CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Fighting for Voting Rights for All AmericansToday marks the second day of a two-day United Nations forum on "minorities and effective political participation." Chaired by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the forum has attracted legislators, academics and members of the nongovernmental organization community from around the world to Geneva to address the continuing problems faced by minority communities engaging in the political process. Although the U.S. holds itself out as a model democratic society, the benefit of democracy continues to elude millions of Americans. The U.S. has repeatedly failed to protect the voting rights of minority communities, and has turned a blind eye to state actions that make it more difficult for minority citizens to participate in the political process. The ways in which people of color are systematically kept from the ballot box in the United States are many and varied. The ACLU submission to be presented at the forum focuses on two populations whose voting rights the U.S. government has consistently and repeatedly failed to protect: Native peoples and those with criminal records, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color. Though on its face race-neutral, felony disfranchisement – the set of policies and practices that bar 5.3 million Americans with criminal records from the ballot box – has a particularly devastating impact on minority individuals and communities. Across the country, 8.25 percent of the African-American voting-age population is barred from voting due to felony disfranchisement laws, compared to only 2.42 percent of the general voting age population. In states with the greatest levels of African-American disfranchisement, those rates rise to more than 20 percent. If incarceration rates hold steady, three in 10 of the next generation of black men can expect to be disfranchised at some point in their lives. Indeed, the origins of felony disfranchisement lie in explicit efforts to keep African-Americans from the ballot box. After passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, southern states began to tailor their felony disfranchisement laws to target African-Americans. For example, Mississippi revised its constitution to impose disfranchisement as a penalty specifically for crimes of which black people were most frequently convicted. In 1902 at the Virginia Constitutional Convention, felony disfranchisement laws were introduced with the stated intent to "eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State." These laws remain in effect today. Though the movement for equal rights has led to dramatic gains for Indian voters and transformed elected bodies that serve Indian communities, Indians continue to struggle against ongoing disfranchisement and discriminatory election practices that prevent them from participating equally in the political process. The recent ACLU report Voting Rights in Indian Country, which accompanied our U.N. submission, outlines current obstacles to Indian voting, including electoral systems that dilute Indian voting strength; discriminatory voter registration procedures; onerous voter identification requirements; lack of language assistance at the polls; noncompliance with the Voting Rights Act and the historic refusal of our government to recognize Indians as U.S. citizens. Human rights standards protecting the right to vote, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, are robust because the right to vote is fundamental in every way. And yet the United States continues to fail to protect the voting rights of minority communities, in violation of the United States' commitments under international treaties that enshrine the right to vote. The Obama administration has committed itself to enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which is a good step toward protecting the fundamental right to vote. But as our submission to the U.N. demonstrates, much remains to be done to protect this right for all Americans.
Indiana's Voter ID Law Discriminates Against Citizens at the PollsVoting rights cases extol the right to vote as fundamental and preservative of all rights. Indeed, the right to vote without regard to race, gender, age, or class is protected by numerous constitutional amendments and federal laws. Therefore, Indiana's voter identification law departed from well-established constitutional principles when it required voters to possess a valid, current government-issued photo identification in order to cast a ballot on this past Election Day. After a long partisan battle, Indiana imposed new burdens on minorities, women, students, the elderly and the poor. In Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law, ignoring the plight of a 78-year-old Ft. Wayne woman who attempted to get a photo ID. After three separate trips to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles over several weeks and finally obtaining a certified birth certificate, she was turned away because her birth certificate contained only her maiden name. The law also denied ballots to elderly nuns in South Bend, who were turned away solely because they lacked photo ID. Students from the University of Notre Dame were denied ballots because their student IDs lacked an expiration date and their driver's licenses were out-of-state. They were told they could only vote absentee, while those who possessed Indiana-approved ID were able to go to the polls on Election Day. Instead of treating these voters' ballots as necessary parts of our democracy that preserve all other rights, their denial was characterized as minor collateral damage in the battle to prevent unsubstantiated voter impersonation. While the Supreme Court held the state photo ID requirement did not violate federal law, the Indiana Court of Appeals found it violated the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the state constitution because it unjustifiably exempted select groups — absentee voters and voters living in state-licensed care facilities — from having to comply with the law. Now the Supreme Court of Indiana has an opportunity to affirm that discriminating against citizens at the polls violates the Indiana Constitution. On Monday, the ACLU's Voting Rights Project filed an amicus brief encouraging the Supreme Court of Indiana to see these injustices and restore equal rights to all of Indiana's voters.
The Voting Rights Act to the Rescue in South Dakota -- Again!Chalk up another victory for Indian voters in South Dakota. On September 30, the South Dakota Department of Public Safety announced that it was reversing a prior decision to close driver licensing stations in Todd and Charles Mix counties, home to the Rosebud and Yankton Sioux reservations, respectively. Residents of those counties had complained that the closures would force them to drive great distances to get a driver's license or photo identification card necessary to vote in South Dakota, and they argued that the closures would have disparate impact on Native American voters. In announcing the reversal, Public Safety Secretary Tom Dravland noted that the Voting Rights Act required Todd County to preclear any changes that could affect voting rights and that the City of Wagner in Charles Mix County had been subject to voting-rights litigation in the past. "The potential for litigation because of the closure, coupled with the Governor's further review of the levels of use and the geographic location served, prompted him to direct us to continue servies in Wagner," Dravland said. The closures were set to take effect on October 1. The reversal came just weeks after news stories about the closure mentioned that the ACLU's Voting Rights Project was investigating the matter. As part of that investigation, the ACLU requested the Department of Justice to ask the State for a formal preclearance submission under the Voting Rights Act prior to any closure. The ACLU pointed out that the burden of the closures would fall disproportionately on Native Americans, who have less access to cars and gas money than their white counterparts in Todd and Charles Mix counties and who would therefore have less access to the identification required to vote in person or by absentee ballot in South Dakota. It is unclear whether the Department of Justice did, in fact, intervene on behalf of Indian voters, but the episode demonstrates the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act -- and particularly the preclearance provisions of Section 5 -- in South Dakota. The Supreme Court upheld Section 5 last June, but some on the court have questioned its continuing relevance. South Dakota received relatively little attention in the congressional debates over Section 5, but it has been ground zero for voting discrimination in recent years. Since 1999, the ACLU has brought eight lawsuits in federal court on behalf of Native American voters in South Dakota. To date, seven of these cases have been resolved in favor of the Native American plaintiffs, and one case remains pending.
The Democracy Restoration Act — Restoring a Civil Right Denied(Originally posted on Daily Kos.) As the Supreme Court has indicated, "[n]o right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Unfortunately, in America today, millions of citizens work, pay taxes, live in our communities and bring up families, yet they are without a voice. According to a 2008 ACLU/Brennan Center report, an estimated 5.3 million citizens cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction, and nearly 4 million of those citizens have been released from prison and are living and working in the community. Worse still, felony disfranchisement laws are rooted in the Jim Crow era and were intended to bar minorities from voting. The impact of these laws continues today. Nationwide, 13 percent of African American men have lost the right to vote — a rate seven times the national average. Latino citizens are also disproportionately disfranchised because they are over-represented in the criminal justice system. In turn, this has impacted the families of those who are disfranchised and the communities in which they reside by reducing their collective political voice. Confusion Surrounding State LawsStates have vastly different approaches to allowing those with criminal convictions to vote, which often compound the problems further. For example, some states disfranchise some, but not all, citizens with criminal convictions, while others allow voting after a sentence is completed or after release from prison. Two states, Virginia and Kentucky, permanently disfranchise citizens with felony convictions unless the state approves individual rights restoration; two states, Maine and Vermont, allow all persons with felony convictions to vote, even while incarcerated; all other states fall somewhere in between. Unfortunately, this has caused widespread confusion about the proper administration of state laws, sometimes resulting in eligible voters, even those with no disqualifying criminal conviction, being purged from the rolls or denied the ability to register to vote or cast their ballots. Research indicates that many election officials do not understand their state's basic voter eligibility laws or the registration procedures for voters with a criminal conviction. A Legislative Solution: The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009Congressional action is needed to establish a uniform standard that restores voting rights in federal elections to the millions of Americans who are living in the community, but continue to be denied the ability to fully participate in civic life. Fortunately, on July 24, 2009, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 (H.R.3335 and S.1516). The provisions of the Democracy Restoration Act would:
Passage of the Democracy Restoration Act would:
Bipartisan Progress While felony re-enfranchisement is often misperceived as a partisan issue, both Republicans and Democrats alike have supported state enfranchisement laws. Political leaders of both parties have recognized that felony disfranchisement laws make reconnecting to the community and rehabilitation much harder for those with convictions. Recently, the Republican governors of Louisiana and Florida and Democratic governors from Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington have supported important felony enfranchisement reforms. In fact, these states are part of a growing trend towards the restoration of voting rights for people with criminal convictions. In the last decade, 20 states have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting restoration requirements. Law Enforcement Support Like political leaders, members of the law enforcement community have also come out in strong support of re-enfranchisement laws because they have determined that continuing to disfranchise individuals after release from prison is an ineffective law enforcement policy and does nothing to reduce crime. Allowing people with felony convictions to vote can improve civic engagement, strengthen our democracy, and may encourage them to steer away from future crimes. One study has found that former offenders who voted were half as likely to be re-arrested as those who did not. The American Probation and Parole Association; Association of Paroling Authorities International; the National Black Police Association; and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives are just some of the law enforcement organizations that have expressed support for laws ensuring that people with past felony convictions are allowed to vote. As Ron Stalling, a member of the National Black Police Association, described in written testimony on a Maryland state felony voting bill, "[v]oting is an important part of making people feel connected to their communities, which in turn helps them avoid falling back into crime." By continuing to deny citizens the right to vote based on a past criminal conviction, the government is endorsing a system that expects these citizens to contribute to the community, but denies them participation in our democracy. It is time to restore the most precious of civil rights that has been denied far too long to millions of American citizens. For those denied their political voice, your voice is needed to help pass the Democracy Restoration Act. CORRECTION: A previous version of this post stated that the governor of Rhode Island supported felony enfranchisement legislation. While the Rhode Island Restoration of Voting Rights Act (H.B. 7938) did become law while Gov. Carcieri was in office, the law went into effect on July 7, 2006, without the governor’s signature.
Eligible to Vote in Washington(Cross-posted to Washblog and Daily Kos) On Saturday, "John" could not register to vote in Washington State. On Sunday, he could. John did not turn 18 on Sunday, nor did he become a citizen. Rather, a new law went into effect in Washington lifting the ban that prevented John, as well as thousands of other Washington citizens, from voting. Until Sunday, individuals with felony convictions in Washington could not vote until they fully completed their sentences and repaid all legal financial obligations associated with their sentence. Thousands of Washingtonians were barred from voting because of this modern-day poll tax. Among them was John, who had completed his sentence yet remained disfranchised because he had outstanding legal financial obligations, of which almost two-thirds was interest. As a man living with HIV, he feared he would be “dead and gone way before I will ever be able to vote in this state. To me it’s simple mathematics: pay the courts and be homeless…or live the rest of my life with a roof over my head.” When asked why he wanted to vote, John said he had two reasons: “I’m raising my grandkids. It's been a cycle of jails and institutions for them and I want to show them a different picture ...I want to show them what being included in society looks like and yet I can’t provide that while being disfranchised. The other reason is that I personally want a say. Right now, I’m being taxed without representation.” The new law, which went into effect on Sunday, divorces the right to vote from the ability to pay outstanding legal fees. John is now eligible to register to vote and cast his ballot. But many other Americans are not as lucky. In Tennessee, individuals with criminal convictions cannot apply for restoration of voting rights until they are up to date on all child support payments. In Virginia, individuals cannot apply if they have any outstanding parking tickets. In Florida, all outstanding restitution must be paid. Thirty to forty percent of Floridians ineligible for restoration of civil rights are ineligible because they have outstanding restitution obligations, a restriction that disproportionately burdens low-income people. It is important to note that these financial barriers to voting apply only to those with criminal convictions. On Sunday, Washington became the 20th state in recent years to ease voting restrictions for individuals with criminal convictions. Next week, the ACLU of Washington will launch Promote the Vote in Seattle and Tacoma to celebrate the new law and educate newly enfranchised Washingtonians about their rights. Rep. Jeannie Darneille, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, the League of Women Voters and the Washington Bus will be celebrating this momentous victory by registering voters and spreading the word about this victory for all Americans.
In Honor of Jack Kemp, Voting Rights AdvocateJack Kemp, the former football star turned congressman who served as secretary of housing and urban development under the first President Bush and was the 1996 Republican vice-presidential nominee, passed away May 2. Much has been made of his work to include more people of color in the Republican Party, but less attention has been paid his work that had little to do with party politics: his support for voting rights for the formerly incarcerated. Kemp was a strong and forceful supporter of voting rights for the millions of men and women around the country who, even after being released from incarceration, are still barred from voting. He simply believed restoring their voting rights was the correct thing to do. Kemp first spoke out on the issue when testifying at a House judiciary hearing on the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act. When asked by a member of Congress if he supported the right to vote for the formerly incarcerated, he unhesitatingly responded “yes,” saying “voting in America is the quintessential part of our democracy.” After he made that statement, voting rights advocates reached out to Kemp to involve him in felon enfranchisement work throughout the country, and he became an important partner in the fight to expand the right to vote to all Americans. Inspired by his and his wife’s work with Prison Fellowship and because the issue, in his words, “is a matter of simple fairness,” he advocated for reform in Florida, Maryland, Kentucky and Virginia, and nationally with the Democracy Restoration Act, urging legislators to take action on what he deemed a “historic civil rights reform.” Let us honor Kemp’s memory by continuing to expand the franchise to all Americans. We offer our deepest condolences to the Kemp family and leave you with his words: For a nation that depends on the participation of its citizens, it is fundamentally un-American to deny the vote to people who are living and working as law-abiding citizens…The continuing expansion of the franchise — to the poor, women, minorities and young people - is one of the greatest stories in our country's history.
Washington State Ends its Version of the Poll Tax(Originally posted in Daily Kos.) Washington state Gov. Chris Gregoire today is signing a bill that reforms the state's unfair and unworkable system for restoring voting rights. The action eliminates the requirement that citizens with felony convictions pay off all legal financial obligations before regaining their right to vote, and aligns the state with the overwhelming majority of other states in this country who recognize such requirements as being nothing more than a modern-day version of the poll tax. Under the previous law, citizens with prior felony convictions could not vote until they had completely paid off fees and other costs associated with their sentence, which accrue at an annual percentage rate of 12 percent. An overwhelming majority of felony defendants are indigent at the time of sentencing, and many could never fully pay off their legal system debts — and as a result could not vote. This system unfairly tied people's right to vote to their financial means. As Gov. Gregoire put it last year, "Once they have served their time, withholding certain rights due to fines becomes a virtual debtors' prison." It also disproportionately impacted people of color — the disenfranchisement rate among African-Americans in Washington is five times that of the general population, and roughly three times as high among Latinos. Washington has now narrowed the small group of states that still bar citizens from voting due to financial obligations, but sadly there still remain states where the right to vote is dependent on the ability to pay. In Tennessee, individuals with felony convictions are barred from voting if they are behind on child support payments, even though no one else who pays child support is bound by the same standard. In Virginia, anyone with a felony conviction is barred from voting until the governor individually restores their right to vote, and yet individuals cannot even apply to have their right to vote restored if they have so much as a parking ticket. In Florida, 30 percent of otherwise eligible individuals are unable to vote because they owe restitution, and Arizona bars individuals who owe legal financial obligations — sometimes as little as 68 cents — from the ballot box. The new law in Washington provides that individuals automatically regain the right to vote once they are no longer under state-supervised parole or probation. They will still have to repay their debts, but — like anyone else who owes money — they will not be denied the right to vote. Washington joins 40 other states, plus the District of Columbia, that automatically restores voting rights to citizens who have completed their sentence. The measure's passage culminates several years of advocacy and organizing by the ACLU of Washington and its allies. Initial support came from civil rights and progressive activist groups who saw the injustice of what a New York Times editorial once termed "a form of disenfranchisement that is straight out of Oliver Twist." Later backing came from good government advocates seeking a restoration system that was not so convoluted and confusing. Washington's extremely close 2004 gubernatorial race — decided by a second recount — highlighted difficulties elections officials faced in trying to determine exactly who was eligible to vote. Many county auditors and Secretary of State Sam Reed — one of the leading Republican voices in a blue state — supported the reform measure because it provides a "bright line" for voting eligibility. And finally, support came from law enforcement officials who recognized that enabling formerly incarcerated individuals to vote is good for public safety. Citing a study showing that someone who votes is much less likely to be re-arrested, an op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer this past winter said, "Voting is an important way to connect people to their communities …We want those who leave prison to become productive and law-abiding citizens. Voting puts them on that path." Its coauthor was then-Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, whom President Obama has tapped to be the nation's drug czar.
Breaking: Supreme Court to Rule on Voting Rights Law
According to ScotusBlog, the Supreme Court just agreed to review an appeal in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Mukasey. It's a constitutional dispute over Congress' 25-year extension of federal voting rights law's requirement that some states and local governments get clearance in Washington before making any changes in election laws or methods. The ACLU is representing a resident of the voting district. Check back here and on www.aclu.org for more soon...
Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
I Have the Right to Vote…Right?My favorite section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is Article 21, which states that “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” Why is this section so important? After all, if you’re a citizen of the United States and 18 or older, you have the right to right to vote…right? 
Sadly, you don’t. Many Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution grants citizens the right to vote, but it doesn’t. Rather, the Constitution merely says you cannot deny individuals the right to vote due to race, gender or age. Nowhere does the Constitution say voting is a right. We just finished one of the biggest and most expensive elections in the history of the United States and it seems like you couldn’t do anything without having celebrities, candidates and your co-workers urging you to vote. Voting is, after all, our greatest civic duty . What could be more fundamentally American than the right to vote? Apparently the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21. More information on the ACLU’s work on voting and human rights is available in Out of Step With the World: An Analysis of Felony Disfranchisement in the U.S. and other Democracies. Celebrate the UDHR at 60 with the ACLU. Visit www.udhr60.org and sign the ACLU’s petition calling on the government and newly elected president to recommit to the UDHR. On December 10, the ACLU’s efforts will culminate in the online launch of an exclusive publication about the importance of the UDHR. Tags: UDHR
Voting Rights Act Still Crucial in Post-Obama AmericaThe election of Barack Obama signifies many things, but we're pretty sure his election didn't single-handedly end racially polarized voting in this country. Today, Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, opined in Jurist on the continuing need for Voting Rights Act protections, even after this historic election. Laughlin writes specifically about Section 5 of the VRA, which requires certain states with egregious histories of racial discrimination to get federal approval of changes in their voting practices. Laughlin writes: Of the nine southern states covered in whole or in part by Section 5, six went for McCain - Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. The average white vote for Obama was only 18%. And in some of the states, the white vote for the Democratic candidate declined compared to the 2004 presidential election. Kerry got 19% of the white vote in Alabama in 2004, while Obama got just 10% in 2008. In Louisiana, Kerry got 24% of the white vote in 2004, while Obama got only 14% in 2008. In Mississippi, Kerry got 14% of the white vote, and Obama 11%.VRA opponents have a case before the Supreme Court this term and the ACLU is part of a coalition fighting to protect the integrity of the landmark civil rights law. Stay tuned. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
