Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "voting"
Virginia GOP Legislators Sue to Stop Ex-Inmate Voting Rights
Carrying out their earlier pledge to seek court reversal of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to an estimated 206,000 former inmates, Republican leaders of the Virginia legislature filed a lawsuit on May 23, claiming McAuliffe’s action violates the state constitution.
In Howell v. McAuliffe, filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell is the lead plaintiff, joined by state Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state residents.
The governor on April 22 proclaimed he was dropping the state constitution’s lifetime ban on felons’ post-release voting, which dates back to the Civil War era. Other restrictions on state residents with felony convictions include serving on juries, holding elective office, possessing firearms, and becoming notary publics.
Under McAuliffe’s “Restoration of Rights” order, former felons after completing their sentences and any post-release conditions, such as parole or probation, will be automatically able to register to vote. State officials say nearly 5,000 former inmates have registered to vote since the governor’s order. The legislators’ lawsuit asks for the cancellation of those registrations, and a court order forbidding further automatic voter eligibility for persons with felony convictions.
Republicans, a majority in both state legislative chambers, denounced the governor’s action, claiming it was motivated to increase Democratic turnout for elections this November. McAuliffe, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run, once headed the Democratic National Committee and is a long-time associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, denied the charge.
McAuliffe defended signing the order, calling it his “greatest day” as governor. He argued restoring voting rights was justified for ex-offenders who had “paid the price” and belong “back in society.” When the governor announced the order in April, his administration did not release data on the type of crimes committed by those whose rights he was restoring. Weeks later, it put out a statistical study saying 79% of those covered had not committed violent crimes and overall affected ex-offenders had on average been released 10 to 20 years earlier.
Opponents sought fuller data and countered that the governor’s figures meant 40,000 ex-offenders with convictions for violent crimes might be allowed to serve on juries and own firearms (though local courts would review gun applications by now-eligible former felons).
The lawsuit’s challenge turns on whether Article V, Section 12 of the state constitution -- which empowers a governor to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” -- lets McAuliffe make blanket restoration of rights for entire classes of ex-prisoners, or requires case-by-case analysis and determinations for specific individuals.
The lawsuit asked for accelerated hearing; the state attorney general’s response opposed that, saying there was no need to rush, since plaintiffs took over a month to bring the case. A hearing has been scheduled for July 19. The state claims if the governor is unable to issue large-scale restoration orders, he will issue them individually.
Besides wrongly viewing the governor’s powers, the McAuliffe administration claims, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge. The same day the state made its response, a statement from McAuliffe called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “partisan attempt” to deny civil rights to over 200,000 state citizens.
In Howell v. McAuliffe, filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell is the lead plaintiff, joined by state Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state residents.
The governor on April 22 proclaimed he was dropping the state constitution’s lifetime ban on felons’ post-release voting, which dates back to the Civil War era. Other restrictions on state residents with felony convictions include serving on juries, holding elective office, possessing firearms, and becoming notary publics.
Under McAuliffe’s “Restoration of Rights” order, former felons after completing their sentences and any post-release conditions, such as parole or probation, will be automatically able to register to vote. State officials say nearly 5,000 former inmates have registered to vote since the governor’s order. The legislators’ lawsuit asks for the cancellation of those registrations, and a court order forbidding further automatic voter eligibility for persons with felony convictions.
Republicans, a majority in both state legislative chambers, denounced the governor’s action, claiming it was motivated to increase Democratic turnout for elections this November. McAuliffe, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run, once headed the Democratic National Committee and is a long-time associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, denied the charge.
McAuliffe defended signing the order, calling it his “greatest day” as governor. He argued restoring voting rights was justified for ex-offenders who had “paid the price” and belong “back in society.” When the governor announced the order in April, his administration did not release data on the type of crimes committed by those whose rights he was restoring. Weeks later, it put out a statistical study saying 79% of those covered had not committed violent crimes and overall affected ex-offenders had on average been released 10 to 20 years earlier.
Opponents sought fuller data and countered that the governor’s figures meant 40,000 ex-offenders with convictions for violent crimes might be allowed to serve on juries and own firearms (though local courts would review gun applications by now-eligible former felons).
The lawsuit’s challenge turns on whether Article V, Section 12 of the state constitution -- which empowers a governor to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” -- lets McAuliffe make blanket restoration of rights for entire classes of ex-prisoners, or requires case-by-case analysis and determinations for specific individuals.
The lawsuit asked for accelerated hearing; the state attorney general’s response opposed that, saying there was no need to rush, since plaintiffs took over a month to bring the case. A hearing has been scheduled for July 19. The state claims if the governor is unable to issue large-scale restoration orders, he will issue them individually.
Besides wrongly viewing the governor’s powers, the McAuliffe administration claims, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge. The same day the state made its response, a statement from McAuliffe called the lawsuit “frivolous” and a “partisan attempt” to deny civil rights to over 200,000 state citizens.
More Than 6 Million Blocked From November Vote Due to Criminal Records
More than six million citizens will be handcuffed from voting this November.
After updating a study it did four years ago, The Sentencing Project released the estimated number of Americans that won’t be permitted to vote in this year’s elections due to their criminal records. Using new Census data on the voting age population, and adjusting for recent changes in state disenfranchisement laws, the study placed the number of disenfranchised ex-felons at 6.1 million.
The number of disenfranchised persons has climbed alongside the growth in incarceration totals. Forty years ago, an estimated 1.1 million people had lost their voting rights due to criminal convictions. Twenty years later, the total had risen to 3.3 million. In 2000, the number reached 4.7 million, rose to 5.4 million by 2004, and to 5.9 million by 2010, according to a study released in 2012 by some of the same authors of the most recent study.
Many will find it surprising that less than a quarter of these people — roughly 23% of those unable to vote due to criminal records — are currently incarcerated. The study indicated that 77% of the disenfranchised live among us in our nation’s communities. Those who have completed their sentences number nearly three million and make up 51% of the disenfranchised. Citizens on probation for felonies account for over 1.1 million — about 18% of the total. Over half a million, comprising about 8% of the total, are parolees.
State disenfranchisement rates for this year’s elections will vary substantially, largely due to differences in how broadly the state’s provisions apply. Fourteen states disenfranchise only those currently in prison, while four states also include those released on parole. Disenfranchisement laws in 18 more states also cover former inmates out on probation, and 12 states include former inmates who have completed their sentences, including parole or probation. Only Maine and Vermont currently let inmates vote in their elections, and thus have no disenfranchised voters.
Seven states disenfranchise less than half a percentage of their population, while the rates in the rates in six southern states hit over 7%. The new study notes that felony disenfranchisement laws “vary tremendously across racial and ethnic groups,” with more Hispanics and African-Americans affected. In some states — Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia — disenfranchisement rates for African Americans make up more than 20% of the voting age population, and that rate is 5% or higher in 23 states.
Despite the large and growing numbers of current or former inmates unable to vote, the trend in recent years has been to eliminate or reduce barriers to former prisoners’ voting. The best-known recent instance is Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe’s issuance of an executive order earlier this year, attempting to restore voting rights for all Virginians who had completed their sentences. However, after a court found that exceeded his legal powers, he issued separate orders restoring voting rights to nearly 13,000 individuals in August.
A number of states have begun processes to return voting rights to those with criminal records. In Alabama, legislators simplified the voting rights restoration process for those who had completed sentences for crimes not involving moral turpitude. California restored voting rights for convicted felons residing in jails (but not in prisons). Maryland lifted disenfranchisement for those on parole or probation. And Wyoming restored voting rights after five years for those who completed sentences for first-time, non-violent felonies.
After updating a study it did four years ago, The Sentencing Project released the estimated number of Americans that won’t be permitted to vote in this year’s elections due to their criminal records. Using new Census data on the voting age population, and adjusting for recent changes in state disenfranchisement laws, the study placed the number of disenfranchised ex-felons at 6.1 million.
The number of disenfranchised persons has climbed alongside the growth in incarceration totals. Forty years ago, an estimated 1.1 million people had lost their voting rights due to criminal convictions. Twenty years later, the total had risen to 3.3 million. In 2000, the number reached 4.7 million, rose to 5.4 million by 2004, and to 5.9 million by 2010, according to a study released in 2012 by some of the same authors of the most recent study.
Many will find it surprising that less than a quarter of these people — roughly 23% of those unable to vote due to criminal records — are currently incarcerated. The study indicated that 77% of the disenfranchised live among us in our nation’s communities. Those who have completed their sentences number nearly three million and make up 51% of the disenfranchised. Citizens on probation for felonies account for over 1.1 million — about 18% of the total. Over half a million, comprising about 8% of the total, are parolees.
State disenfranchisement rates for this year’s elections will vary substantially, largely due to differences in how broadly the state’s provisions apply. Fourteen states disenfranchise only those currently in prison, while four states also include those released on parole. Disenfranchisement laws in 18 more states also cover former inmates out on probation, and 12 states include former inmates who have completed their sentences, including parole or probation. Only Maine and Vermont currently let inmates vote in their elections, and thus have no disenfranchised voters.
Seven states disenfranchise less than half a percentage of their population, while the rates in the rates in six southern states hit over 7%. The new study notes that felony disenfranchisement laws “vary tremendously across racial and ethnic groups,” with more Hispanics and African-Americans affected. In some states — Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia — disenfranchisement rates for African Americans make up more than 20% of the voting age population, and that rate is 5% or higher in 23 states.
Despite the large and growing numbers of current or former inmates unable to vote, the trend in recent years has been to eliminate or reduce barriers to former prisoners’ voting. The best-known recent instance is Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe’s issuance of an executive order earlier this year, attempting to restore voting rights for all Virginians who had completed their sentences. However, after a court found that exceeded his legal powers, he issued separate orders restoring voting rights to nearly 13,000 individuals in August.
A number of states have begun processes to return voting rights to those with criminal records. In Alabama, legislators simplified the voting rights restoration process for those who had completed sentences for crimes not involving moral turpitude. California restored voting rights for convicted felons residing in jails (but not in prisons). Maryland lifted disenfranchisement for those on parole or probation. And Wyoming restored voting rights after five years for those who completed sentences for first-time, non-violent felonies.
