Pubdate: Sun, 26 Jun 2005
Source: Iowa City Press-Citizen (IA)
Copyright: 2005 Iowa City Press-Citizen
Contact:  http://www.press-citizen.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1330

VILSACK TAKES MORAL ROAD IN FELON VOTING

Bravo to Gov. Tom Vilsack for deciding to rid Iowa of a racist law. 
On July 4, he'll sign an executive order restoring voting rights to 
convicted felonies after they've finished serving their sentences.

The move gives voting rights to 50,000 state residents. Until then, 
Iowa remains one of five states -- the rest all once boasting a star 
on the Confederacy's flag -- that ban a convict's ability to vote for life.

In a racially-blind society, Vilsack's decision ought to be 
celebrated as a crime-fighting step in a state with prisons so 
overcrowded we must ship inmates across our borders. When felons 
maintain the right to vote, to reconnect with their communities, 
crime rates and recidivism actually decline. Recidivism contributes 
greatly to overcrowded prisons -- a situation that strains safe 
working conditions for security guards and costs the state more 
dollars for courts, local law enforcement and prisons.

But Vilsack's move largely is about ending racial discrimination in 
our society. For the five states with no-voting-for-life laws, 
minorities (and blacks in particular) are convicted in much larger 
proportions than their actual numbers in the general population. High 
drug rates and few economic opportunities, factors directly affecting 
those who eventually commit crimes, remain the worst in minority 
communities; our failure as a nation to adequately address these 
problems unfairly condemns many minorities to eventual imprisonment 
and loss of voting rights. "Felony disenfranchisement laws are the 
last vestiges of Jim Crow," Catherine Weiss, a lawyer with the 
Brennan Center for Justice, aptly told The Associated Press last week.

Whether white or black, no-voting-for-life laws violate civil 
liberties. After all, if you've served your time in prison, why 
continue to be punished? Perhaps organized crime or acts aimed at 
bringing down the state -- such as terrorism or treason -- warrant 
loss of voting rights for life. But why should an OWI or a theft 
conviction affect one's ability to decide if the city should take out 
bonds to build a library or which assembly candidate will best ensure 
economic growth? In any case, advocates for the permanent loss of 
voting rights have yet to show that this punitive measure ultimately 
prevents crime.

A few state GOP leaders unfortunately see the move as politically 
motivated. They argue that as a disproportionate number of felons 
come from minority and lower-income groups, that likely means more 
votes for Democrats than Republicans. It's an odd complaint to make 
at the same time that the GOP has rightly criticized Democrat Party 
Chairman Howard Dean for calling Republicans "... pretty much a 
white, Christian party." Such rhetoric aside, a bipartisan group of 
state lawmakers asked Vilsack to revoke the law.

Given the potential political fallout of restoring felons' right to 
vote, the governor made a bold move. It is, in the end, the morally 
right decision.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth