Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Democracy and Elections

ACLU Sues to Reverse Alabama Ex-Felon Disenfranchisement

The American Civil Liberties Union. Posted July 22, 2008.


At issue is the Alabama attorney general's list of crimes that prevent former offenders from voting.
Advertisement

MONTGOMERY, AL -- The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Alabama filed a lawsuit today challenging the state's voter disenfranchisement laws and practices as unconstitutional. According to its state constitution, Alabama may deny voting rights to individuals who have been convicted of felonies involving "moral turpitude." Although this term is not defined, the constitution clearly states that only the legislature can decide which felonies qualify under this category. In its lawsuit today, the ACLU charges that the state is disfranchising thousands of Alabamians under a much broader category of convictions than is permissible under the constitution, relying in part on an unlawful opinion issued by Alabama's attorney general.

"Alabama's disenfranchisement laws do not pass constitutional muster. It is immoral that election officials are wrongly disfranchising thousands of eligible voters through a subjective interpretation of the law that ignores the state constitution and the legislature's will," said Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "When it comes to something as fundamental as the right to vote, arbitrariness has no place in the law."

The Alabama legislature adopted a list of about 15 serious felonies that fit the moral turpitude definition for disenfranchisement, including murder, impeachment, treason, rape and various sex related offenses. But in 2005, Attorney General Troy King developed his own broader list of disfranchising felonies, as well as a short list of those that do not fall into this category. The attorney general's list includes 16 felonies that are disqualifying, including passing a bad check, and six that are not disqualifying, such as possession of controlled substances and DUI-related offenses. Other felonies were simply not addressed. In addition, election administrators across the state are currently disqualifying citizens from voting for felony convictions that neither the legislature nor the attorney general has ever listed as disfranchising offenses.

"The Alabama legislature has already created a list of disfranchising crimes and any other attempts to expand that list not only violate state and federal law, but also undermine the democratic process by prohibiting thousands of eligible people from casting a vote in November," said Nancy Abudu, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "The court must fix this problem before more citizens are unlawfully disfranchised -- and with the election right around the corner, time is of the essence."

The ACLU is representing individuals who have been wrongly disenfranchised by the state of Alabama.

"I have voted many times before. My father taught me this is what every American should do. But when I tried to register a few weeks ago I was told I couldn't," said Annette McWashington Pruitt, a plaintiff in today's case who received her first and only felony conviction in 2003 for receiving stolen property, an offense that has never been considered disfranchising by the legislature. "My youngest son just turned 18 and is going into the Navy. I have another son in Iraq right now. Voting is really my duty because it represents the freedom my sons are protecting overseas."

Kristen Hall, another plaintiff in today's case said, "I have never voted before, but the election this year is really important and I want to make sure my voice is heard."

Alabama law allows a person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude to apply for voting rights restoration from the Board of Pardons and Paroles, but the applicant must have paid all fines, court costs, fees and restitution associated with his or her sentence before becoming eligible to vote again. Denying the right to vote based on one's failure or inability to pay these fees discriminates on the basis of wealth.

In today's lawsuit, the ACLU seeks to block state election administrators from disqualifying any voter who has a felony conviction not on the moral turpitude list developed by the legislature. In addition, the ACLU also asks the court to strike down the voter restoration process' discriminatory fee provision.

"There is no compelling or legitimate governmental interest in keeping a wealth-based voter restoration system that is nothing more than a modern-day poll tax," said Olivia Turner, Executive Director of the ACLU of Alabama. "Everyone knows Alabama's ugly voting rights history. It is disappointing that discrimination based on income, and completely arbitrary disenfranchisement, continues to permeate our state voting system. These practices need to end."

ACLU attorneys on today's case are McDonald and Abudu of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and Allison Neal of the ACLU of Alabama.

The complaint in today's case is available at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/36053lgl20080721.html .

More information on the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org.

More information on the ACLU of Alabama is available at: www.aclualabama.org.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: aclu, alabama, voter disenfranchisement

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Not likely to vote Republican" is the real offense here
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 22, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an organized, nationwide, criminal conspiracy to deny the most fundamental right of citizenship to the lower classes.

This is the crime that I would like to see pursued and prosecuted - more than any other - that the Bush administration has engaged in.

Without the Florida disenfranchisement headed by his brother, the caging, etc. Bush would never have been president. His term of office has been an ongoing criminal enterprise dedicated to the permanent establishment of his coup d'etat as a permanent republican dictatorship.

This is TREASON - and only the first of many counts I would charge the Republicans with committing.

Gingrich leading the rethugs in screaming "Wag the Dog" when Clinton went after Bin Ladin and the subsequent paving of the way by Bush for 9/11 (without getting into any conspiracy theory) is another.

Looting of the treasury and the bringing of the economy to basket case status is another.

And destruction of our military - leaving us vulnerable to our real enemies is still another.

Everyone who engaged in these ongoing criminal conspiracies should be tried for treason - and shot.

Then we abolish the death penalty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What can I say..it's the ACLU
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 22, 2008 7:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who else would be taking up the rights of murderers, sex offenders and those convicted of treason.. non other than the ACLU - my most favorite "anti anything American" group. I wonder why they never take up the cause of the victim!

(murder, rape and various sex related offenses) .We want to let these people vote? ... no problem, I have a problem with them not getting the death penalty - why is voting an issue?

Treason is punishable by death.we've never done that as far as i can tell. Someone convicted of treason should not be able reside in America no less vote.. this shouldn't even be an issue.

Impeachment - good thing Clinton doesn't live in alabama!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Troll Posted by: leighsure
» RE: Dear Troll Posted by: Xynyx
» What this person says... Posted by: Bbear41
» RE: What can I say..REDUX Posted by: motamanx
equal protection
Posted by: whealeydj on Jul 23, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it seems to me there should be uniform standard in voting-felony laws between the states. In Ohio I beleive it is only felons actually currently incarcerated that are banned from voting. This seems reasonable rather than various states that have various regulations on which ex felons can vote. has there been case of voter who become disenfranchized because they have moved like eligible to vote in Ohio but not Florida. A case for the Supreme Court if Obama can get some justice who are right wing ideologues like RATS Roberts,Alito,Thomas and Scalia; gee there is an ancronym I will start using.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VOTING
Posted by: mclame on Jul 25, 2008 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a person has served his or her time, they should be allowed to vote except for Treason. Who's to decide who is moral and not moral anyway. There are plenty of criminals of all kinds out there who haven't been caught and convicted, and they can vote. What ever happened to double jeopardy. If you have done your time, that should be enough. Look at the criminal G.W.BUSH. No one is stopping him from voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VOTING P.S.
Posted by: mclame on Jul 25, 2008 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way I am a retired Police Officer and I belong to A.C.L.U. and live in Alabama. I don't always agree with the ACLU. I do diagree with them probably about 50% of the time, but they do have there good points, especially now with such a corupt Government we have at the moment in Washington, with the exception of Sen. Shelby of Alabama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]