Disenfranchisement News: 2009 in Review

Policy Reform

The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 was introduced, a federal measure that would restore voting rights to millions of Americans with felony convictions. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced the bills in both chambers of Congress. An estimated 5.3 million citizens cannot vote as a result of felony convictions, and nearly 4 million of these individuals are living and working in their communities. The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 would establish a uniform standard restoring voting rights in federal elections to anyone who is not incarcerated throughout the nation, even if individuals are barred from voting in state elections.

A broad advocacy coalition pushed hard for the Wisconsin Democracy Restoration Act as it is expected to advance in the Democratic-controlled Legislature. The legislation, SB 240, would immediately return the right to vote to residents once released from prison. If passed, the law would affect more than 41,000 persons on probation or parole. Along with many other organizations, both liberal and conservative, The Sentencing Project submitted testimony to the Wisconsin Legislature in support of the bill. The bill passed out of the Executive Committee on Corrections and Courts and awaits a vote from State Senate and Assembly.

Washington State eliminated a disenfranchising policy which banned individuals with felony convictions who had not paid all financial obligations associated with their sentence from voting. Following the change, the ACLU of Washington launched "Promote the Vote" to educate newly enfranchised Washingtonians about their rights.

Media
A New York Times editorial in support of reform called felon disenfranchisement  "bad prison policy,” calling out states that upheld voting rights bans in California, New York and Massachusetts.

Editorial support was also garnered in support of the Democracy Restoration Act from The New York Times, the Patriot News in Pennsylvania, and the Detroit Free Press.

With President Obama's U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, news outlets recalled her dissent in the case of Hayden v Pataki, in which she argued that the federal Voting Rights Act protected ethnic minorities in the area of felon disenfranchisement, Ballot Access reported. A New York Times op-ed column responded to controversial quips stating that her decisions were ”color blind.”

International
The Sentencing Project and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the discriminatory effects of felony disenfranchisement. The report examines the practice of felony disenfranchisement in the United States and the nations of the Americas, and analyzes the impact of these polices on racial and ethnic minorities. It also describes the international momentum in support of reform, both among treaty-monitoring bodies at the United Nations and in jurisprudence in a number of countries, and calls upon the Commission to examine this practice among its member states.

Litigation
A federal judge ruled in favor of the ACLU of Pennsylvania in a lawsuit that claimed the removal of voting rights ads created from public buses was discriminatory, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. According to the suit, the Port Authority unlawfully refused to accept the ACLU advertisements designed to inform the public that residents with felony convictions have the right to vote.

Advocates were not so victorious when the California Supreme Court let stand a ruling upholding California's “absolute” ban on voting by incarcerated persons and parolees, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported. The justices unanimously declined to review a lower court ruling where plaintiffs, representing people in prison and parolees, stated that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only permits disenfranchisement of persons convicted of common law felonies. California currently disenfranchises incarcerated individuals and parolees, but allows those on probation and formerly incarcerated to vote.

Several states, including Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, brought cases against individuals with felony records who voted in the November 2008 election. Charged with voter fraud, most claimed they did not know they were, in fact, banned from voting, nor had received information from registration or polling sites telling them otherwise.

Research
Challenging theories and political fears that re-enfranchising individuals with felony offenses would dramatically impact the outcome of political elections, a study was released out of the University of Louisville Department of Justice Administration. Having polled disenfranchised voters who were on probation and parole in the state on their voting preferences, the report found that full participation by disenfranchised individuals would not have altered the outcome of the November 2008 senatorial and presidential election in Kentucky. The report, which was featured in the Federal Probation journal, contends that individuals who have completed their sentence "remain disadvantaged and carry less than complete rights of citizenship.”

Organizational Support/Advocacy
The Family Life Center of Rhode Island released a new analysis that demonstrated a high level of interest in the electoral process by individuals on probation or parole. Following a 2006 ballot change to state law, 6,330 probationers and parolees - representing more than a third of the 17,600 state total - registered to vote during the 2008 election cycle. Of these, 3,001 voted during that time.

“My First Vote,” a compilation of stories from individuals with felony records around the country who voted for the first time during the November 2008 election, was published by the Brennan Center for Justice. In an effort to put a face on the issue of disenfranchisement, new voters tell inspiring stories about voting for the first time after being denied that right for so long.