Post by T-Rex91 on Jan 11, 2010 10:09:44 GMT -5
Should felons have the right to vote? I say yes after they depart corrections supervision. I've never understood why you lose this right. Thoughts?
Supreme Court should uphold felon vote ban
THE OLYMPIAN
Should felons have the right to vote?
Washington’s constitution prohibits prisoners under the supervision of the state Department of Corrections from voting. But in a surprising 2-1 vote by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week paved the way for felons to vote. If allowed to stand, felons in nine western states — Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona and California — would have their voting rights restored.
According to state officials, who plan to appeal the ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision of the 9th Circuit runs counter to appellate decisions in New York, Massachusetts and Florida. That’s why it’s imperative that the United States Supreme Court take up this case and set a clear standard on felon voting for the entire nation.
The Washington case dates back to 1996. That year convicted felons Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, Al-Kareem Shadeed, Marcus Price, Ramon Barrientes, Timothy Schaaf and Clifton Briceno filed a case challenging the fact that they were denied the right to vote from behind bars. Farrakhan, Shadeed, Price, and Schaaf are African-American; Barrientes is Latino and Briceno is American Indian. Their status as minorities is pivotal in their challenge of Article VI of the state constitution, known as the felon disenfranchisement law.
The state constitution says, “All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise.” An “infamous crime” is defined as one that is “punishable by death in the state penitentiary or imprisonment in a state correctional facility.”
The constitutional ban on felon voting is clear. The question is whether the ban is legal.
The six criminal defendants claimed that because of racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system, the automatic loss of voting rights is discriminatory and thus a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs claimed that “minorities are disproportionately prosecuted and sentenced, resulting in their disproportionate representation” among those who have been denied of voting rights.
On Dec. 1, 2000, the U.S. District Court said the plaintiff’s evidence of discrimination in the Washington criminal justice system and the resulting disproportionate impact on minority voting power was “compelling.” But the court concluded, “it is discrimination in the criminal justice system, not the disenfranchisement provision itself, that causes any vote denial.”
The 9th Circuit reversed the lower court ruling.
After another trip through the District Court, the case found its way back to the 9th Circuit panel in San Francisco. In the meantime, the state Legislature amended the law — a law that now allows felons to have their voting rights “provisionally restored,” once they are out from under the supervision of the state Department of Corrections.
Attorneys for the state argued the change in law were substantive enough to have the racial discrimination lawsuit dismissed.
Two of the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel disagreed. Justices Stephen Reinhardt and A. Wallace Tashima said there is racial discrimination in Washington’s criminal justice system and because of that discrimination, minorities are unfairly impacted by the constitutional ban against felons casting ballots. Justice M. Margaret McKeown filed a dissent.
Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state’s top election official, said he was surprised by the 2-1 decision, and has agreed with the attorney general that the case be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We certainly support racial equality and efforts to make our criminal justice system free of bias,” Reed said. “But we also support our state constitutional ban on voting by felons who are under Department of Corrections supervision. We believe that the loss of voting rights is an appropriate and reasonable sanction for society to demand of felons while they are incarcerated or on community supervision. Most states have this sensible policy. Once inmates satisfy their prison sentence and community supervision, our Legislature has recently provided that they may apply to have their voting rights restored as part of reintegrating back into the community.”
Reed said, “We are hopeful that this long-standing policy will be upheld as this case is appealed further. We look forward to the courts giving some finality to this question.”
Reed makes an excellent point. The people of the state of Washington have for decades had a constitutional provision against felons voting. That’s the will of the people and it is firmly etched in the constitution and should be upheld.
It’s imperative that the United States Supreme Court take up Washington’s case and we certainly hope the justices uphold the constitutional ban.
Supreme Court should uphold felon vote ban
THE OLYMPIAN
Should felons have the right to vote?
Washington’s constitution prohibits prisoners under the supervision of the state Department of Corrections from voting. But in a surprising 2-1 vote by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week paved the way for felons to vote. If allowed to stand, felons in nine western states — Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona and California — would have their voting rights restored.
According to state officials, who plan to appeal the ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision of the 9th Circuit runs counter to appellate decisions in New York, Massachusetts and Florida. That’s why it’s imperative that the United States Supreme Court take up this case and set a clear standard on felon voting for the entire nation.
The Washington case dates back to 1996. That year convicted felons Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, Al-Kareem Shadeed, Marcus Price, Ramon Barrientes, Timothy Schaaf and Clifton Briceno filed a case challenging the fact that they were denied the right to vote from behind bars. Farrakhan, Shadeed, Price, and Schaaf are African-American; Barrientes is Latino and Briceno is American Indian. Their status as minorities is pivotal in their challenge of Article VI of the state constitution, known as the felon disenfranchisement law.
The state constitution says, “All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise.” An “infamous crime” is defined as one that is “punishable by death in the state penitentiary or imprisonment in a state correctional facility.”
The constitutional ban on felon voting is clear. The question is whether the ban is legal.
The six criminal defendants claimed that because of racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system, the automatic loss of voting rights is discriminatory and thus a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs claimed that “minorities are disproportionately prosecuted and sentenced, resulting in their disproportionate representation” among those who have been denied of voting rights.
On Dec. 1, 2000, the U.S. District Court said the plaintiff’s evidence of discrimination in the Washington criminal justice system and the resulting disproportionate impact on minority voting power was “compelling.” But the court concluded, “it is discrimination in the criminal justice system, not the disenfranchisement provision itself, that causes any vote denial.”
The 9th Circuit reversed the lower court ruling.
After another trip through the District Court, the case found its way back to the 9th Circuit panel in San Francisco. In the meantime, the state Legislature amended the law — a law that now allows felons to have their voting rights “provisionally restored,” once they are out from under the supervision of the state Department of Corrections.
Attorneys for the state argued the change in law were substantive enough to have the racial discrimination lawsuit dismissed.
Two of the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel disagreed. Justices Stephen Reinhardt and A. Wallace Tashima said there is racial discrimination in Washington’s criminal justice system and because of that discrimination, minorities are unfairly impacted by the constitutional ban against felons casting ballots. Justice M. Margaret McKeown filed a dissent.
Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state’s top election official, said he was surprised by the 2-1 decision, and has agreed with the attorney general that the case be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We certainly support racial equality and efforts to make our criminal justice system free of bias,” Reed said. “But we also support our state constitutional ban on voting by felons who are under Department of Corrections supervision. We believe that the loss of voting rights is an appropriate and reasonable sanction for society to demand of felons while they are incarcerated or on community supervision. Most states have this sensible policy. Once inmates satisfy their prison sentence and community supervision, our Legislature has recently provided that they may apply to have their voting rights restored as part of reintegrating back into the community.”
Reed said, “We are hopeful that this long-standing policy will be upheld as this case is appealed further. We look forward to the courts giving some finality to this question.”
Reed makes an excellent point. The people of the state of Washington have for decades had a constitutional provision against felons voting. That’s the will of the people and it is firmly etched in the constitution and should be upheld.
It’s imperative that the United States Supreme Court take up Washington’s case and we certainly hope the justices uphold the constitutional ban.
