On Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2019, Amendment 4 to Florida’s constitution went into effect, restoring voting privileges to up to 1.5 million people convicted of felonies, which represents more than 17.9% of potential black voters in Florida. In Nov. 2018,...
Pop-upView Separately

On Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2019, Amendment 4 to Florida’s constitution went into effect, restoring voting privileges to up to 1.5 million people convicted of felonies, which represents more than 17.9% of potential black voters in Florida.

In Nov. 2018, Florida voters approved the felon voting amendment by almost 65%, or more than five million Florida residents, which is more votes than any candidate on the ballot received. The amendment states that after felons have completed of all terms of the sentence including parole or probation, restoration of voting privileges is automatic. Once eligible, former felons may register to vote. Those with felony murder or sex crime convictions are not eligible for voting restoration.

Before Amendment 4, Florida banned people from voting even after all sentencing requirements were completed. Florida had the country’s largest disenfranchised population–1,686,318 people, or 10.43% of its potential voting population. Republican Governor Rick Scott, who served from Jan. 4, 2011 to Jan. 7, 2019, had instituted an application review process to work around the law that could take up to seven years and did not guarantee voting restoration. As of Oct. 2018, only 3,005 applicants of 30,000 were re-enfranchised under Governor Scott’s system.

Clarence Office, a liaison for the Department of Veterans Affairs who completed the requirements of his felony drug conviction, registered to vote on Tuesday, stating, “It was an injustice not to be able to vote… I’m a totally different person now – just like a lot of other people who have come to register.” Office brought his friend, Jerry Armstrong, who also completed his felony conviction sentence requirements and registered to vote for the first time at the age of 45. Armstrong stated, “I never voted a day in my life. I feel like I am a United States citizen.”

David Ayala, who lost his vote at age 16 with a felony drug conviction, registered to vote on Tuesday, stating, “I lost my right to vote before I was even eligible to vote, and before I knew how important voting is.” He added that not being able to vote for his wife, Aramis Ayala, the state’s first African-American state attorney elected in Nov. 2016, “was a dark moment, not being able to participate in her moment of history… I knocked on doors, made calls, but wasn’t able to do the most important thing you can do.” His wife added, “I believe in a wider democracy. When a debt is paid, a debt is paid.”

Ron DeSantis, Florida’s new governor who was also elected in Nov. 2018, stated in Dec. 2017 that the amendment should not go into effect until “implementing language” is approved by the Legislature and signed by DeSantis, which would have pushed voter registration until at least the Mar. 5, 2019 legislative session. DeSantis stated, “It’s not delaying it–the people spoke on it. But I think it’s got to be implemented the way that the people intended. And I don’t think they wanted to see any sex offenders fall through the cracks.”

It remains to be seen how many newly-eligible people will register to vote. Daniel A. Smith, Chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Florida, stated, “I’m kind of skeptical that we’re going to see this big jump in terms of new registrations. I think it’s going to be a slow trickle, and it’s probably going to be realized over the next several years.” Individual counties reported spikes in voter registration on Tuesday. 208 people registered in Hillsborough County, for example, a county that registered 612 people total last year.

10 states permanently ban some ex-felons from voting, including Florida, which still bans murderers and sex crime perpetrators from voting even after all prison, probation, parole, and fines. 

 (via Vote Restored to up to 1.5 Million with Felony Convictions in Florida - ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

When Florida voters go to the polls for the Nov. 6 election, they’ll be determining the fates of over a million currently disenfranchised voters in their state. The Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, a constitutional amendment...
Pop-upView Separately

When Florida voters go to the polls for the Nov. 6 election, they’ll be determining the fates of over a million currently disenfranchised voters in their state. The Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, a constitutional amendment championed by the group Floridians for a Fair Democracy, would automatically restore the vote to people with felony convictions who have completed prison, parole, and probation, except for those convicted of murder or sexual offenses. Of the more than six million people across the United States who have lost the ability to vote due to a felony conviction, over 1.5 million currently reside in Florida, accounting for 10% of the adult population in the state.

The initiative is opposed by Richard Harrison, Executive Director of Floridians for a Sensible Voting Rights Policy, who says the proposed changes are too broad: “Other than murder and sexual felonies, it treats all other felonies as though they were the same. It’s a blanket, automatic restoration of voting rights… [Y]our only choice will be an all or nothing, yes or no vote on the amendment. If it passes, neither you nor anyone else will ever be allowed to consider the specifics of the crime or the post-release history of the criminal before that new voter registration card is issued.”

Proponents argue that the current system disproportionately affects people of color and unfairly punishes those who have already served their sentences. Desmond Meade, chairman of the committee that collected the signatures to get the amendment on the ballot, is a convicted felon and law school graduate who originally attempted to have his vote restored in Florida in 2006. Meade says the amendment would ensure that people with felony convictions “who’ve made past mistakes, served their time and paid their debts to society are given a second chance and the opportunity to earn back their ability to vote.”

A University of North Florida survey found 71% support among likely voters. In Florida, passing a constitutional amendment requires 60% approval by voters

(via Felon Voting Restoration Amendment on the Ballot in Florida - ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

New York joins 14 other states and DC in allowing convicted felons who have served their sentences to vote before parole is completed. Two states allow convicted felons to vote from prison; three restore voting rights after completion of parole; 20...
Pop-upView Separately

New York joins 14 other states and DC in allowing convicted felons who have served their sentences to vote before parole is completed. Two states allow convicted felons to vote from prison; three restore voting rights after completion of parole; 20 allow voting after completion of parole and probation; and in 10 states people with felony convictions may permanently lose their vote.

There are an estimated 6.1 million felons in the United States who cannot vote due to their felony convictions. 

 (via Cuomo Revives Felon Voting Debate by Allowing Parolees to Vote - ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

On Feb. 1, 2018 a federal judge ruled that Florida’s system of disenfranchising people convicted of a felony was unconstitutional. The ruling by US District Judge Mark Walker found that Florida’s system of permanently disenfranchising everyone...
Pop-upView Separately

On Feb. 1, 2018 a federal judge ruled that Florida’s system of disenfranchising people convicted of a felony was unconstitutional.

The ruling by US District Judge Mark Walker found that Florida’s system of permanently disenfranchising everyone convicted of a felony unless they petition the Governor to receive executive clemency violates the First Amendment right to free association and free expression, due to the arbitrary nature of the executive clemency process. The ruling also found that Florida’s executive clemency process to restore voting rights to some convicted felons violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law.

In his ruling, Judge Walker stated that “Florida’s vote-restoration scheme is crushingly restrictive,” and “crumbles under strict scrutiny because it risks – if not covertly authorizes the practice of – arbitrary and discriminatory vote-restoration.” It is a system, according to the Judge, that “allows government officials to ‘do whatever [they] want.’”

(via Florida Felon Voting Ban System Found Unconstitutional - ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts ® vetoed a bill that would have allowed convicted felons to vote immediately after completing their term of incarceration, parole, and probation. The Nebraska Legislature had passed the bill (LB75) three days earlier...
Pop-upView Separately

Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts ® vetoed a bill that would have allowed convicted felons to vote immediately after completing their term of incarceration, parole, and probation. The Nebraska Legislature had passed the bill (LB75) three days earlier in a 27-13 vote.

Under Nebraska law, convicted felons must wait two years after completion of their sentences before they are able to register to vote. Legislative Bill 75 would have removed this waiting period. In order to override the governor’s veto, the Nebraska Legislature would need 30 votes.

According to Governor Ricketts, “waiting two years to demonstrate that you can be a productive member of society, that you can keep your nose clean, is not too much to ask of convicted felons.” However, supporters of the bill felt differently. According to Nebraska State Senator Justin Wayne, “this restriction of a two-year waiting period is not only unnecessary and unjust, but it is counterproductive to what this body says is important.” He also argued that the current law is discriminatory against minority voters in the state.

(via Felon Voting Restrictions Removed by Nebraska Legislature, Governor Vetoes the Bill - ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons, in the majority opinion, wrote: “Never before have any of the prior 71 Virginia Governors issued a clemency order of any kind — including pardons, reprieves, commutations, and restoration orders — to a class of unnamed...
View Separately

Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons, in the majority opinion, wrote: “Never before have any of the prior 71 Virginia Governors issued a clemency order of any kind — including pardons, reprieves, commutations, and restoration orders — to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request.”

McAuliffe reacted to the court’s decision by stating in a press release that he “will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians.”

According to the New York Times, nearly half of the affected felons in Virginia are African-American, a “core constituency of Democrats.” Republicans argued that McAuliffe, a Democrat, was trying to help Hillary Clinton win over the swing state of Virginia. McAuliffe countered, “It is a disgrace that the Republican leadership of Virginia would lead a lawsuit to deny more than 200,000 of their own citizens the right to vote.”

Felon voting laws vary by state. In 10 states, a felon may lose the vote permanently, even after the term of incarceration, parole, probation, and fines are completed. Two states, Maine and Vermont, allow incarcerated felons to vote by absentee ballot.

(via ProCon.org)

Source: procon.org

On Tuesday Feb. 9, the Maryland Senate voted 29-18 to restore the vote to all convicted felons immediately upon their release from prison, overriding a veto of Senate Bill 340 by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, and concurring with the Maryland House...
View Separately

On Tuesday Feb. 9, the Maryland Senate voted 29-18 to restore the vote to all convicted felons immediately upon their release from prison, overriding a veto of Senate Bill 340 by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, and concurring with the Maryland House of Delegates which had voted to override the Governor’s veto earlier in the month. Prior to the passage of Maryland Senate Bill 340, convicted felons in the state had to complete all parole and probation before they were able to vote.

Approximately 40,000 convicted felons in the state of Maryland, who are currently serving a term of parole or probation, will now be able to vote in the upcoming presidential primary provided they register to vote before Apr. 5.

Gerald Stansbury, President of the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, called the Senate vote “a victory for civil rights that comes at a critical moment for our state and our nation.” He went on to say that “the majority of citizens regaining their voting rights are African American and it has never been more important that their voices are heard in local government, the halls of the State House, and by our federal representatives.”

According to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, the felon voting action taken by the Senate was a “partisan” political move by a “tiny, radical minority.” In a Feb. 11th editorial, the Frederick News-Post argued that the Maryland Senate’s override of the Governor’s veto “undercuts one of the foundations of our civilized society, a criminal justice system that delivers crime, punishment and restitution through the removal and then reinstatement of some of our fundamental rights.”

Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Miller argued that restoring the vote was the right thing to do, stating that “people who have returned to society, repaid their debt to society, they’re back in society, we want to reincorporate them into society… We want them to be able to hold their head high, and that’s what this is all about.”

(via Maryland Senate Restores the Vote to Convicted Felons upon Release from Prison)

Source: procon.org

Voting Rights Act 50th Anniversary Renews Debate

imageThe US Voting Rights Act, which outlawed legal barriers preventing African American voters from casting ballots, was signed into law on Aug. 6, 1965. On the occasion of its 50th anniversary, and one day after a federal appeals court ruled that a Texas law violates part of the act, its legacy is being debated by figures from across the political spectrum.

The Voting Rights Act was signed almost a century after the ratification of the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution, which declared that the right to vote must not be denied by the federal government or by any state “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Despite having been granted the constitutional right to vote, the ability for African Americans to exercise that right was infringed by numerous laws enacted in southern states after the Civil War, including requirements to pass literacy tests, the introduction of poll taxes and vouchers of “good character,” and the barring of black voters for supposed “crimes of moral turpitude.” Following the 15th Amendment’s ratification in 1870, the percentage of eligible black voters in Mississippi who were registered to vote dropped from 90% to about 6% in 1892. The percentage of voting-age blacks in the south who were registered to vote dropped to about 3% by 1940.

The burgeoning civil rights movement fought to oppose such disenfranchisement laws during the late 1950s and early 1960s. The efforts culminated on Mar. 7, 1965, when a planned march from Selma to Montgomery Alabama was disrupted when the protesters were confronted by state troopers, who fired tear gas into the crowd and attacked the marchers with nightsticks and whips. The national attention garnered by the incident hastened the progress of the nascent Voting Rights Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson five months later. Within one year, 302,000 previously disenfranchised Americans were registered to vote.

One of the act’s stipulations was that so-called “special coverage” states (states with a history of discrimination against African American voters) were required to secure “pre-clearance” from the federal government before making changes to their election or voting processes. This requirement was ruled unconstitutional and no longer necessary by the US Supreme Court on June 25, 2013. The ruling was controversial, and its implications are still being fiercely debated as the Voting Rights Act turns 50.

Source: procon.org