(Conservative hostility to democracy is becoming increasingly overt. Project Vote shines a light on the most recent developments that ought to alarm all Americans. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Minnesota has some of the most progressive voter registration laws in the country, laws like same day registration and vouching, that are designed to maximize turnout and get as many voices as possible heard on Election Day. Some newly elected members of the Minnesota state legislature, however, have recently announced that they intend to repeal those laws as soon as they take office. These laws, they claim, leave the state vulnerable to voter fraud, so vulnerable they apparently must be repealed immediately, despite their obvious benefits.
Like Don Quixote charging at windmills, believing them to be monsters, these state legislators are gearing up to fight imaginary threats. Voter fraud, contrary to the media perception, is incredibly rare. According to a study by the nonpartisan group Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, only twenty-six people were convicted of voter fraud in Minnesota in 2008, all of them convicted felons who are restricted from voting. In other words, less than nine-ten thousandths of one percent of Minnesota voters (.0009 percent), were convicted of voter fraud in 2008. At the national level, a report by Dr. Lorraine Minnite, director of research at Project Vote and former assistant professor of American and urban politics at Barnard College, found that only 24 people were convicted of voter fraud between 2002 and 2005.
So, these state legislatures are trying to repeal laws that make it easier for all Minnesotans to vote, on the off-chance that repealing those laws might discourage some twenty-odd convicted felons from showing up on Election Day. Certainly, what little voter fraud there is should be prevented, but not at the cost of repealing laws that provide tremendous benefits to legitimate voters. In 2004, the six states with same day registration had turnout rates almost 12 percent above the national average, but the newly elected Minnesota legislators are more worried about the two dozen felons who might be voting illegally, than the thousands of legitimate voters who may be prevented from voting at all if these laws are repealed.
If the state legislatures want to fix elections in this country, if they want to protect the sanctity of the democratic process, they should not be focused on the .00009 percent of ineligible citizens who vote illegally--oftentimes unknowingly--due to criminal convictions. Instead, they should focus on reforming current law to allow non-incarcerated felons to automatically regain their right to vote and the 50-plus percent of eligible voters who did not even cast a ballot on Election Day, finding ways to increase turnout, not lower it.
Anthony Balady is a legal intern at Project Vote and second-year student at William & Mary Law School. Mr. Balady also serves as vice president of William & Mary's Election Law Society and editor-in-chief of its election law blog, State of Elections.
(More on the many layers of voter suppression & the war on democracy. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Expanding ballot access to all voting-age citizens, particularly the millions who are living and working in our communities with past felony convictions, has been the foundation of many advocates' pleas to make American life equitable. Whether wrapped in an argument to fend against racism, classism, or even "overcriminalization," felon advocates' main issue boils down to preserving the civil rights of every citizen who participates in society, no matter their personal history.
Congress has been paying attention to the federal government's apparent tendency toward "overcriminalization" or "penchant for writing new laws to criminalize conduct that could be addressed with fines or other remedies," that ultimately overfill prisons and unfairly restrict otherwise productive citizens of important rights, such as voting, according to a McClatchy Newspapers report earlier this month.
For example, Abner Schoenwetter, a seafood importer, spent six years in prison for agreeing to purchase lobster tails that violated harvest regulations in Honduras. Now, the 64-year-old Florida man "is a convicted felon with an ailing wife, no job or right to vote and three years of supervised release ahead of him."
"We're talking about people's freedom and the way it affects people's faith in their government or lack thereof. We've got to get this cleaned up," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) at a hearing in the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing recently.
"Overcriminalization" particularly hurts citizens in states with more restrictive rules on felon disenfranchisement. All but two states restrict convicted felons from voting rights at some point in their sentences, leaving four million citizens voiceless, but "free" in our communities, a disproportionate number belonging African-American or low-income neighborhoods. Earlier this year, Congress attempted to address this issue by setting a federal standard for disenfranchisement rules with the introduction of the Democracy Restoration Act. But, the bill hasn't progressed since March.
Overcriminalization and the lack of a federal standard for disenfranchisement rules exacerbates the criminal justice system's inherent racial and economic biases that affect the quality of life of both the released convicted felons as well as the communities to which they return.
(This is virtually the same sort of Bush-Administration type of move by the Obama DOJ I described yesterday with respect to undermining progress on the greeenhouse gas front. Again, this is a situation in which there is NO GOP obstructionism that one can point your finger at. This all a matter of internal Obama Administration decisionmaking. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
A two-year battle in the courts concluded this week when the Department of Justice approved Georgia's controversial voter verification system that was originally struck down in 2009 as inaccurate, unreliable, and worst of all, discriminatory against people of color and naturalized citizens. The decision leaves voting rights advocates dismayed as to why the DOJ would allow the state to implement this arguably overzealous and potentially disenfranchising procedure.
As Michigan considers following the dangerous example of Arizona's controversial anti-immigration law, one of the candidates for the state's chief election official is fanning the flames of hysteria in a way that threatens voting rights.
A disturbing and growing hysteria over immigration—most evident in Arizona’s horrifyingly oppressive new law—has now spread into election administration legislation in at least one state. On the same day that the Maine Republican Party adopted a blatantly xenophobic Tea Party platform, the Tennessee Senate injected anti-immigrant sentiment into a draconian bill to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
As Congress deliberates over setting a federal standard for restoring the civil rights of released felons, Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell appeared to be creating more roadblocks to the democratic process for felons in his state. However, after much criticism from lawmakers and voting rights groups in the last few days, the governor has backed down; McDonnell now says his new requirement for felons to write an essay outlining their contribution to society in order to restore their voting rights was merely a "draft policy proposal."
With millions of Americans living and working in our communities, but disenfranchised by past felony convictions, Congress has taken the first step to put democracy back on track.
When an appellate court shut down Indiana's unequal mandate for polling-place voter ID, it sent a clear signal that-partisan politics aside-election laws should be assessed on whether or not all voters are given equal access to the democratic process. Yet, despite violations of law and the fact that absentee voting is more susceptible to voter fraud activity than in-person voting, other states continue to emulate what was one of the country's toughest voter ID laws.
One of the country's most contentious voting rights issues came back into the spotlight last Thursday when an Indiana court struck down the state's strict photo voter ID law as unconstitutional. The law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, was found be in violation of the Indiana Constitution because it treated voters unequally.
State and federal law outlines, protects, and facilitates the voting rights of citizens. Under ideal circumstances, these laws make voting equally accessible to all eligible Americans without unnecessary barriers or hurdles. Unfortunately, the right to vote is too often misconstrued by the very officials charged with helping to protect and facilitate that right, leaving voters at best confused, and at worst disenfranchised.
Signed into law by President Clinton in May of 1993, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was hailed by some as "the final achievement of the 1960's voting rights revolution," and proponents estimated that it would add 50 million Americans to the voting rolls. However, in a comprehensive new report released today by Project Vote, The NVRA at Fifteen: A Report to Congress, voting rights attorney Estelle Rogers finds that lack of enforcement, failures of state and federal leadership, and restrictive court decisions have left the full potential of the NVRA unrealized, and have left millions of disenfranchised Americans still awaiting the promise of a truly inclusive democracy.
Although there are other election reforms - good and bad - that deserve the spotlight, voter ID remains a hot button issue for legislators and the media, primarily in Southern states. These battles are drawing as much attention for their political divisiveness as for the unfair burden they put on voters.
A currently challenged provision of the Voting Rights Act requires several states with a history of discriminatory election practices to seek federal approval before changing election rules. Under this provision, the Department of Justice this week rejected a Georgia voter list maintenance procedure that it deemed both discriminatory and inaccurate, according to the Associated Press.
As the United States has grown older, it has expanded the right to vote to nearly every group of citizens, with one notable exception: former felons. Today, 48 states have their own laws that disenfranchise convicted felons at some point during incarceration, probation, or parole. This hodgepodge of policies has created confusion for former offenders and election officials alike, and has resulted in the loss of voting rights for about 5.3 million Americans.
Recent studies show that a more diverse electorate turned out last November, including historically underrepresented young and minority voters. Since the election, Republican operatives have continued to use the specter of voter fraud to loosen regulations on voter suppression activities while pushing policies to make voting more difficult for the crop of new voters.
STATE BLOGS
