Saturday, May 05, 2007
Moving Forward (For Once)
Here is a bit of irony. I am watching the remake of "Inherit the Wind," the dramatization of the Scopes Monkey trial that put evolution on trial in Dayton, Tennessee at the turn of the century while reading this article in today's "New York Times." Full circle.
In my "Introduction to American Government" class, I spend time, during the lecture on Participation, discussing the falsity of a "right" to vote. A right to vote isn't found in the body of the Constitution, and the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution only prohibit discrimination in the voting process. So long as the states--which have sole jurisdiction over the vote--do not erect barriers based on sex, race or ethnicity, or age (at least 18 or above), states may exercise discretion over access to the ballot box. One exercise of discretion involves prohibiting non-citizens from voting until residency is established. This is a fairly minor form that only temporarily prohibits voting (most residency requirements disappear after 30 days).
Another form of discrimination--and one that is obnoxious to our sense of fairness and equality--is the disenfranchisement of felons. Nearly every State in the Union prohibits felons from voting (only two--Vermont and Maine have no prohibitions at all). Many only apply to those who are serving time at the time of an election, while some--like Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia--prohibit all felons, parolees, probationers, and ex-cons--from voting. For these individuals to have their voting privileges restored (I argue that since it is not an inalienable right--something the government may not take away--it is a privilege), they must appeal to the governor to grant clemency. While these states suspend the convicted's right to vote, they still count them as part of their population for apportionment services. There are some areas of the country where the prison is the population, thus these individuals are being "represented" without the right to vote for that representation.
What possible reasons exist to support these disenfranchisement laws--particularly the ones as draconian as the states listed above? Believe it or not, there is strong support to continue to punish the felon. Some argue that removing the voting privilege is a form of retribution for those who break the social contract while others argue that it is a carrot to lure the convict back in to respecting societies laws, rules, and norms of behavior. And then there are those like the current Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Senator McConnell believes that you need to withdraw the privilege of voting to keep felons from voting as a bloc, thus electing representatives (judges, sheriffs, and local council) who would be soft on crime! It always seemed to me that if the malcontents were thinking this strategically, why wouldn't they vote criminals into office before convicting crimes and not after?
Whatever the reason, one consistent argument surrounding the support for felony disenfranchisement is a political one. Those who are likely to commit felony crimes are those on the bottom of the socio-economic strata in the US, and more likely to vote for Democrats. Currently, according to the Sentencing Project, "5.3 million Americans" are disenfranchised, and over one million are African-American men (representing 13% of all black males in the US). This represents a significant number of potential voters, and in some cases, it means the outcome of a presidential election. In the 2000 election, it could have meant the difference between President Bush vs. President Gore. In fact, in the 2000 election, the election was given to Governor Bush by a little more than one-half of a million voters.
This brings me to the reason for this post. In yesterday's "Wall Street Journal," Carl Bialik reported that the new Governor of Florida, Republican Charlie Crist, decided last month bring Florida into the 20th century and reinstate the voting privilege of those convicted for non-violent felonies and to allow those who have been convicted of some violent felonies to immediately apply for reinstatement to the Clemency Board (Only Kentucky and Virginia remain locked in the 19th century). Bialik's column examined the argument that the restoration of the voting privilege will help Democrats. And it is a good question. While Florida has taken a great step forward, it has only budgeted $50,000 for voter outreach to these disenfranchised individuals. Simply being allowed to vote isn't the same as voting. This is the big problem that America has struggled with over the last 30 years--How could it be that the beacon of Democracy consistently has more Americans who choose to stay at home when it comes time for an election? And those chronically immobile are the young, poor, and minorities--many of the same people who also were prevented from voting yet now are allowed. The only way to get these individuals is to vote is to make steady and consistent attempts to mobilize them. So in all likelihood, the new Republican Governor of Florida has made a strategic gamble that will probably pay off--reach out to those independent voters who lean Democrat by showing them you are a new kind of Governor that wants to put the best face of Florida forward--while continuing to count on Republicans turning out at the polls in greater numbers than Democrats.
|
In my "Introduction to American Government" class, I spend time, during the lecture on Participation, discussing the falsity of a "right" to vote. A right to vote isn't found in the body of the Constitution, and the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution only prohibit discrimination in the voting process. So long as the states--which have sole jurisdiction over the vote--do not erect barriers based on sex, race or ethnicity, or age (at least 18 or above), states may exercise discretion over access to the ballot box. One exercise of discretion involves prohibiting non-citizens from voting until residency is established. This is a fairly minor form that only temporarily prohibits voting (most residency requirements disappear after 30 days).
Another form of discrimination--and one that is obnoxious to our sense of fairness and equality--is the disenfranchisement of felons. Nearly every State in the Union prohibits felons from voting (only two--Vermont and Maine have no prohibitions at all). Many only apply to those who are serving time at the time of an election, while some--like Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia--prohibit all felons, parolees, probationers, and ex-cons--from voting. For these individuals to have their voting privileges restored (I argue that since it is not an inalienable right--something the government may not take away--it is a privilege), they must appeal to the governor to grant clemency. While these states suspend the convicted's right to vote, they still count them as part of their population for apportionment services. There are some areas of the country where the prison is the population, thus these individuals are being "represented" without the right to vote for that representation.
What possible reasons exist to support these disenfranchisement laws--particularly the ones as draconian as the states listed above? Believe it or not, there is strong support to continue to punish the felon. Some argue that removing the voting privilege is a form of retribution for those who break the social contract while others argue that it is a carrot to lure the convict back in to respecting societies laws, rules, and norms of behavior. And then there are those like the current Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Senator McConnell believes that you need to withdraw the privilege of voting to keep felons from voting as a bloc, thus electing representatives (judges, sheriffs, and local council) who would be soft on crime! It always seemed to me that if the malcontents were thinking this strategically, why wouldn't they vote criminals into office before convicting crimes and not after?
Whatever the reason, one consistent argument surrounding the support for felony disenfranchisement is a political one. Those who are likely to commit felony crimes are those on the bottom of the socio-economic strata in the US, and more likely to vote for Democrats. Currently, according to the Sentencing Project, "5.3 million Americans" are disenfranchised, and over one million are African-American men (representing 13% of all black males in the US). This represents a significant number of potential voters, and in some cases, it means the outcome of a presidential election. In the 2000 election, it could have meant the difference between President Bush vs. President Gore. In fact, in the 2000 election, the election was given to Governor Bush by a little more than one-half of a million voters.
This brings me to the reason for this post. In yesterday's "Wall Street Journal," Carl Bialik reported that the new Governor of Florida, Republican Charlie Crist, decided last month bring Florida into the 20th century and reinstate the voting privilege of those convicted for non-violent felonies and to allow those who have been convicted of some violent felonies to immediately apply for reinstatement to the Clemency Board (Only Kentucky and Virginia remain locked in the 19th century). Bialik's column examined the argument that the restoration of the voting privilege will help Democrats. And it is a good question. While Florida has taken a great step forward, it has only budgeted $50,000 for voter outreach to these disenfranchised individuals. Simply being allowed to vote isn't the same as voting. This is the big problem that America has struggled with over the last 30 years--How could it be that the beacon of Democracy consistently has more Americans who choose to stay at home when it comes time for an election? And those chronically immobile are the young, poor, and minorities--many of the same people who also were prevented from voting yet now are allowed. The only way to get these individuals is to vote is to make steady and consistent attempts to mobilize them. So in all likelihood, the new Republican Governor of Florida has made a strategic gamble that will probably pay off--reach out to those independent voters who lean Democrat by showing them you are a new kind of Governor that wants to put the best face of Florida forward--while continuing to count on Republicans turning out at the polls in greater numbers than Democrats.
