyers on June 16, 2011 and was referred to the subcommittee on the Constitution on August 25, 2011. Search The Library of Congress for updates on the status of H.R.2212.

To learn more about felon disenfranchisement, visit the Brennan Center for Justice

The Constitutional Right to Vote Blog: Felon Disenfranchisement in Iowa

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:40:19 -0800

One in 44 American citizens of voting age is barred from voting. In Iowa, the Sentence Project reports that number is one in 22, due to one of the most restrictive former felon disenfranchisement laws (or “civil death” as it was originally called) in the country. Iowa is a poster child for what it means to fail to protect our right to vote in the U.S. Constitution: fundamental democratic rights can be tossed around like a political football.

In 2005, former Governor Tom Vilsack signed an executive order to reinstate voting rights to those with prior felony convictions automatically upon completion of their sentences, including any accompanying term of probation, parole or supervised release. Yet, Iowa’s new governor Terry Branstad reminds us of the harsh reality that political players make key decisions about suffrage on a state-by-state basis; On Jan. 13 , Gov. Branstad revoked the 2005 order, thereby backtracking Iowa to its old system of voting rights restoration – one that is time-consuming, confusing, and prone to arbitrary decisions by the governor’s office based on a review of each application on a case by case basis.

Iowa’s new Secretary of State Matt Schultz, a backer of the recent changes, argues it’s important to make sure people have paid all their court fees before reinstating their right to vote, hence the return to an individual review. Yet, the right to vote should never be contingent upon the amount of money in someone’s bank account. Mixing fees repayment with the right to combines two utterly unrelated aspects of a person’s life and makes their fundamental citizenship rights bound into their financial wellbeing. Rights should not be allowed to become so entangled with personal finances and unrelated matters.

Certainly Iowa’s laws have a disturbing impact. Already, almost 25% of the state’s African American voting-age population,(significantly higher than the national average of 7.5%) are disenfranchised. If Iowa’s laws followed the laws of its surrounding states, the rate would drop to almost exactly the same as the national average.

All this serves as a further illustration of how deeply bound voting rights have become with political games. Marty Connors, Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, was candid when asked about the topic in 2004: "As frank as I can be, we're opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don't tend to vote Republican." And while Iowa Democrats (in this case) are the ones protecting voting rights, one wonders if they would have been nearly as likely to act if citizens with felony convictions tended to vote Republican.

The simple truth that Iowa is even having this debate shows how fragile the right to vote is across the Unites States. When voting rights remain tied to executive orders and the fate of mid-term elections, such fragility will continue. Yet, voting rights should never be used as a political sledgehammer with which to bludgeon the opposing political party.

We instead should come together to agree that voting is an essential part of any citizen’s participation in their representative democracy. The neutering of that participation because of past convictions or outstanding monetary debt is against the very basis on which a government free from a ruling class of the aristocracy has been built.

Without a federal right to vote enumerated in the US Constitution , this debilitating argument will continue – voting rights expanded and taken away, with parties looking first to their self-interest and only secondarily to our democratic values. Then, and only then, will the right to vote truly be a right.

Until that time, state legislatures can act to protect voting rights. A model bill is available here.

Constitutional Right to Vote Blog: The Right to Vote- More Precious than a Bag of Chips

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:46:30 -0700

Admit it- while studying for a tough test or maybe after a long day at work, you once became so frustrated by the vending machine that took your crumpled dollar without dispensing chips that you gave the machine a kick. Maybe more than one bag of chips fell out, and you took both and went on your merry way. Maybe, you even figured out how to pull the dollar back from the machine at the last minute, getting your chips, but keeping your money too.

However, Maryland residents take note: up until 2007, you could have lost your right to vote in Maryland for such an act. Prior to 2007 in Maryland, a person could have been disenfranchised for committing a variety of “infamous crimes,” including the misdemeanor titled “unlawful operation of vending machines”. Other misdemeanors that they could have disenfranchised a citizen in Maryland included “misrepresentation of the weight of tobacco leafs” or “racing a horse under a false name”. It is unclear if the false name must be of the horse owner, rider or horse.

The law, which was changed in 2007, now only disenfranchises people in Maryland who are currently serving out a sentence for a felony, including probation. (Hats off to state senator Jamie Raskin, a former FairVote board member, who took a lead role in improving the law.)

Unclear and bizarre voter disenfranchisement laws are not merely a product of Maryland legislature’s history. In Mississippi today, the state constitution reads anyone convicted of theft will be barred indefinitely from voting. While that seems very clear, it turns out there is no crime called theft in Mississippi. This has left the legislature in the uncomfortable position of having to determine, one crime at a time, what should fall into the broad category of theft.

This confusing array of laws is bad enough in itself. It becomes worse when lack of understanding of these laws can contribute to prosecution for inadvertently violating a prohibition against voting. This is all too possible given how confusing these laws can be within a state, let alone for the many people who move from state to state without checking what incidents in their younger days might disenfranchise them in their new state. Under the current hodge-podge of laws related to felon/misdemeanor disenfranchisement, even election officials and jailors don’t know who to help vote.

One such case involves a man in Polk County, Minnesota. Ken Mendez voted regularly – in 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006. Mendez was proud of voting, so he took his son with him in 2008 to watch him obtain an absentee ballot. However, he was denied an absentee ballot, because he was currently on probation. Mendez demanded a ballot, explaining had voted in 2006, while also on probation for the same crime, and in jail. The situation then became more complicated.

In 2006, even though he should not have been allowed to vote under current Minnesota law, Mendez was given an absentee ballot by jail officials after having requested the Board of Elections to send one to his jail address. When asking for a pencil to vote, he was given one by a jail official. The official then even stamped and mailed the ballot for Mendez. Since this was an act of voting by a felon on probation, when Mendez told the Board of Election official in 2008 about his 2006 voting, he was charged with a felony.

Mendez was found not guilty of felonious voting. After a lengthy 17 page discussion of the court’s reasoning, the case boiled down to whether or not Mendez knew he wasn’t allowed to vote. It was ruled he did not meet the “knowingly” element of the crime, and therefore the prosecutor could not meet his burden of proving all elements for which Mendez was charged.

What these bizarre cases and wacky laws prove is that even those tasked with helping us vote are unsure of the differing laws surrounding disenfranchisement, due to their unclear and arbitrary nature. Not only does this illustrate the needs for stronger civic education among Americas and better training for elections officials, but it also shows how felon disenfranchisement just doesn’t make any sense.

How can the same person, commit the same crime, in two different states, but have two different rights and abilities depending on where he or she lived? How can a person be voting in one state, then move into another state and lose voting rights?

How can a person face up to 5 years in jail for voting while in jail, if the jailors help him obtain an absentee ballot from the Board of Elections while in prison?

Such contradictory and ridiculous laws create a system that can only leads to inconsistent and biased application. This patchwork of misunderstood policies is creating a real situation where Americans have varying levels of rights dependant not on their actions and desire to participate in government, but instead on their home address and honesty.

Felon disenfranchisement laws should not be allowed, because they are a gross violation of the right to vote that should be extended to every American citizen. That’s right- “should be”: We still need an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution, establishing the right to vote on an equal basis with free speech and other core democratic rights.

After all, a law that is unenforceable at a level that is unbiased and consistent shouldn’t be a law at all.

The Constitutional Right to Vote Blog

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:23:03 -0700

As a new democracy fellow at FairVote, I’ve been introduced to a wide range of innovative and noteworthy electoral reform and voting rights proposals. One proposal is of particular importance in the wake of a series of revelations over the past decade – revelations involving who votes, who runs our elections, and how voting rights are protected.

We must elevate the right to vote to the same standing as other fundamental democratic rights, such as freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Our vote is our voice. Each day brings new examples of why such protections are needed, which will be frequently chronicled in this blog.

In a country where not even half of eligible voters are likely to vote this fall, it seems counterproductive to systematically disenfranchise thousands of Americans. However, without an explicit constitutional right to vote, the marginalization of select groups of Americans by removing their ability to vote continues. As we approach November 2nd, new acts undercutting the right to vote are underway in several states. Some are very conscious. Some are just based on inefficient protocols and equipment. But all are barriers to truly respecting every vote and every vote.

In Colorado, voter registration applications for new voters are subject to a notice of disposition sent by the board of
elections after the application has processed. This disposition is mailed to whatever address the clerk has entered as the voter’s primary residence. If the notice cannot be delivered for any reason, the voter’s application to register becomes invalid and the person is unable to vote in the next election.

While intended to eliminate voter fraud, this practice leads to many Coloradan (some 6,000 in this election alone) who want to vote, being told they are unable. Often, the disposition cards are returned to the board of election because of a flaw in the post office, or a clerk imputing information onto the address form on computer registries inaccurately. Here, “lost in the mail” costs votes. Voters have been, and continue to be, disenfranchised in part due to the human error of others.

This week, a federal judge for Colorado declined a motion for preliminary injunction that would have allowed the Coloradans who wish to register to vote the ability to do so. Without Election Day registration, these voters may need to wait until the next election to participate. See more about this issue

But the effects from the lack of a constitutional right to vote don’t only extend to those who are disenfranchised temporarily because of human error. As highlighted in a New York Times editorial this week and a recent report by the Sentencing Project , many live in states that permanently disenfranchise countless potential voters under state law because of time-served on a past felony conviction . While many states are reforming laws and practices to allow people who have served felony convictions to regain the right to vote, many states still lack such fundamental reforms. Some five million citizens are therefore eligible to vote in one state, but ineligible to vote in the state where they reside due to conflicting state laws nationwide.

A disproportionate amount of people affected by these laws are racial minorities, leading some states like Iowa to have over 30% of their African American population ineligible to vote. Some states even erroneously (again, human error) list people with no felony convictions as former felons and expunge them from voting registries. As seen in Florida in 2000, such expunging can have serious effects on the outcomes of elections, in addition to the circumvention of individuals’ civil liberties.

Some states go as far as to only allow former felons to vote if they have no outstanding financial debt, such as child support back-payments. While the payment of child support is an important interest to many, it cannot be ethically comingled with a separate obligation and right, such as voting. The removal of a basic civil right cannot be held over the head of those with financial debt, or a slippery slope would be established where it could be foreseeable that those with outstanding mortgages or federal student loan debt could also be disenfranchised.

Some lawmakers justify these laws by suggesting that voting is a privilege. Indeed voting is a privilege. It is a responsibility. But just like other fundamental demands of a representative democracy bounded in “the consent of the governed,” voting is a right. We need to treat it that way – and take steps to ensure its protection in the U.S. Constitution. Find out more about this issue

Virginia Governor takes action to improve voting rights

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:15:29 -0700

The process of removing the right to vote from a person convicted of a crime was invented by the Romans and dubbed “civil death”. It is a process that several states in America still implement today, grounded in the disturbing fact that the U.S. Constitution does not provide a citizenship right to vote.

In most states, a person who has completed serving a felony conviction is allowed to register to vote. Other states restrict this right, and in a few remaining states like Virginia, this punishment is a lifelong ban unless a waiver is granted by the governor. Anyone moving into such a state with a past felony conviction will be breaking the law if they vote, even if coming from a state where they had full suffrage rights.

In his first year in office, Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell (R) is on pace to restore voting rights for more of his state’s citizens than previous governors. He eliminated the need for a citizen with a felony conviction to write an essay describing their “redemption”, and is allowing former felons to apply to vote two years after incarceration instead of three.

Despite McDonnell’s positive changes, current Virginia law still allows a governor the ability to go cherry-picking among former felons, choosing which specific people he or she believes has “earned back” the vote. In their four years as governor, Tim Kaine, restored the rights of a record 4,402 felons, Mark Warner restored the rights of 3,486, and Jim Gilmore and George Allen restored less than 700 combined. McDonnell has recently restored the rights of over 90% of citizens with convictions for nonviolent crimes and 75% of citizens with convictions for violent crimes who applied to have their rights restored.

While I applaud McDonnell for his efforts to ease the restoration process, it should be noted that the laws removing the right to vote from people who have finished serving their sentence for a crime remain unjust. More than 300,000 citizens with felony convictions have had their right to vote removed in Virginia alone, a number that balloons to more than 5 million nationwide. The continued punishment of citizens who have served their time in prison is forcing many Americans to be penalized for decades longer than the court has ordered. Although most citizens with felony convictions are white, the application of the law has had a discriminatory impact, since prison populations have higher concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities than the general population. Felon disenfranchisement effects up to 13% of African-American adult men, a rate that is seven times the national average.

Because there is no explicit right in the Constitution to a vote, laws removing the right to vote from people who have previous felony convictions are legal. The Supreme Court case Richardson v. Ramirez upheld the constitutionality of disenfranchisement for felons, under section 2 of the 14th amendment which states the right to vote can be limited by "participation of rebellion, or other crime.” Later, Supreme Court cases revised this to state that a law which is disenfranchising prior felons based on a racially discriminatory animus is not constitutional.

Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while incarcerated. 39 states and DC currently have laws where the right to vote is automatically restored for citizens with felony convictions when their time is served. In the remaining states 11 states, a petition to the governor must be completed and approved before a person may vote again, or a felon must wait several years before he or she is allowed to vote. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming currently disenfranchise more than 1 in 25 of their adult population. Fully one million Americans who are disenfranchised never went to prison- they became disenfranchised due to probation.

Ultimately, a right is a right, no matter how you feel about the person exercising it. Just as the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens, so should the right to vote.

For more information on laws in your state, please visit http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_bs_fdlawsinusMarch2010.pdf. FairVote has additional resources in its Right to Vote pages.

Felon Disenfranchisement: A Relic of the Past

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:58:39 -0800

In 48 states, after paying your debt to society for a felony conviction, you get back your right to vote. In Virgina and Kentucky, you don't. Several articles ran this morning about this issue--including a powerful editorial in the Washington Post. The Post editorial tells the story of a woman named Jennifer McDaniel of Alexandria, VA. For 27 years her life was ruined by a heroin addiction. She was eventually arrested and convicted of grand larceny for shoplifting and served time in prison. Since her release, she has started a new life. She learned how to read and write, got a job at a pet store and graduated from grooming school, where she excelled in her studies. She is now the manager of a pet store. Last month, a judge was so impressed with her progress that he ended her supervised probation. Yet, Ms. McDaniel is still not allowed to fully integrate herself back into society because she is denied the right to vote.

Ms. McDaniel's story is not unique. Voting rights advocates estimate 300,000 Virginians are denied the right to vote because of a past felony conviction. While many states have relaxed their re-enfranchisement policies over time--Maine and Vermont even allow incarcerated felons to vote--Virgina and Kentucky have remained deeply set in the past. According to the Post editorial, while only a fifth of Virginia's population is African American, that population makes up over half of those denied the right to vote because of a previous felony conviction. In The Right to Vote by Harvard professor Alexander Keyssar, he writes about the "shaky" arguments "inherited from the nineteenth century--that felon disenfranchisement was necessary to safeguard the political system." While other states, like Florida in recent years, have moved their felon disenfranchisement policies into the 21st century, Virgina and Kentucky seem unwilling to embrace modernity.

Some civil rights advocates contend that Virginia governor Tim Kaine should act through executive order to reverse this discriminatory policy without waiting for the state legislature to act, but he has given reasons why it is not legally or logistically possible. Even though "prominent universities, civil rights groups and law firms, including Washington and Lee, the NAACP and Hogan & Hartson" believe the governor would be on "solid legal footing," it's possible that politics--not the law--is what is keeping the Democrat from moving forward on this issue. I hope that Ms. McDaniel's testimonial in today's Post, the Brennan Center's Erika Wood's op-ed in the Richmond Times Dispatch and a piece by the Virginia ACLU in the Roanoke Times will convince Gov. Kaine to do the right thing before his term expires this weekend.

FairVote's Board of Directors voted in December to back a resolution calling on Gov. Kaine to issue an executive order restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions. You can take action by clicking here. To read more about this issue, visit our page about Felon Disenfranchisement. For a national standard guaranteeing the right to vote, read about the Right to Vote Amendment. Watch Ms. McDaniel tell her story here.

Florida Restores Voting Rights

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Florida Governor Charlie Crist and the state clemency board approved restoring voting rights to people who have been convicted of a felony. Under the rule change, Florida officials will automatically begin the rights-restoration process upon sentence completion. Florida drew national attention during the disputed 2000 presidential election when many non-convicts were purged from the voter rolls because of errors in the state's prison database. With the rule change, Florida joins forty-seven other states that restore voting rights to individuals who have completed their sentences.

[Learn more about felon disenfranchisement]
[Read The New York Times article]
[Read Gov. Crist's statement on Civil Rights]

Rhode Island Voters Grant Right to Vote to Formerly Incarcerated Citizens

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:00:00 -0800

This November, Rhode Island voters approved Question 2 in a referendum, thereby which allowing formerly incarcerated citizens who are now on probation or parole to vote. This historic vote grants the right to vote to 15,000 Rhode Islanders and makes this the first instance in U.S. history that voters have opted to expand the franchise to formerly incarcerated residents.

[Coverage of Question 2]
[More on full voting rights]

Municipal Right to Vote Action Plan

Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 -0700

Because Americans treasure the right to vote, they often are surprised by a shocking fact: the Constitution does not affirm the right to vote. As a result, there are virtually no federal election administration standards, and there is mass disenfranchisement at each election. Yet the history of voting rights in America since 1787 is one of general, if irregular, progress toward universal franchise. The Municipal Right to Vote Initiative seeks substantive reform at the local level while detailing a plan to take America's voting rights to their logical conclusion: an affirmative, federally protected right to vote.