Innocent In Prison Project International

[Seul]

FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES

From The Sentencing Project:

"Since the founding of the country, most states in the U.S. have enacted laws disenfranchising convicted felons and ex-felons. Today, almost all states have disenfranchisement laws. In the last 30 years, due to the dramatic increased use and expansion of the criminal justice system, these laws have significantly affected the political voice of many American communities."

- State Disenfranchisement Laws
- Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement
- Policy Changes (listed by state)
- Policy Implication
- Catagories of Felons Disenfranchised Under State Law (Listed by state
and offender status - e.g. - ex-felon, probationer, parolee, etc ...

To learn more go to The Sentencing Project:
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1046.pdf


(Their front door: http://www.sentencingproject.org/
From their site: "The Sentencing Project is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which promotes reduced reliance on incarceration and increased use of more effective and humane alternatives to deal with crime. It is a nationally recognized source of criminal justice policy analysis, data, and program information. Its reports, publications, and staff are relied upon by the public, policymakers and the media.")

[admin]

July 31, 2006
Editorial
Prisoners and Human Rights

The United States has the worst record in the free world when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. In contrast, most European countries hold that right so dear that they bring ballot boxes into prisons.

This point was underscored last week in a scalding report from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which held hearings earlier this month to determine how well the United States was complying with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which this country ratified in 1992. The hearings heard testimony about secret detentions, kidnappings and accusations of torture.

But they also dealt with how the United States treats its prison inmates, particularly the disenfranchisement laws that bar more than five million convicted felons from the polls. The American representative weakly defended the practice’s legality, but dodged explaining its rationale, saying the rules come from the states, not the federal government.

In a common-sense report made public Friday, the committee said that blanket disenfranchisement was inconsistent with the covenant and served no rehabilitative purpose. Noting that disenfranchisement disproportionately affects minorities, the report urged the United States to restore voting rights to citizens who have served their sentences or who are released on parole. The report is not legally binding. But it reminds us how poorly we treat ex-offenders compared with democracies abroad.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
www.nytimes.com

[admin]

www.nytimes.com
April 3, 2007

Florida Governor Is Hoping to Restore Felon Voting Rights
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

MIAMI, April 2 — Hinting that a remarkable turnaround in state policy was near, Gov. Charlie Crist said Monday that he hoped to persuade members of the Florida cabinet this week to end the practice of stripping convicted felons of their right to vote.

Florida is the most populous of three states whose constitutions require withdrawal of voting rights from all convicted felons, and it has the nation’s largest number of disenfranchised former offenders. The other two states are Kentucky and Virginia.

Felons in Florida who have served their prison and probation time can apply to have their voting rights reinstated, but the process can be time consuming and complex. Only a few hundred have their rights restored each year in Florida, where the American Civil Liberties Union says 950,000 remain disenfranchised.

Mr. Crist, a Republican, said that to win the support of some cabinet members, he might require former felons to pay whatever restitution they owe to victims before regaining their rights. Some civil rights groups, including the A.C.L.U., oppose such a compromise, but Mr. Crist said he had little choice.

“I want to do the doable,” he told reporters in Tallahassee. “I’m pushing as hard as I can to get as much as I can, but there’s a point beyond which I cannot go.”

Only a constitutional amendment could formally end the ban, but under state law, the governor and cabinet — who also make up the state clemency board — could grant blanket clemency to everyone who completes their sentence. Mr. Crist needs two of the three cabinet members to sign off on the plan.

Alex Sink, a Democrat who is the state’s chief financial officer, has said she supported modifying the ban. But Charles Bronson, the state’s agriculture secretary, and William McCollum, its attorney general, Republicans, have opposed it.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush was adamantly against ending the ban, even though it contributed to problems in the 2000 presidential election. An unknown number of legal voters were removed from the rolls leading up to the election, after a company working for the state mistakenly identified the voters as felons. At the same time, some counties allowed felons to vote or turned away legitimate voters as suspected felons.

“I believe in my heart that everybody deserves a second chance,” Mr. Crist said. “And I’m hopeful that maybe later this week we’ll have an opportunity to restore civil rights for Floridians and give them that right to vote.”

Howard Simon, executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Florida, said he thought Mr. Crist was focused on persuading Mr. Bronson to soften his stance. He said Mr. Bronson wanted a list of exceptions, of violent criminals who would not be eligible for voting rights. Mr. Crist said he would not grant automatic restoration to murderers and sex criminals.

Terence McElroy, a spokesman for Mr. Bronson, said Monday: “Commissioner Bronson continues to believe that people who commit violent felonies ought to be treated differently than others who do not.”

Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCollum, said he believed that “violent habitual offenders should not receive automatic restoration.”

Mr. Simon said it made no sense to require former offenders to pay restitution to regain their civil rights.

“How can they be expected to pay it if the state keeps putting barriers in the way of allowing them to be re-employed?” he said. “You can put people on a payment plan, but get them back to work first.”

Christine Jordan Sexton contributed reporting from Tallahassee, Fla., and Terry Aguayo from Miami.