Felons and the Right to
Vote
The
New York Times, 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.