Universal Suffrage is one of the most important social
and political triumphs ever seen in the United States and throughout the World.
Historically, only privileged, wealthy white men were allowed the right to
vote. Now, the vote is deemed to be a basic right of all citizens over the age
of eighteen years of age, irrespective of race, ethnicity and gender. The
founders of the United States, when writing The Declaration of Independence,
believed “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal . . . among these (unalienable rights) are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness . . . whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government . . . to affect their
safety and happiness”.
One section of the community has had the right to vote
taken away from them. Any man or woman who has committed a crime and has been
found guilty rightly must pay their debt to society by being incarcerated in
jail. That to me is punishment enough. I believe it is unconstitutional to
punish someone “excessively “in this case by taking their right to vote
away. It is my opinion that the criminal
disenfranchisement laws currently on the statute books in forty six states in
this country are unconstitutional, contradicting the 8th,14th,15th
and 24th Amendments. The aim of sending someone to prison is to
rehabilitate him or her to the extent that they can easily and safely integrate
themselves back into society. One essential component of being in society is
having the ability to vote – to “have your say” (one of the essential,
motivational factors determining the foundation of this country). The notion
that criminal disenfranchisement laws are necessary to ensure a safe society
and to protect the idea of nothing illegal happening at election times is
questionable to say the least.
The Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed or cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.” In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
(2002), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing the
mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishments. In the ruling it was stated that, unlike other provisions of the
Constitution, the Eighth Amendment should be interpreted in light of the "evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
This same approach has to come into effect when making decisions regarding
voting rights.
When debating
felony disenfranchisement, it is difficult not to disagree with Pamela S
Karlan, J.D., the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law
at Stanford University, when she says the question the Supreme Court debated
during the Trop versus Dulles Case (Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) is
relevant when discussing the “pros and cons” of felony disenfranchisement laws.
“Is disenfranchisement consistent with
the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?” It is
because a person has been punished and after having served their time in jail. They
must be granted the same rights again as any other person. There is a
similarity to the situation regarding an ex-felon and Albert Trop, who was
deemed to have been excessively punished when he was turned down in his
application for a passport in 1952.
The Supreme
Court’s judgment then, namely “denationalization as a punishment is barred by
the Eighth Amendment," as this is "the total destruction of the
individual's status in organized society" can certainly be applied to a
person who has served their time in jail and then forced to have no say in the
running of the country. When, according to Human Rights Watch, the United
States denies more people the right to vote because of the existing laws on
felony disenfranchisement, laws that can be applied to the most “trivial” of
offences, it is time to re-evaluate the laws and repeal them.
In the state of
New York, according to the Brennan Center for Justice (www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/jimcrowny
), “more than 108,000 New Yorkers cannot vote because of a conviction in their
past. Almost half of these disenfranchised citizens have completed their prison
sentence and are living and working in the community.” What is even more
intriguing is that “nearly 80% of those who have lost their right to vote under
New York’s law are African-American or Hispanic”. It is important
that people like those referenced from New York have the right to vote. Equally,
if the 827,000 disenfranchised felons in the state of Florida had had the
opportunity to vote in the Presidential Election in 2000, the history of the
world could have taken a much different turn.
It
is also unfair to expect people to remain disenfranchised when on returning to
society they have no voice and yet have to pay tax. One of the most famous
slogans in American history is “no taxation without representation”. It was one
of the motivating reasons for the revolution. Yet it is deemed acceptable for people who are
legally in this country to have to pay tax and have no say in how their dollars
are used. Surely the time has come for change.
Global
Exchange, an international human rights organization, stated in its online
article "Felon Disenfranchisement;
Taxation without Representation: End Felon Disenfranchisement," accessed
Apr. 5, 2007 from its website votejustice.org: “Permanent disenfranchisement of former
felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is
an unreasonable restriction that creates subcategories of citizenship in the
United States. Ex-felons are expected to contribute to society as gainfully
employed citizens, pay taxes and raise families, but their disenfranchisement
gives them no say in how those tax dollars are spent, who sits on their
children’s school board, or who represents their interests in government.” This, in my opinion, is against the notion of
everything the United States of America stands for. Take Abran Ramirez for
example.
He lost his right
to vote for life in California because of a twenty year old robbery conviction.
He had served three months in jail and also completed ten years of parole. Yet
still no vote. No opportunity to say how his state and his country should be
run. This is unfair and definitely “un-American”
Another questionable practice is
that of plea bargaining. If an eighteen year old first time offender trades a
guilty plea for a lenient prison sentence, they could unwittingly be
sacrificing their future voting rights. This is wrong on both counts. It is
perverting the course of justice and also it allows lawyers the opportunity to
misinform their clients in the author’s opinion.
The Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1868. This amendment says that “.
. . no state shall make or enforce any
law that which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law
. . .”
This section of the Amendment is known as the
“Equal Protection Clause”. No one knows exactly what was going on in the minds
of the founders when the Constitution was written. Conversely, the founders
could not have envisioned how life would develop in the intervening years. A
maturing society in the year 2010 can surely see that this clause clearly can
be interpreted in deciding that current disenfranchisement laws are indeed
unconstitutional. The fact that the Republican Party in Alabama is opposed to
restoring voting rights to ex-felons because “felons don’t tend to vote
Republican” shows that Alabama is acting unconstitutionally. In the Washington
Post article “Why Can’t Felons Vote?” the statistic quoted that 65-90% of the
time ex-felons vote Democrat because they are “traditionally low income, low
education or minority status” is further proof that unconstitutional behavior
is rife in this country when it comes to voting laws.
Voting IS a privilege, this cannot be denied.
The climate in countries where “the vote” is NOT a given has been clear thanks
to modern day media for all to see. However, states in this country still persist
in keeping archaic laws on the books. The argument that felony
disenfranchisement laws contravene the Equal Protection clause is valid. For
example, in Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985), the United States Supreme
Court that ruled the felony disenfranchisement provision of § 182 of the
Alabama Constitution as a violation as having been passed into State law at a
time when racist leanings were commonplace, contradicting the text in the 15th
Amendment.
Equally
disturbing, a report by the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights published by
the Brennan Center for Justice, published in 2010, found that one in four
African Americans had lost the right to vote. The online article, written by
Benjamin Rattner, highlighted the fact that Kentucky “is one of the last two
states in the country that denies the right to vote for life to anyone with a
felony conviction, unless the current Governor restores the right through
clemency powers.”
Another
alarming piece of information emanating from Human Rights Watch’s excellent
article (www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm
) is that “released ex-felons are not routinely informed about the steps
necessary to regain the vote and often believe – incorrectly – that they can
never vote again.”
The
process is long and arduous to regain the vote, depending on the state you live
in. Then there is the question of raising the necessary finance to actually
regain the vote. In Mississippi for example, a recently released felon, who
wishes to regain his right to vote must obtain permission from the incumbent Governor
in the form of an Executive Order “or get a state legislator to introduce a
bill on his or her behalf, convince two thirds of the legislators in each house
to vote for it and then have it signed by the Governor”. In sixteen states,
anyone who has committed a federal offence is barred from using state
procedures to regain civil rights. The only methods open to him or she is to
gain a Presidential pardon. How many ex-felons have the financial muscle to be
able to afford this process? This surely
goes against everything the first section of the 14th Amendment
states. The report’s findings show that the statistic regarding the number of
African Americans that are currently disenfranchised shows that policies and practices currently
being carried out contradict the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870.
Section 1 of this
Amendment clearly states “The right of
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition
of servitude” Proof enough that
what is being carried out right now is unconstitutional.
The 24th
Amendment, ratified in 1964, states” the
right of citizens of the United States to vote . . . shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay poll tax
or other tax” Tax evasion is a crime punishable by prison. It is a person’s
duty to pay tax in my opinion. People want the state to provide decent services
so they should rightly pay for them in the form of taxes. If they go to prison
for tax evasion that is a serious crime. Once again, that is punishment enough.
They still have the right to vote. They are still a citizen of this country.
Trop v Dulles shows that taking away a person’s citizenship is a “cruel and
excessive crime”. That case contradicted the 8th Amendment and
taking someone’s right to vote for tax evasion contradicts the 24th
Amendment.
In 1800 no state
stopped felons from voting. Today laws currently active have no real purpose
when it comes to voting rights. What is in effect now is something reminiscent
of the “civil death” offenders faced in medieval times. The actions of whites
in the 19th century have no place in today’s society and that is why
I believe the current felon disenfranchisement laws are unconstitutional.
Works Cited
The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in The United
States (www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm)
Why Can’t EX-Felons Vote? Krajick, Kevin Wednesday August
18, 2004; Page A19 www.washingtopost.com
Jim Crow in New York by Erika Wood and Liz Budnitz with
Garima Malhotra
Kentucky’s Disturbing Disenfranchisement Numbers/Brennan
Center for Justice
Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation and the
Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement – Stanford Law Review Karlan, JD, Pamela
S.
Did Florida’s Felon Disenfranchisement Laws Cause Al Gore to
lose the 2000 Presidential Election? – Felon Voting
The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United
States
America at Odds Student Edition 6th Edition
Sidlow, Edward, Beth Henschen
