Last year, the Alameda Superior Court concluded that low-level offenders who are subject to mandatory supervision or post-release community supervision under the Public Safety Realignment Act are eligible to register to vote under Article II, Section 4 of the California Constitution.
The ACLU and other civil rights groups along with the League of Women Voters sued Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, last year, arguing that the legislature had created the community supervision categories under AB 209 as an alternative to parole for low-level offenders. Therefore those people in the programs should not be classified the same as state parolees.
The ruling in that case, Scott v. Bowen, was subsequently appealed by the previous Secretary of State administration under Ms. Bowen. This week, the current Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, announced “both an end to the appeal and a settlement that ends a policy that disenfranchised thousands of Californians.”
In a press conference, Mr. Padilla explained, “My decision to pursue settlement was based on a number of factors.” He said, “Under the sweeping changes created by Realignment, there was no legislative intent to deny voting rights to thousands of citizens.”
Moreover, he said, “State and federal law protects the right to vote and requires that I give every reasonable presumption in favor of protecting that right.” He added, “The Alameda Superior Court issued a thoughtful ruling based on a thorough examination of our Constitution and the Penal Code and ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the Plaintiffs.”
But, finally, he said, “I agree with the court and I believe it is the right thing to do.”
Anna Castro, of the ACLU, said in a statement that Padilla’s decision “sends the nation a message that California will not stand for discrimination in voting and that he will fight to protect the right to vote for all eligible Californians.”
According to the settlement, “Californians subject to post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision under Realignment will be eligible to register to vote once the court has officially dismissed the appeal.
“Passage of the Voting Rights Act was not easily won,” Secretary Padilla said. “People marched. People struggled. People died. They bravely sacrificed for each other – for friends, family, for our country so that each of us could be empowered with the opportunity to participate meaningfully in our democracy.”
“Civic engagement and participation in the election process can be an important factor helping former offenders reintegrate into civil society. If we are serious about slowing the revolving door at our jails and prisons, and serious about reducing recidivism, we need to engage—not shun—former-offenders. Voting is a key part of that engagement; it is part of a process of becoming vested and having a stake in the community,” Mr. Padilla added.
“The United States Supreme Court eloquently proclaimed, “No 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.”
“Our California Supreme Court has made similar pronouncements: “No construction of an election law should be indulged that would disenfranchise any voter if the law is reasonably susceptible of any other meaning.”
“Today’s announcement is in line with these statements, the arc of California history, and the spirit of the Voting Rights Act,” Mr. Padilla said.
Not everyone is pleased with the Secretary of State’s decision. Harriet Salarno, chair of Crime Victims United of California, said, “With (the felons) voting and with some of the things that we have on the ballot – that will harm us on public safety.”
“Today we take a step forward towards a more inclusive democracy,” said Helen Hutchison, President of the League of Women Voters of California. “We applaud Secretary Padilla’s efforts to restore voting rights to the disenfranchised. Our democracy is strongest when all eligible Californians can express their values and shape their community by voting.”
“There is persistent confusion nationwide, among election officials and the public, about criminal disenfranchisement policies,” Myrna Pérez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law said. “This results in the mass dissemination of inaccurate and misleading information, which leads to disenfranchisement of untold hundreds of thousands of eligible would-be voters. We’re thrilled California has taken an important step to reduce that confusion. No citizen living and working in the community should be disenfranchised because of a criminal conviction in her past.”
“We have always recognized that our voting rights are larger than the right to cast a vote – it’s about the struggle for formerly and in some cases currently incarcerated people to be respected as citizens,” said Dorsey Nunn, Executive Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a taxpayer plaintiff in Scott v. Bowen. “Our votes belong not just to us, but to our communities and families.”
“Every day probation officers are working to reduce recidivism and help former offenders successfully reenter their communities,” Jerry Powers Los Angeles County Chief Probation Officer said. “My department sees firsthand just how powerful it is to engage former offenders in the community and to promote civic participation. Ensuring Californians under realignment have the right to vote will help facilitate their reentry into society and reduce the likelihood that they will commit new crimes.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Happy news, thanks.
Inasmuch as we’re just beating our gums anyway, and both Supreme Courts and the California Legislature don’t exactly hang onto every word we say, permit me expand this discussion of convictions and voter franchise.
Among the many life-long penalties we assign to convicted felons is the denial to vote. This sanction is very common, found in many other states and probably dates back to English Common law, as do most our criminal law origins.
Unlike other felony conviction sanctions, saying you can’t vote just leaves me with some bewilderment, and a hearty, “So, What?” Legal sanctions are intended to discourage repeat behavior, deter would-be offenders, demonstrate to the offender that society is displeased, stigmatize, and/or cause some level of personal discomfort.
Does taking away voting privileges for convicted felons do any of that? About 70% of the citizenry already self-sanction themselves by not voting at all, in most elections. Taking away the voting privilege only lets the felon join the masses, hardly a scarlet-letter sanction. And that’s another thing; unlike other felon sanctions, not being able to register as a voter is never revealed publicly, so where’s the disgrace? I seriously doubt that all convicted felons, restored with voting power, would form a bloc vote and attempt to alter the political landscape.
Before anybody takes this notion and then “slippery-slope” it, it will not necessarily be a prelude to felons holding public office. Convicted felons already served their time, they probably don’t want to serve another prison sentence by becoming an elected public official. And even if they do, we have had plenty of hard-core convicted felons hold public office already. The just reversed the sequence.
PhilColeman… very well put, and I agree completely. Telling a felon he can no longer vote probably has about the same effect as telling him he can no long go to square dances.
If it is the community’s desire that parolees and probationers succeed in becoming positive, contributing members of their community, I can see no good purpose in disenfranchisement.
;>)/
It is all politics.
Democrats are controlled by the liberal wing in most places. Certainly we don’t see Kennedy or Reagan Democrats calling the shots in California or the nation for that matter. There is a cabal between the liberal wing that is filled with about 20% of the population afflicted with an egalitarian obsession… some rational but a lot just emotional… and the Money Democrats… the political-industrial complex (primarily connected to the main media and Wall Street).
The cabal has figured out how to utilize wedge politics and victim mentality to harvest and maintain a healthy crop of reliable below-below-the-line voters.
And below-the-line people with a felony record are just another field they want to harvest. The liberals because they are obsessed with “fairness” twitches, and because they crave more people to “save”. The Money Democrats just want the votes to help them retain power so that more money flows into their pockets and the pockets of their friends.
It is an interesting co-dependent relationship between liberals and money Democrats. It is a dysfunctional relationship, but each help the other get what they want… so it continues.
Where we start to see it unraveling is at the local level where fiscal problems are causing the end to programs that liberals crave… and taxes cannot be raised any higher.
It is disturbing that conservatives trivialize the right to vote–among the most fundamental rights of citizenship. Such thinking helps to rationalize laws imposing barriers to the exercise of voting rights, which conservatives embrace. The fact that ex-offenders are released from prison as second class citizens and are subject to legal discrimination–not only in voting but also in housing, employment, etc.–is a significant factor in preventing their reintegration into society and the resulting high rates of recidivism.
Yeah, those darn conservatives want voters to be ID’ed so the ones who are voting are actually the person they claim to be.
Outrageous !!!
Still waiting for your article and your response to my request for a truce.
Voter ID’s. Wow. Did you see the movie Selma? Do you want everyone to take a test, too?
Did I say anything about taking a test in order to vote, but you should have to prove that you’re actually the person you state you are in order to cast a vote in that name. Do you actually have a problem with that?
BP, that sounds a whole lot like “guilty until proven innocent.”
When I have walked into my polling place over the past 10 years, I have always been known by name by the poll workers. Should I still have to provide proof that I am the man that I actually am?
Matt, how many poll workers know all the names of all the voters in the precinct where they work?
But yes, you should still have to show proof.
I haven’t had to show proof in 25 years. I vote absentee.
BP, if I have understood you correctly you are advocating that every person who appears at the polls to vote should be required to provide verification of their identity. Am I correct in that understanding?
If I am indeed correct in that understanding, then your question above makes no sense to me. You have completely lost me. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
(friendly comment, Matt) Have you NO CLUE? BP wants to restrictict voting to those who agree with BP! Of course, somebody named “barack” was obviously not born a citizen (per “birthers”). Everyone should need to show certified evidence of being US citizens, particularly in states that were not states when they were born. Palin (if she was born in Alaska) should also be suspect as being a citizen. Therefore, BP is absolutely right… should have to show originally certified birth certificates, certified copies of their voter registration, and at least two photo ID’s before they can vote, instead of the questions they are currently asked… name and address… which have to coincide with the Roster of Voters.
You go BP! Really… GO.
Actually, Don, you “vote by mail” [as do I]… “absentee voter” is an archaic term. Check with county Elections…
I think I’ve been voting by mail since it was called absentee….I started out applying for an absentee ballot because it was a hassle to get into town to vote (I’m in a rural precinct). Then they made it mandatory for all of us out in the country. But we can, if we wish, drive the ballot in to a polling station.
The monsoon woke me up early. Wish I could send some of our rain your way to help with the drought & wildfires. I guess BP is okay with this scenario: his wallet gets stolen the day before elections. He and another family member go to his polling place, his next door neighbor’s garage in Wildhorse. He gets turned away or perhaps asked to do a provisional ballot, which may or may not be counted later. Hillary ends up winning the state of CA by one vote! This prove-you’re-a-citizen mandate is the same logic that got AZ in trouble for trying to allow cops to ask folks who look Mexican to “show me your papers”. It just stirs up images of Nazi Germany in me.
Miss Sisterhood
Another example of Godwin’s Law.
Sisterhood must be okay with this scenario. She goes on vacation at election time and her neighbor knows she’s gone and goes to the polling place claiming to be Sisterhood and casts a vote in her name because no ID is asked for. Trump wins Arizona by one vote.
Hpierce
Shut up Hpierce, I never said any of that and you have “no clue” what I want. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Once again your lack of manners speaks volumes. You call Dr. Will “Miss Will” and you call me “Miss Sisterhood”. I’m 59 years old so if you want to call me “Miss”, even though I am not, I guess your failed attempt at button pushing is actually a compliment. I could refer to you as “that little boy, Palin”, but I won’t. Re: Trump, Totally off topic, beccause you often are, but Trump will self destruct. I pray he is the nominee, or the 3rd party candidate. Oh, yeah. Mention that I’m the one who brought up Hillary in the first place. That’s okay. You no longer bother me. I used to avoid your words at all costs, now you amuse me. Still waiting for you to write something substantial in the Contribution section.
Still no response to my request for a truce? That’s okay, too.
Um, maybe that’s because you did.
Hope you never misplace your drivers license the day before elections. Still waiting for that substantive article you could submit to the Contributions section.
No problem, there’s other forms of ID that I could present to prove who I am.
What other forms of ID BP? I know of only two that rise to the level I believe you are requesting … a Passport and a Drivers License. What other ones are there? Military ID?
Retinal scan.
At a polling place?
The impact of elections on the community is great. Society has an interest in making sure that only eligible voters participate. Voter ID laws support this interest. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age there are people out there who do not have a valid ID. The state should provide free ID cards for voting purposes where eligibility is determined. This could be done at the DMV.
Re: Godwin’s Law (After a while, if a blog conversation goes on for very long, someone is sure to mention Nazi Germany) Here’s something from the Let Me See Your Papers! website:
USA: “Show me your I.D.”
Nazi Germany: “Show me your papers.”
USA: “Where are you headed? Where are you coming from?”
Nazi: “Where are you headed? Where are you coming from?”
USA: “Homeland Security”
Nazi Germany: “Fatherland Security”
USA: Security Checkpoints.
Nazi Germany: Security Checkpoints.
sisterhood, in the interests of balance, that looks like a bit of hyperbolic hyperbole to me.
Convicted felons should be prohibited from voting and jury service. They have forfieted these rights by their illegal conduct. They lack the moral values of a responsible citizen.