Kentucky governor restores voting rights of most felons

See Governor's Press Release

11-24-15 Kentucky:

FRANKFORT, Ky., Nov 24 (Reuters) - Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on Tuesday signed an executive order restoring voting rights to most felons in state in an action that he said will affect some 180,000 people.

Once felons have completed their sentences, including any probation or parole, and have made court-mandated restitution, they will have their rights automatically restored as long as they have no additional cases pending, Beshear said.

Previously, felony offenders needed to apply to the governor's office to have their voting rights restored. Now, Beshear said, the Department of Corrections will make the determination.

"The old system is unfair," Beshear said. "It's counterproductive. We need to be smarter in our criminal justice system. Research shows that ex-felons who vote are less likely to commit new crime and return to prison. That's because if you vote, you tend to be more engaged in society."

The outgoing Democratic governor, speaking to reporters in the state capital, said the order does not cover those convicted of violent, sex-related, bribery or treason crimes.

Kentucky is one of four states that requires its governor to sign off on the restoration of a felon's voting rights.

The issue has long been debated in Kentucky as the state House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats, has passed a restoration bill 10 times in the last nine years only for it to die in the Republican-controlled Senate. However, the issue does have broad support as U.S. Sen. Rand Paul urged the passage of a bill that would have restored the right to non-violent felons.

However, even Republican officials who support restoring rights criticized the governor's approach.

"My issue with today's action is not about the restoration of those rights, but the fact once again this governor has chosen to usurp the authority of the Kentucky General Assembly through executive order," state House minority leader Jeff Hoover said in a statement.

Hoover questioned the legality of the governor's action, saying that an amendment to the state constitution was required.

Beshear responded by saying the state constitution gives him the right to restore voting rights.

Beshear has served two terms as governor and was prohibited from running for a third straight time. Earlier this month, Republican Matt Bevin won election and will be inaugurated next month.

A call to Bevin's office has not yet been returned. ..Source.. by MSN News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MA- A Loss for Voting Rights

8-6-2009 Massachusetts:

Voting rights advocates have had little success challenging felon disenfranchisement laws in court. Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, became the latest federal court to uphold a ban on voting by convicted felons. Despite these setbacks, the cause is important. Voting rights advocates should keep fighting in the courts, state legislatures and Congress.

In 2000, Massachusetts changed its laws to prohibit felons in prison from voting. Until then, it was one of only three states that let felons vote from behind bars. Even with the change, Massachusetts remains one of just 13 jurisdictions that disenfranchise felons while they are incarcerated but not after they are freed.

A group of prisoners sued, arguing that their disenfranchisement violated the Voting Rights Act. The felons whose right to vote was taken away in Massachusetts are disproportionately black and Hispanic, the prisoners said, partly because of a bias in the justice system.

The appeals court, voting 2 to 1, threw out the suit at an early stage. When it passed the Voting Rights Act, the majority said, Congress did not intend to prohibit states from disenfranchising incarcerated felons.

In dissent, Judge Juan Torruella argued that the ban violated the Voting Rights Act’s plain language, which refers to adding voting qualifications in a manner that results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race. He would have allowed the case to proceed further so the plaintiffs could try to prove their claim.

Judge Torruella was right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reached a similar conclusion in another case, ruling that the plaintiffs should be able to try to prove their case. In a New York suit, Judge Sonia Sotomayor — in a dissent that has gotten considerable attention — also argued that the Voting Rights Act applies to felon disenfranchisement laws.

Letting the case go forward would not have meant the prisoners would have won. But it would have recognized that the law could violate the Voting Rights Act, depending on the facts that emerged about it in court.

The United States aspires to be a nation in which the government rules by the consent of the governed people. Prisoners do not cease to be people.

Felon disenfranchisement is also bad prison policy. In recent years, the prison system has all but given up on trying to rehabilitate prisoners. Allowing felons to vote is good preparation for making them free, law-abiding citizens. ..Editorial.. by NY Times

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...