Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
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.

Rights and Liberties

Felony Disenfranchisement Aids Republicans

By Amy Goodman, King Features Syndicate. Posted February 7, 2008.


Restoring the right to vote for felons is essential to our democracy and could dramatically change election results.
Advertisement

As I raced into our TV studio for our Super Tuesday morning-after show, I was excited. Across the country, initial reports indicated there was unprecedented voter participation, at least in the Democratic primaries, several times higher than in previous elections. For years I have covered countries like Haiti, where people risk death to vote, while the U.S. has one of the lowest participation rates in the industrialized world. Could it be this year would be different?

Then I bumped into a friend and asked if he had voted. "I can't vote," he said, "because I did time in prison." I asked him if he would have voted. "Sure I would have. Because then I'm not just talking junk, I'm doing something about it."

Felony disenfranchisement is the practice by state governments of barring people convicted of a felony from voting, even after they have served their time. In Virginia and Kentucky, people convicted of any felony can never vote again (this would include "Scooter" Libby, even though he never went to jail, unless he is pardoned). Eight other states have permanent felony disenfranchisement laws, with some conditions that allow people to rejoin the voter rolls: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming.

Disenfranchisement -- people being denied their right to vote -- takes many forms, and has a major impact on electoral politics. In Ohio in 2004, stories abounded of inoperative voting machines, too few ballots or too few voting machines. Then there was Florida in 2000. Many continue to believe that the election was thrown to George W. Bush by Ralph Nader, who got about 97,000 votes in Florida. Ten times that number of Floridians are prevented from voting at all. Why?

Currently, more than 1.1 million Floridians have been convicted of a felony and thus aren't allowed to vote. We can't know for sure how they would have voted, but as scholar, lawyer and activist Angela Davis said recently in a speech honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Mobile, Ala., "If we had not had the felony disenfranchisement that we have, there would be no way that George Bush would be in the White House."

Since felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects African-American and Latino men in the U.S., and since these groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic, the laws bolster the position of the Republican Party. The statistics are shocking. Ryan King, policy analyst with The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., summarized the latest:

About 5.3 million U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote due to felony disenfranchisement; 2 million of them are African-American. Of these, 1.4 million are African-American men, which translates into an incredible 13 percent of that population, a rate seven times higher than in the overall population. Forty-eight states have some version of felony disenfranchisement on the books. All bar voting from prison, then go on to bar participation while on parole or probation. Two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote from behind the walls, as does Canada and a number of other countries.

The politicians and pundits are all abuzz with the massive turnouts in the primaries and caucuses. There are increasing percentages of women participating, and initial reports point to more young people. The youth vote is particularly important, as young people have less invested in the status quo and can look with fresh eyes at long-standing injustices that disenfranchise so many. In this context, one of The Sentencing Project's predictions bears repeating here: "Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 10 of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40 percent of black men may permanently lose their right to vote."

The Sentencing Project's King said: "We are constantly pushing for legislative change around the country. But public education is absolutely key. There are so many different laws that people simply don't know when their right to vote has been restored. That includes the personnel who work in state governments giving out the wrong information."

I called my friend to tell him he was misinformed. He hadn't been on probation or parole for years. "You can vote," I told him. "You just have to register." I could hear him smile through the phone.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: voting rights, felons

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

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


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:
Ex Felon voting bans are just another form of vote suppression
Posted by: odanu on Feb 7, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spend a lot of time here in Missouri letting ex-felons know they can vote. I consider it a vitally important part of their re-integration into society. It amazes me how many of the felons I run into have no idea that once they are "off paper", they can vote again (unless convicted of a voting crime).

I am 100% for restoring voting rights to felons after they have served their time (including "paper" time). Anything less denies the basis of our criminal justice system -- rehabilitation. If rights aren't restored, then felons aren't truly rehabilitated to community life.

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

We often hear the statistic that 70% of felons reoffend within 3 years
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Feb 7, 2008 11:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never heard the converse - that 30% don't.

That will sound a bit specious to some - so what?

I don't know that a lot of rehabilitation goes on in our prisons, on the contrary, I think prison more often serves as "crime school" where the incarcerated learn how to steal, function in the illegal drug trade and become more knowledgeable predators.

There are some, though, who leave prison determined to stay out. Maybe they have taken advantage of (increasingly limited) educational or job training opportunities, maybe they were innocent in the first place, maybe they just learned a hard lesson.

They get out to a hostile world. Nobody wants to hire them or rent to them - but they have to work and find a stable place to live if they want to stay out.

Whatever they did before, odds are good that if they have made it past those hurdles for three years, they will stay out of the criminal justice system thereafter.

So what reward do these success stories get? Permanent stigmatization, marginalization, disenfranchisement. There is no clean slate. There is no goal to work toward, nothing to look forward to - no real second chance.

Ex-con is synonymous with scum. It is permanent. And the absence of the most basic right of citizenship is a constant reminder that the ex con has no stake in the society, no power within it.

It is no accident that such huge numbers of Blacks and Hispanics are denied the franchise. After the Civil War a decided effort was made to specifically attach the penalty of disenfranchisement to crimes that Blacks were more likely to be convicted of. Felonies that Whites were more frequently convicted of though also felonies did not carry that penalty in the south. Crimes with knives, for example, carried disenfranchisement, crimes with guns did not. In many places in the South, the disenfranchisement is still permanent. Also, instead of being "on paper" for a fixed time (often 3 years), as is the case in many states, the parole can last for ten, 20 years - or life, depending on the original sentence.

So the loss of this essential right is not coincidental - and never has been. If our current Supreme Court actually gave a damn about the constitution, the evidence is clear. Someday, the case will be proved and won.

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

Lets be honest
Posted by: Axiom69 on Feb 8, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would progressives be working so hard to restore felons right to vote if the felons were more likely to vote republican? This is about politics, not about helping felons rejoin society.

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

» RE: Lets be honest Posted by: urthsong
Why do Americans stand for this?
Posted by: activist on Feb 8, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Amy for saying something that I've been waiting to hear. Even in all of the criticism of the Republicans for caging the voters list in Florida and elsewhere, no one seems to have questioned the basic premise that those with criminal records should lose their right to vote. Here in Canada, even those who are currently incarcerated are able to vote. This is as it should be.

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

When Did We Become A Banana Republic?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 8, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or have we always been. The more I dig into American history the uglier it gets. The New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement and the American Labor Movement and the Progressive Movement seem to b anomalies with tremendous push back from the vested interests, robber barons and corrupt pols. Don't even get me started on the oligopoly that has always ruled the south...

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

What difference does voting make?
Posted by: billwald on Feb 8, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What difference does voting make when both parties are owned by the same people? The Republicans pass tax bills that the Democrats would not dare to propose.

Voting is the sham that convinces the suckers that we are "free." Would the field slaves in the Confederacy have been satisfied if they had been permitted to vote for their supervision? No? Then they were smarter than 2008 Americans.

Nothing will change as long as there is a secret ballot for national elections. As the Bible teaches, things done in the dark are evil. A person who says "Give me liberty or death" should not be afraid of an open ballot.

The voting list in every county should on line with address and year of birth then we could know if dead people are voting. The name of every voter and their vote should be posted on line as a down loadable data base. Every person could verify that his vote was correctly recorded and every person could write his own program to tally the votes. We would not need any of this "delegate" garbage, Would not need any primary. Would not need political parties. No one could be bought.

With this system, Bush would not be president and we would not be fighting an oil war.

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

Right Thing To DO
Posted by: Jack Hotel on Feb 8, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care who ex-felons would vote for; allowing them to vote is simply the right thing to do.

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

Even though I agree with this ...
Posted by: realmuzik on Feb 8, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... it is actually Ralph Nader who aids Republicans.

Please ... if you really want REAL CHANGE ... DO NOT let your state put him on the ballot! Supporter handing you a petition? Tear it up in front of him/her and tell his/her face that our country cannot afford 4-8 years of wars, lies, theocracy, and "facistic" control!

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

Republicans be positive look at opportunity
Posted by: GPFrank on Feb 8, 2008 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give Felons an honest living, Republicans do what you have been doing right along. pay them for their vote and you can turn lemons into lemonade and yet swing elections.

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

How it worked in 2000
Posted by: urthsong on Feb 8, 2008 10:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Florida legislature authorized over $4 million to pay a company closely associated with the Republican Party to create a list of felons registered to vote in Florida in preparation for the 2000 election. They had a field day scouring the US for names that approximately matched. They didn't even need to be the same sex. Tens of thousands of names were sent out to Florida's counties to be expunged from the voting rolls. The woman in charge of elections in one county found her own name on the list and threw the whole thing out. But most counties just did as they were told. It was ascertained that approximately 5% of the names were of real ex-felons. Leading up to the 2004 election, those tens of thousands of names remained on the lists unless challenged and disproven individually in a Florida court of law. On another note, there is a history of trumping up arrests and convictions in states where those in control want to prevent black citizens from voting. Now we have 2.2 million citizens incarcerated on any given day in the US with projections that this will rise to 2.4 million because of the mandatory long terms and non-violent crimes, well over half the prisoners, that now require such sentences. The privatized corporate prison industry is making out like bandits. They then supply 1.7 million or so of those prisoners' services to other corporations at slave wages in competition with our nation's workers. Restoring the vote is the least that can be done to begin to rectify the injustice and discourage this trend.

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

» RE: How it worked in 2000 Posted by: Romantic Violence
wild gunmen
Posted by: wittler youth on Feb 9, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
o.k. I got a feloney in ky.,but i regesterd under a ligit add. in ohio..so i could vote if i whished but..as the graffiti behind my apt. said back in 1985'...IF VOTEING CHANGED ANYTHING..THEY WOULD OUT LAW IT..i think that is true today as the day i read it back then..pac $ talks..bull shit walks.

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

When you get drunk, get behind the wheel, and...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 9, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...END the existence of your fellow citizen, or perhaps a family, then NO. Sorry: if YOU CAUSE someone to lose their ability to participate in political process by ending their life (or lives), then you get to enjoy a similar punishment.

That's not harsh or undue. That's payment in kind.

For the lesser offenders, I'm iffy on whether the good of the nation is served by letting someone high on PCP to go hit one of the six levers in the voting booth for the pretty pink donkey or the flying elephant. The liberal in me says screw it, if they want to light up/shoot up/snort up...hell...even in the voting booth, I don't care and they are entitled to their preferred method of achieving our common end the same way I am.

Those liberal tendencies (which ultimately win out) are somewhat counter-acted by the knowledge that there are already plenty of voters already who are out of touch with what is at stake in our Republic.

But then what do I think about violent offenders who scar their victims for life? Did a rapist make a man or woman so afraid to leave their house, that they can't vote? Does said rapist deserve to participate in an activity he or she has taken from a victim?

Harsh and undue, or payment in kind? I would tend to think that this should be handled case by case, but my respect for the Constitution over-rules my "gut feeling" and says that punishments should be uniform, and apply to everyone.

Sum: Killers shouldn't vote ever. I don't give a damn what dopers (who shouldn't be charged with a felony anyway) and white collar asshats do after they've served their sentence. Mixed feelings on other violent offenders.

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

Some crimes last forever to the victims
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 9, 2008 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Murders, rapes, child molestation and a host of others leave victims scarred forever.

So too should last the loss of rights for those who committed them

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

Felonies and Tragedies
Posted by: Romantic Violence on Feb 9, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've noticed that many posters equate 'felons' with violent activity against their fellow man. Presently, that is not true. With the help of recent successive presidential administrations, anyone can be convicted of a non-violent felony. For example have trouble with the IRS, OCSE, AFDC, DHS, and a host of the constellation alphabet soup of fascist bureaucracies; not retain adequate legal representation and you will suffer the same fate as the other scarier felons-becoming a stateless subject who marginally exists for the benefit of low wage paying high profit industries and the 'justice/prison' industrial complexes. So therefore, all of you who have bought into the notion that you are immune had better rethink your precarious positions. Felonious titles are the most efficient means governments employ to create a permanent forced subordinate slave class. What affects an individual today will eventually affect us all tomorrow.

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

» RE: Felonies and Tragedies Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Felonies and Tragedies Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Felonies and Tragedies Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Felonies and Tragedies Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Felonies and Tragedies Posted by: rickiey
Disenfranchising anyone
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 10, 2008 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
should be a felony. With a heavy prison term. It should be equated with treason.

Sometimes I think rounding up Death Party operatives who separate people from their right to vote and trying them as traitors is the only thing that will stop election fraud.

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

This country wasn't founded by puritans...
Posted by: VickyinSD on Feb 10, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by any means, and I'd be willing to bet that under today's standards, 90% of our "founding fathers" would be considered felons – if for nothing more than their actions in revolutionary times. The "pilgrims", many of whom were escaping countries that would have imprisoned them had they stayed, brought with them the ideas and ideals that formed this democracy, and the foundation of "freedom for all"... the land of the free, and the home of the brave!!!

After you've commited a crime and "done the time" you've paid your debt to society, and your rights should be restored. But it's much more convenient and beneficial for the government to surpress those rights, especially when it comes to having a say in how our govt. functions. Besides, felons don't contribute enough money to the partisan coffers of our corrupt political system!

I'm sure all those brave pioneers are rolling over in their graves now that we are the "land of the rich and the home of the incarcerated".

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

» RE: Jerry? Posted by: Longdream
Of course let ex-felons vote,
Posted by: paula.c on Feb 13, 2008 6:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they have paid their debt to society. The opportunity to vote may be a good step in decreasing recidivism if they can have confidence in our democracy.

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