State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Tag: Felon Voting Rights (page 1 of 3)

MD: Success in Voting Rights Restoration and Difficulties in Research

By: Mengxin (Esther) Cui

After a lengthy effort, Marylanders with felony convictions finally regained their voting rights automatically upon completion of their sentences. Unlike most states that automatically restore voting rights to people upon completion of their sentences, Maryland’s new policy does not require people to complete terms of probation or parole before restoring their right to vote (with the one exception that those convicted of buying or selling votes never regain eligibility to register to vote).  This change in Maryland’s policy followed the state legislature’s veto override on February 9, 2016.  Around 40,000 people are the beneficiaries of this override.

Continue reading

Deciphering Felony Disenfranchisement in Post-Realignment California

In August of 2015, California restored the voting rights to approximately 60,000 former felony offenders who had been improperly disenfranchised as a result of a glitch in the political process. In the whirlwind of California’s recent prison reform acts, these citizens had been inappropriately classified as ineligible to vote in violation of California’s Constitution and election laws. Although the case had already been decided in the voters’ favor by a trial court, it was not until California’s current Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, decided this summer to drop the appeal that these former felony offenders could feel safe registering to vote. But how did such a large number of potential voters end improperly disenfranchised in the first place?

Continue reading

VA: Governor Removes Court Fines and Fees as Barrier to Voting Rights Restoration

On June 23, 2015, Governor Terry McAuliffe announced changes to the restoration of voting rights process for Virginians with prior felony convictions. The Governor announced that Virginians with prior felony convictions will no longer have to pay their court fees, fines, and restitution as a condition of voting rights restoration eligibility.

Prior to this announcement, applicants had to complete their sentence and pay all court fees, fines, and restitution before being considered for voting rights restoration. Now, the only requirement for individuals to apply to regain their right to vote is completion of sentence (including probation/parole).  Importantly, the Governor’s announcement does not absolve individuals of the requirement that they pay outstanding fines and fees. It simply removes payment of such fees as a barrier to eligibility to vote. In announcing the new policy, the Governor likened conditioning voting on payment of a fee to payment of a poll tax. Explained the Governor, “These men and women will still be required to pay their costs and fees, but their court debts will no longer serve as a financial barrier to voting, just as poll taxes did for so many years in Virginia.”

The Governor also announced a second reform. Going forward Virginians with prior felony convictions who have had their rights restored will now have the option to include a notation in their criminal record designating that their political rights have been restored.

Mark Listes, Director of Revive My Vote and a rising 3L at William & Mary Law School, commented on the announcement. Listes noted, “The Governor has removed a significant impediment for many Virginians who would otherwise be eligible to restore their voting rights. Furthermore, the Governor has removed a lot of red tape for those who have paid their fees but may not have saved receipts proving they have done so.” Listes continued, “Revive My Vote stands ready to help Virginians navigate the application process under this new policy. I encourage anyone who has questions or would like to start their application to call our toll-free hotline at 844-WE2-VOTE (932-8683). We stand ready to help.” Revive My Vote is a civil rights organization that works primarily in Virginia and helps people with prior felony convictions restore their right to vote.

Is the Disenfranchisement of 1.5 Million Floridians Justifiable?

By Christine Wilson

Early voting in Florida has already begun, but Florida voters are not necessarily enthusiastic about either candidate for Governor. Democratic candidate and former Governor Charlie Crist switched political parties and many Floridians distrust him because of his switch. Voters are also not very fond of Governor Rick Scott because of his stance on various issues. According to six out of ten voters, the phrase “honest and ethical” describes neither Governor Scott nor Crist. Continue reading

It’s Not All Bad: Felony Disenfranchisement and Preclearance Aftermath in Virginia

by Student Contributor

On June 25, 2013, the levee finally broke. After earlier hinting that it would, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the formula for determining which jurisdictions required preclearance under the Voting Rights Act.

Predictably, pandemonium ensued. Some commentators forecasted that states would revert to practices that result in further restrictions on who can vote. An example in Virginia is a new voter ID law that will now go forward unchecked by the Department of Justice thanks to the Court’s decision in Shelby declaring the VRA preclearance formula unconstitutional. Continue reading

Kentucky Felon Voting And The Fate Of HCS HB 70

by Richard Spoor, Contributor

The restoration of felon voting rights has slowly come to the Blue Grass state.  Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitution excludes those who have been convicted of a felony, bribery in an election, or treason from voting.  Felons, regardless of the variety of crime committed, are prevented from voting for life and the only way they can reestablish their voting rights is by applying to the governor.  Kentucky’s felons are “socially dead” having basic rights permanently withheld, most notably the right to vote.  However, there is a movement in Kentucky to change these somewhat draconian laws.  Bills amending the constitution’s section 145, while unsuccessful to date, have been introduced and have gained popularity.  Additionally, popular politicians have thrown their weight behind the movement.  It is entirely conceivable, if not probable, that Section 145 will be amended in the near future.  Continue reading

News Brief: Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Ballot Box

Former Richmond City Council member Sa’ad El-Amin could be back in the voting booth for this year’s Governor’s race. The irony is that this could frustrate his own efforts to ensure automatic rights restoration for felons in Virginia.

Federal District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. ordered a stay in the case of El-Amin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, holding off on deciding whether the convicted felon would have his voting rights restored, because of Governor Bob McDonnell’s announcement that he intends to restore voting rights to all non-violent felons in the state. (Full Disclosure: Two William & Mary Law School students, Kate Ward and Elderidge Nichols, under the supervision of Professor Rebecca Green, filed an amicus curiae brief in El-Amin’s case.) Continue reading

Weekly Wrap Up

No more automatic restoration of rights: Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Cabinet have recently attempted to change how released felon regain the right to vote. Their proposal, which the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund suggests must get preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, would prevent people who committed non-violent felonies from regaining the right to vote for 5 years and the 5 year clock would restart if that person were arrested during that period, even if no charges are filed. Some have called these requirements a return to Jim Crow-style voting laws.

Campaign finance again in front of the Supreme Court: As mentioned on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McComish v. Bennett on Monday morning. The case is a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which includes a trigger fund provision for publicly-funded candidates. This is one a several such cases that have been heard in federal courts in the last year; several other challenges have come out of Florida, Connecticut, and most recently Wisconsin in the ongoing judicial elections.

“Fair Districts” Amendments go to the Justice Department: Three months after Governor Rick Scott quietly withdrew the preclearance request for the “Fair Districts” amendments (Amendments 5 and 6 to the Florida constitution), the legislature has renewed the request, after reviewing the amendments and deciding they were the proper body to make the request, as opposed to the governor. This, however, will likely not end the battle over these amendments as a lawsuit to block these amendments is still pending.

She set out to win jimmy donahue and quickly essays online using https://justbuyessay.com did so

Weekly Wrap Up

“I want to be your second (or third) choice!”: Jean Quan, Oakland’s mayor-elect, won under the city’s new ranked-choice system by concentrating on being voters’ second and third choice, if they were voting for someone else. The campaign manager for Don Pereta, the heavy favorite in the race, said Quan was “gaming the system” by asking people who supported other candidates to rank her second or third.

Too poor to vote: The ACLU is challenging a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision that Tennessee could bar three released felons who were behind on child support or restitution from regaining their voting rights. The ACLU is asking for the court to rehear the case en banc, arguing that the decision creates an unconstitutional poll tax.

Sound it out: In the Alaska Senate race, the Division of Elections has only accepted a few of Joe Miller’s challenges to the spelling of his opponent, Lisa Murkowski’s, name on the write-in ballots.  The Director of the Division of Elections said that she was accepting minor spelling mistakes as long as she could “pronounce the name by the way it’s spelled.”

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: The spending from outside groups in this campaign season has reached record highs, climbing almost to the $300 million mark.  Now, a new study has shown that nearly half of that money comes from groups which won’t reveal the money’s source.  A few notable candidates who used a huge amount of their personal fortunes are Meg Whitman in California and Linda McMahon in Connecticut.  They spent $140 million and $46 million respectively.

Can a Tempest, a Tea Party Make?

The teapot is still boiling briskly in the City of Falls Church, a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., over recent changes in the regulations governing municipal elections. By a 4-3 vote in January 2010, the then Mayor and City Council was successful in changing city elections from even-numbered years in May to odd-numbered years in November. Appropriately, the City submitted the change to the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, for review and clearance as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Department subsequently reviewed and approved the change. The result is that, during the transition years, Council-Member terms will be shortened by six months. Then, in the May 2010 election, a major shakeup in the government occurred. The new Mayor, Nader Baroukh, a former City Council member who opposed the change, along with re-elected City-Council-members who were also opponents, is making efforts to “undo” the changes and to submit the matter to the citizens of the City in a referendum. Predictably, many residents of the City are hopping mad.  Continue reading

Older posts

© 2017 State of Elections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑