Pubdate: Fri, 25 Aug 2006
Source: Village Voice (NY)
Copyright: 2006 Village Voice Media, Inc
Contact:  http://www.villagevoice.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/482
Authors: Amalea Smirniotopoulos and Maggie Williams
Note: Amalea Smirniotopoulos is the executive assistant and Maggie 
Williams is the project director of the Voter Enfranchisement Project 
at the Bronx Defenders.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?140 (Rockefeller Drug Laws)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?247 (Crime Policy - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/disenfranchisement

BARRED FROM THE BALLOT BOX

On the Anniversary of Women's Suffrage, a Case for Letting People 
With Felony Convictions Vote

The picketers began to appear at the White House gates in January, 
carrying banners emblazoned with barbs for a president entangled in 
an overseas war: "Democracy Begins At Home." The year was 1917. Their 
protest lasted 18 months. During that time, 218 women were arrested 
on specious charges like "obstructing traffic"; 97 were jailed. Many 
were beaten, threatened, mistreated, and force-fed. Their 
"ringleader," Alice Paul, was held in solitary confinement and denied counsel.

The women - demonized by the media, often dismissed by those in power 
- - were fighting for their constitutional right to vote. Their 
struggle ended 86 years ago today, when Secretary of State Bainbridge 
Colby signed into law the 19th Amendment, which stated that the right 
to vote could not be denied or abridged in the United States on the 
basis of sex - years after similar laws had passed in New Zealand, 
the United Kingdom, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan.

Now, once again, the United States is behind the times in protecting 
its citizens' right to vote, cited by the United Nations Human Rights 
Committee for having the worst record in the free world when it comes 
to felon disenfranchisement. While countries as diverse as the Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Israel, Japan, Kenya, and Peru continue to permit 
individuals to vote even in prison, in the U.S. 48 of our 50 states 
strip the right to vote from anyone with a felony conviction for 
varying periods of. Because felon disenfranchisement laws differ 
greatly across the nation, an alarming amount of misinformation 
surrounds them: Many eligible voters are convinced they cannot vote 
or prevented from voting. In New York State for example, an 
individual loses the right to vote only if she has been convicted of 
a felony and is currently incarcerated or on parole. Yet 40 percent 
of those who have been arrested, and close to 40 percent of elections 
officials, mistakenly believe that you cannot vote while on 
probation. In practice, this can mean that a mother sent to jail for 
a joint 20 years ago may still believe she can't vote, or a father on 
probation for changing the expiration on a temporary license plate 
may be illegally barred from casting his ballot.

Our current patchwork of felon disenfranchisement laws, like pre-19th 
Amendment election laws, unjustly removes a particular body of 
citizens from participating in the political process. These laws 
would be unfair in any criminal justice system, even one without the 
profound disparities in ours. Although the Federal Household Survey 
found that 72 percent of current illicit drug users are white, over 
94 percent of those serving sentences in New York State under the 
Rockefeller drug laws are Black and Latino. Most of the 16,000 people 
serving sentences under these laws have never been convicted of a 
violent offense. They're imprisoned by a system that does not offer 
adequate alternatives to incarceration, removes sentencing discretion 
from trial judges, and allows the state legislature to renew harsh 
mandatory minimum sentences. Nationwide, sentencing trends like these 
have created a country where one in three black men between the ages 
of 20 and 29 is under correctional supervision or control.

As a result, felon disenfranchisement severely dilutes the power of 
poor communities of color to hold elected officials accountable. The 
laws perpetuate the legacy of discrimination that those fighting for 
the 19th Amendment worked so hard end.

Now, it is unthinkable that so many doubted the ability of women to 
participate meaningfully in our democracy. Eighty-six years ago 
"suffragette" was a slur, dismissing the activists it described as 
"unwomanly." In 1920, Tennessee was the 36th and last state needed to 
ratify the proposed 19th Amendment. As the vote came to the floor on 
August 18, one young male delegate was poised to vote against it. At 
the last moment, he received a note from his mother admonishing him 
to change his mind. Suddenly, the women he would be disenfranchising 
were no longer anonymous. He cast the deciding ballot?in favor of the 
amendment.

We can no longer dehumanize people with felony convictions as 
"criminals" undeserving of their rights. These "faceless" men and 
women are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and neighbors. They 
are the people who ride the bus with us, who share our tax burden, 
and who send their children to our schools. We must ask ourselves, as 
a nation, whether we would want to be judged by our single worst act, 
and denied all opportunity to affect the laws that impact our lives 
and our families. Now as before, democracy must begin at home.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake