New York Times Editorial July 11,
2004
About 4.7 million Americans, more than 2 percent of the
adult population, are barred from voting because of a
felony conviction. Denying the vote to ex-offenders
is antidemocratic, and undermines the nation's commitment to
rehabilitating people who have paid their debt to society.
Felon disenfranchisement laws also have a sizable racial
impact: 13 percent of black men have had their votes
taken away, seven times the national average. But even if it
were acceptable as policy, denying felons the vote has been
a disaster because of the chaotic and partisan way it has
been carried out.
Thirty-five states prohibit at least some people from
voting after they have been released from prison. The
rules about which felonies are covered and when the right to
vote is restored vary widely from state to state, and often
defy logic. In four states, including New York, felons on
parole cannot vote, but felons on probation can. In some
states, felons must formally apply for restoration of their
voting rights, which state officials can grant or deny on
the most arbitrary of grounds.
Florida may have changed the outcome of the 2000
presidential election when Secretary of State
Katherine Harris oversaw a purge of
suspected felons that removed an untold number of eligible
voters from the rolls. This year, state officials are
conducting a new purge that may be just as flawed. They have
developed a list of 47,000 voters who may be felons, and
have asked local officials to consider purging them. But The
Miami Herald found that more than 2,100 of them may have
been listed in error, because their voting rights were
restored by the state's clemency process. Last week, the
state acknowledged that 1,600 of those on the list should be
allowed to vote.
Election officials are also far too secretive about felon
voting issues, which should be a matter of public record.
When Ms. Harris used inaccurate standards for purging
voters, the public did not find out until it was too late.
This year, the state tried to keep the 47,000 names on its
list of possible felons secret, but fortunately a state
court ruled this month that they should be open to scrutiny.
There is a stunning lack of information and transparency
surrounding felon disenfranchisement across the country. The
rules are often highly technical, and little effort is made
to explain them to election officials or to the people
affected. In New York, the Brennan Center for Justice at New
York University Law School found that local elections
offices often did not understand the law, and some demanded
that felons produce documents that do not exist.
Too often, felon voting is seen as a partisan issue. In
state legislatures, it is usually Democrats who try
to restore voting rights, and
Republicans who resist.
Recently, Republicans and election officials in Missouri
and South Dakota have raised questions about voter
registration groups' employment of ex-felons,
although they have every right to be involved in political
activity. In Florida, the decision about whether a felon's
right to vote will be restored lies with a panel made up of
the governor and members of his cabinet. Some voting rights
activists believe that Gov. Jeb Bush has moved slowly, and
reinstated voting rights for few of the state's ex-felons,
to help President Bush's re-election prospects.
The treatment of former felons in the electoral system
cries out for reform. The cleanest and fairest
approach would be simply to remove
the prohibitions on felon voting.
In his State of the Union address in January, President
Bush announced a new national commitment to helping
prisoners re-enter society. Denying them the right to
vote belies this commitment.
Restoring the vote to felons is difficult, because it
must be done state by state, and
because ex-convicts do not have much of a political lobby.
There have been legislative successes in recent years in
some places, including Alabama and Nevada. But other states
have been moving in the opposite direction. The best hope of
reform may lie in the courts. The Atlanta-based United
States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the San
Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have
ruled recently that disenfranchising felons may violate
equal protection or the Voting Rights Act.
Until the whole idea of permanently depriving felons of
their right to vote is wiped away, the current rules
should be applied more fairly. The
quality of voting roll purges must be
improved. Florida should discontinue its current
felon purge until it can prove that the list it is
using is accurate.
Mechanisms for restoring voting rights to felons must be
improved. Even in states where felons have the right to
vote, they are rarely notified of this when they exit
prison. Released prisoners should be given that information
during the discharge process, and helped with the paperwork.
The process for felons to regain their voting rights
should be streamlined. In Nevada,
early reports are that the restoration of felon voting
rights has had minimal effect, because the paperwork
requirements are too burdensome. Ex-felons who apply to vote
should have the same presumption of eligibility as other
voters.
Voting rights should not be a political football. There
should be bipartisan support for efforts to help
ex-felons get their voting rights
back, by legislators and by state and
local election officials. American democracy is
diminished when officeholders and political parties,
for their own political gain, try to
keep people from voting.
....back to:
....alternative news
American Pictures
....gives Moore
thanks
....gives pizza
.....gives the plane truth
....gives
liberation
.....gives you the
blues
......gives Bush a human face
.....gives billionaires for Bush a free rap
....gives you the
world vote on Bush-Kerry
|