« "Fighting for a Second Look: Efforts in Ohio and Across the Nation" | Main | More great resources from the Collateral Consequences Resource Center »
September 1, 2020
Effective and timely review of the state of disenfranchisement for those with criminal convictions
This lengthy new Stateline piece, headlined "More People With Felony Convictions Can Vote, but Roadblocks Remain," provides an effective review of the realities of felon disenfranchisement circa 2020. I recommend the full piece and here are excerpts:
In every state except Maine and Vermont, people convicted of felonies are stripped of their voting rights while in prison. In most states, that ban extends to those on probation or parole, while some states have additional time and fee requirements, disenfranchising millions of people.
[Iowa Gov Kim] Reynolds restored automatic voting rights to most people with felony records after they complete their sentence, including parole or probation; the exceptions are people with homicide convictions, who must file an application. Under the order, an estimated 60,000 additional people now are eligible to vote in the Hawkeye State.
They join the ranks of hundreds of thousands of others with felony convictions who are newly eligible to vote in the general election this year. Since the 2016 election, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Virginia also have implemented or expanded voting rights for some people convicted of felonies.
The political stakes are up for debate. Roughly 630,000 people with felony convictions can vote this year in Florida, nearly six times the 113,000 vote-margin by which Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the state. But research has shown that like other voters, people convicted of felonies who are registered don’t necessarily vote.
Still, groups ranging from liberal political organizations to the nonpartisan League of Women Voters are working furiously to find these newly eligible voters as registration deadlines approach. But the pandemic is complicating in-person registration drives, as are the uncertainties around mail-in voting. And eight states explicitly require people with felony records to pay some form of court costs and fees before registering.
In 2016, an estimated 6.1 million people or 1 in 40 adults were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, according to the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy organization. The project found that Black people were the most likely to be disenfranchised: More than 7 percent of the adult African American population, or 1 in 13 people, could not vote because of a felony conviction....
In Kentucky, an estimated 170,000 people with felony records were given voting rights in December under an order from Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear. As in Iowa, the order doesn’t automatically apply to people convicted of certain violent offenses. Grassroots advocacy organization Kentuckians for the Commonwealth has been working for years on expanding voting rights. Since Beshear’s order, and with the help of other organizations, it has put together a list of more than 60,000 names and contact information for people who now can register to vote....
In 2018, 65 percent of Florida voters supported a constitutional amendment to give voting rights to people with felony records who had completed parole or probation, with the exception of those convicted of murder or sexual offenses. But the GOP-controlled legislature last year passed a measure to require that restitution, fines and fees be paid before voting rights are restored. Over half of the estimated 1.4 million people convicted of felonies in the state have outstanding court costs or restitution, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School.
Lawsuits have ensued over the constitutionality of the law, which opponents liken to a poll tax. A federal judge in May found the requirement to be unconstitutional. But Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor. Voting rights groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in; the court in July left in place the appeals court’s order. The issue remains before the appeals court, which heard arguments in the case Aug. 18.
Florida is known for close elections, and some political observers think a majority of the new voters would vote Democratic. But Sean Morales-Doyle, deputy director of voting rights and elections in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Project, dismisses the notion that politics drive enfranchisement efforts. “The decisions about who has the right to vote should never be based on an assessment of how we think someone is going to vote,” he said. “We should be for or against voting rights restoration because of the merits of the policy, not the politics.”...
Beyond the push toward the November elections, voting rights activists eventually want to extend voting to people on probation or parole and people in prison. “Residents who are required to pay taxes, be good citizens, they should also have a role in determining who governs them,” said Nicole Porter, advocacy director of state and local policy for the Sentencing Project.
A referendum on the ballot in California in November would give parolees voting rights. Efforts are ongoing in other states, including Connecticut, where legislation proposed by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, a Democrat, to extend voting rights to people on parole died this year.
September 1, 2020 at 06:38 PM | Permalink