Virginia: Battle over felons′ rights could swing US election | Deutsche Welle

The day Barack Obama was first elected president was bittersweet for Terry Garrett. As an African-American whose parents grew up in a segregated South, she was joyous as she witnessed the moment Americans elected the first African-American president. But she also felt angry, sad, left out. That day Terry had watched her children and husband cast their ballots, knowing she would not be allowed to do the same. The 48-year-old from Alexandria, Virginia, has never been allowed to vote. By the time she reached voting age, 18, she had been convicted of shoplifting. Centuries ago, her home state had forbidden people who committed a felony from voting. But this April, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe issued a sweeping executive order restoring the voting rights of all former felons who have completed their jail sentence and parole or supervised probation. Now, Terry hopes that she will be able to vote for the first time in her life this November. As a newly registered Democrat, she is hoping to elect another “first” president into office – the first female president, Hillary Clinton.

Delaware: Governor signs law ending financial bar for felons to vote | Associated Press

Convicted felons in Delaware have one fewer hurdle to jump before having their voting rights restored. State lawmakers last month approved a bill that allows felons to vote before they have paid all fines, fees and restitution. Gov. Jack Markell who included the proposal in his State of the State address in January, planned to sign the legislation Wednesday at the Achievement Center in Wilmington.

Iowa: Branstad: Voting is a privilege, not a right | Des Moines Register

Gov. Terry Branstad on Monday praised the Iowa Supreme Court for a ruling that will continue to deny voting rights to thousands of people who have completed sentences for felonies. Meanwhile, he said his office is working to make it slightly simpler for nonviolent former felons to get back their right to own firearms. It’s still going to be easier for people to get their voting rights back than to get their guns, as one might expect. Firearms restoration involves a full DCI investigation and culminates with a personal interview with the governor. Few will make it that far. No one who committed a violent crime will even be considered, Branstad said. So why has Branstad chosen to celebrate the denial of automatic voting restoration for thousands while promoting a firearms restoration process that will ultimately be successful for relatively few? … Rita Bettis, legal director for ACLU Iowa, said the process worsens inequities in voting. “Voting is supposed to be the great equalizer. But the governor’s system only strengthens the race and income disparities in our society. Right now, the process skews the ability to vote toward those people with money and eliminates those who are impoverished,” Bettis said in a statement.

Louisiana: Attorney General reviewing lawsuit over voting rights for ex-offenders | Louisiana Record

In the wake of a lawsuit filed against the state to restore voting rights to ex-offenders, the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office said voting restrictions on those on parole or probation is constitutional. Voice of the Offender (VOTE) filed a lawsuit against the state, the governor, and the secretary of state on July 1 requesting that individuals on probation and parole be granted the right to vote. “Although we are not a named defendant in the case, our office is reviewing the case,” Ruth Wisher, spokeswoman with the AG’s office told the Louisiana Record. “We do believe that restrictions on voting rights are constitutional.”

Editorials: Scaremongering over voting rights restoration in Virginia | The Washington Post

In April, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) ordered voting rights restored to 206,000 ex-convicts in Virginia, a move in line with similar recent reforms in more than 20 states that have lifted the stigma of disenfranchisement from citizens who have served their sentences and paid their debts to society. The fact that Virginia’s list of newly eligible voters was prepared in haste and that it contained errors — including murderers still behind bars — is evidence of incompetence and slapdash execution. It is not an argument that the order is illegal or unconstitutional, as critics would have Virginians believe. Those critics, including top Republicans in Richmond as well as some prosecutors, insist that the state constitution allows the governor to restore voting and other civil rights to ex-convicts only on an individualized basis. As evidence, they point to the actions of recent governors who, while seeking to expand and accelerate the restoration of voting rights to former inmates, refrained from establishing a fully automatic system for doing so.

Editorials: Democrats Get Serious About Voting Rights | Jonathan Bernstein/Bloomberg View

The Democrats are going on the offensive to make voting easier. The draft language in the party’s 2016 platform is much stronger than it was in 2012, and that’s mostly good for democracy. The party’s shift from its defensive crouch started in the states, with the adoption of automatic-voter registration rules in Oregon, California, West Virginia, Connecticut, Vermont and Illinois. Hillary Clinton endorsed these efforts last summer, and now the national Democratic platform is being written accordingly. The smorgasbord of measures includes an expected call to restore Voting Rights Act provisions that the Supreme Court weakened as well as a relatively new fight at the national party level for “voting rights for those who have served their sentences,” referring to former felons. Currently, many states delay restoring the vote to ex-felons, and some states have a lifetime ban.

Florida: Felons Can’t Vote in Florida but They Can Give to Campaigns | Miami New Times

With Election Day rapidly approaching, Desmond Meade’s calendar has been jam-packed with political rallies and fundraising galas. In the past few months, the Miami native has been part of a handful of panel discussions about reforming the criminal justice system, appeared as a guest on MSNBC, and headed to Washington for the Black Men and Boys Day on Capitol Hill. When Meade doesn’t have his own engagement, he’s on the campaign trail with his wife, Sheena, who is running for Florida House District 46 in Orlando. But come November, he won’t vote for her — or anyone else, for that matter. That’s because Meade is both a felon and a Floridian, two things that disqualify him from casting a ballot. Over the past few years, Meade, a 2014 graduate of Florida International University’s College of Law, has been the face of the cause in Florida, circulating a petition and making media appearances in hopes of restoring voting rights to people who have served their time. The situation is dire — like Meade, nearly a quarter of black adults in the Sunshine State are disenfranchised because of a past felony conviction, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy group. By now, this phenomenon is common knowledge — break the law, lose the right to vote. But if you’re a felon whose peak earning years have stretched longer than your sentence, there’s another way to influence the political process: with cold, hard cash.

Louisiana: Felons on parole, probation sue to obtain voting rights | NOLA

A lawsuit filed Friday (July 1) in state court seeks to restore voting rights for some 70,000 Louisiana residents who are on probation or parole for felonies. The suit was filed in Baton Rouge by the group Voice of the Ex-Offender and several convicted felons who have been denied voting rights. The suit says state laws blocking people who are on parole or probation from voting violate the Louisiana Constitution. The 1974 constitution allows suspension of voting rights for people judicially declared mentally incompetent or those who are “under an order of imprisonment” for a felony. The lawsuit contends that the denial of voting rights does not extend to felons who have been released on parole or probation.

Virginia: Few ex-felons registering to vote in Virginia | Politico

When Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe restored voting rights to more than 200,000 state citizens with felony convictions in April, he opened the door — much to the dismay of state Republicans — to a influx of likely Democratic voters in a state whose recent presidential elections have been decided by razor-thin margins. So far, however, very few of those potential voters have taken the first step toward actually showing up in November. As of June 30, only 8,170 of the newly eligible Virginians have registered to vote, according to the Virginia Department of Elections. For many, the gap between eligible voters and registered voters is distressing, particularly given the struggle waged over ex-offenders’ right to vote. McAuliffe’s order restored voting rights to felons who have completed their incarceration, parole or probation and paid all court-related fees and restitution. Virginia felons had long ago lost their right to vote permanently — one of few states in the country to use so harsh of a penalty — until former Gov. Bob McDonnell began lifting these restrictions in 2013 (though felons still had to apply individually for a rights restoration).

Iowa: State Supreme Court upholds ban on felons voting in Iowa | Des Moines Register

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled against a wide expansion of voting rights for convicted criminals on Thursday, finding that all felonies are “infamous crimes” resulting in disenfranchisement under the state constitution. The 4-3 decision upholds what critics have said is one of the harshest felon disenfranchisement laws in the nation. Iowa’s constitution bars persons from voting if they’ve committed an “infamous crime,” a term long understood to mean a felony under state or federal law. Only two other states — Florida and Kentucky — match Iowa by permanently barring convicted felons from voting unless they apply for a restoration of rights from the governor. The constitutional prohibition was seen as making it harder for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society and as having a disproportionate impact on African-Americans, who are incarcerated at higher rates in Iowa.

Louisiana: Lawsuit seeks to restore voting rights for some 70,000 residents on probation or parole | Associated Press

A lawsuit filed Friday in state court seeks to restore voting rights for some 70,000 Louisiana residents who are on probation or parole for felonies. The suit was filed in Baton Rouge by the group Voice of the Ex-Offender and several convicted felons who have been denied voting rights. The suit says state laws blocking people who are on parole or probation from voting violate the Louisiana Constitution. The 1974 constitution allows suspension of voting rights for people judicially declared mentally incompetent or those who are “under an order of imprisonment” for a felony. The lawsuit contends that the denial of voting rights does not extend to felons who have been released on parole or probation.

Editorials: Iowa Supreme Court fails voters | Quad City Times

The Iowa Supreme Court issued the mother of all cop-outs Thursday. And, in so doing, reinforced Gov. Terry Branstad’s draconian voter disenfranchisement of more than 50,000 Iowans. In a 4-3 decision, rendered along partisan lines, Chief Justice Mark Cady strains to avoid upsetting the apple cart, a problem created by the vagueness of “infamy” as the state Constitution’s standard for disenfranchisement. Yes, words change, Cady admits. Victorian psuedo-scientific voting bans on “idiots” and the “insane,” appearing in the original state Constitution, are long gone, he notes. And, yes, Iowa’s excessively harsh approach to voting rights disproportionately affects black communities thanks to flaws in the application of justice, Cady concedes. But, he concludes, the courts — the body designed to interpret words written by long-dead men — shouldn’t get involved in a provision that cedes access to the most important democratic right to the whims of a governor. It’s the very court that, just two years ago, redefined the outdated term, “infamy,” to exclude misdemeanor convictions that included jail time. And it’s the very court that, in its landmark 2009 ruling legalizing gay marriage, recognized the Constitution’s living, breathing status. Astonishing.

Iowa: Court To Release Ruling On Felon Voting | Iowa Public Radio

The much anticipated ruling on felon voting from the Iowa Supreme Court will be released Thursday morning. Iowa has one of the most restrictive felon voting policies in the nation. It is one of three states that permanently disenfranchises someone if they commit a felony. That’s because Iowa’s constitution states anyone convicted of an infamous crime forever loses the right to vote. So what’s an infamous crime? The Iowa Supreme Court will likely tell us. More specifically, justices are asked to decide if all felonies are “infamous crimes,” or if the term applies only to a select group of felonies.

Virginia: McAuliffe lambasts “fear mongering” by Republicans over voting rights restoration | The Virginia-Pilot

Gov. Terry McAuliffe arrived at the community center in Huntersville Tuesday filled with zeal for restoring voting rights to over 200,000 felons, and zingers for Republicans who have criticized his action. “April 22 was probably my proudest day as governor. It was the right thing to do,” McAuliffe said, referring to the day he issued his executive order at a ceremony outside the Capitol. “I don’t understand the fear mongering by the Republicans. You would have thought I had burned the Capitol down.” McAuliffe was in Huntersville to hear the stories of people who had their voting rights restored. Outside, GOP lawmaker Jason Miyares of Virginia Beach waited to provide reporters a counterpoint.

Virginia: Herring seeks dismissal of Republican challenge to felon voting order | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring has asked the Supreme Court of Virginia to dismiss a Republican lawsuit seeking to overturn Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s order that restored political rights to 206,000 felons. In a 51-page response filed with the court Monday, Herring’s office said the potential for error in the sweeping administrative effort is not a legal argument against the order or the governor’s clemency powers. “Executive judgment is required to determine whether the circumstances warrant a categorical approach, and whether the benefits outweigh the risks of error,” state Solicitor General Stuart Raphael wrote in support of the state’s motion to dismiss. “And that judgment is properly committed to the sole discretion of the elected chief executive, whether the governor of Virginia or the president of the United States.”

Virginia: Records reveal little advance word to officials on voting-rights move | Richmond Times–Dispatch

When Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced that he was restoring the political rights of about 206,000 felons, it came as no surprise to New Virginia Majority, which had fliers already printed encouraging would-be voters to register immediately. The progressive activist group got an official invite days ahead of the April 22 news conference and Tram Nguyen, the group’s co-executive director, had more than three weeks’ notice that the order was coming. “Now that I’m home and have let the news sink in, I’m literally sitting here crying,” Nguyen wrote in a March 30 email to Secretary of the Commonwealth Kelly Thomasson, then a deputy in the office, after the two met earlier in the day. “We’ve been asking for this since the Kaine administration. What this administration is doing is a game changer in so many ways—in particular, for the lives that you’re touching. THANK YOU!”

Nebraska: Nearly half of Nebraska county election officials may be denying voting rights | Lincoln Journal Star

Only about half of Nebraska’s 93 counties accurately provide voting rights for ex-felons, according to a survey by the ACLU of Nebraska. Nearly half of the county election officials contacted by ACLU researchers provided inaccurate information related to voting rights for people with felony convictions, the organization said. State law allows a convicted felon to register to vote two years after completing all of the terms of a sentence, which include parole and probation. “Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and the fundamental right upon which all our civil liberties rest,” ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director Danielle Conrad said in a news release Monday. “Nebraskans that have completed their sentences have a right to participate in our democracy.” The Legislature restored the voting rights for people with felony convictions more than 10 years ago, she said. “But sadly today a significant amount of confusion still exists. These survey results are a call to action.”

Nebraska: Secretary of state questions ACLU survey | Lincoln Journal Star

Nebraska’s secretary of state is challenging the conclusions of an ACLU of Nebraska survey that questioned county election officials’ knowledge of voting rights for former felons. Secretary of State John Gale said the question asked in the survey done by volunteers might not have been consistent across all counties. None of the eight counties contacted by his office Tuesday could remember getting a phone call in the past month from someone from ACLU of Nebraska, he said. But Tyler Richard, spokesman for the ACLU, said the volunteers did not identify themselves as calling for the ACLU. And they asked a standardized question to all counties: “Can a former felon register to vote?”

Editorials: Why Prisoners Deserve the Right to Vote | Corey Brettschneider/Politico

On April 22, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued a sweeping executive order that changed the lives of 200,000 ex-felons in Virginia, instantly restoring their right to vote. This order leaves only Kentucky, Florida and Iowa with blanket lifetime disenfranchisement policies for ex-felons. In these three states, no citizens convicted of a felony are allowed to vote, regardless of the crime committed, absent government-granted exceptions to the policy. Governor McAuliffe’s act is a reminder that public support for giving ex-felons the right to vote after prison is significant, and growing—but this type of order doesn’t go far enough. Ex-felons should be able to vote, yes. But so should prisoners themselves.

Nebraska: Secretary of State questions ACLU survey on felon voting rights, follows up with counties | Omaha World Herald

Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale took issue Tuesday with an ACLU survey that reportedly found half of the state’s county election officials gave wrong answers when asked about felons’ voting eligibility. ACLU of Nebraska said Monday that 47 of 93 county officials answered incorrectly when asked by phone: “Can a former felon register to vote?” In Nebraska, someone with a felony conviction can register to vote two years after completing all terms of a sentence.

Virginia: Prosecutors argue against McAuliffe’s order on rights | Associated Press

A bipartisan group of 43 commonwealth’s attorneys are fighting Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s restoration of voting and other rights for more than 200,000 ex-felons. In a brief filed Friday with the Virginia Supreme Court, the prosecutors said each ex-felon’s rights restoration should be handled individually, rather than en masse, in order to avoid allowing unfit ex-felons the right to own a gun or sit on a jury. “The governor’s blanket restoration order makes no distinction among felons, treating the nonviolent felon the same as the cold-blooded killer, and the one-time offender the same as the career criminal,” the brief said. “The governor’s order thus hinders commonwealth’s attorneys’ ability to discharge their duties.”

Virginia: State officials pull 132 confined sex offenders from list of eligible voters | The Washington Post

State officials abruptly removed 132 sex offenders from Virginia’s list of eligible voters last week, reacting to the latest problem emerging from Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s sweeping move to restore voting rights to felons who had served out their sentences. A spokesman for McAuliffe (D) said that the offenders, who are confined in a treatment facility under a form of civil commitment, had appeared on the list of eligible voters by mistake. “Those folks should not have been on the list, and they are not there now,” spokesman Brian Coy said. A local prosecutor contends there was no mistake. She says state officials changed the records to try to hide a politically awkward accident — that McAuliffe inadvertently restored voting rights to some of Virginia’s worst sexual predators.

Virginia: Second lawsuit filed over McAuliffe order on felon voting rights | Richmond Times-Dispatch

A conservative legal advocacy group has filed a second challenge to Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order that restored voting rights for roughly 206,000 Virginia felons. Washington-based Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit Monday in Bedford County Circuit Court on behalf of five Bedford voters who argue they’ll be harmed by the votes of felons who have been unlawfully registered to vote. “Unless an injunction is granted, plaintiffs’ lawful votes will be canceled out, and their voting power will be diluted, by votes cast by individuals who are not eligible to vote under Virginia’s laws and Constitution,” the lawsuit states. Rick Boyer, a Lynchburg-area lawyer and Republican activist is listed as an attorney for the plaintiffs along with James F. Petersen, a Judicial Watch attorney in Washington.

Virginia: Voting rights restoration case to go before Virginia Supreme Court | Roanoke Times

The Supreme Court of Virginia will hold a special session July 19 to take up the Republican challenge to Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s order that restored voting rights for more than 200,000 felons. Republican leaders in the General Assembly had sought to have the case heard as early as next month. They argued in court filings that the matter should be decided by Aug. 25 at the latest to avoid “casting doubt on the legitimacy” of the November elections. The McAuliffe administration has refused to release the list of the 206,000 felons, saying that state election law exempts from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act individual records maintained in the state’s voter registration system. Edgardo Cortes, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, asserted in an email Wednesday that “all information received from other entities for the purpose of maintaining accurate voter registration records” is “part of our statewide voter registration system and covered by this exemption.”

Virginia: State at Center of Racially Charged Fight Over the Right of Felons to Vote | The New York Times

On the night Barack Obama became the nation’s first black president, Leah Taylor, a fast-food worker and African-American mother of six, stayed up until 2 a.m. watching the election returns. “I knew that was history, and I wanted to be a part of it,” she said. But she did not vote. Ms. Taylor, 45, has never voted. In 1991, when she was 20, she was stripped of her voting rights after being convicted of selling crack cocaine and sent to jail for a year. So she was stunned when an organizer from a progressive group, New Virginia Majority, showed up one recent afternoon at the church soup kitchen where she eats lunch and said he could register her. “Your rights have been restored!” the organizer, Assadique Abdul-Rahman, declared with a theatrical flourish, waving an executive order signed in April by Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Ms. Taylor, so moved she nearly cried, promptly signed up. Thus did Ms. Taylor join a wave of newly eligible voters, all with criminal pasts, signing up in Virginia. But what Mr. McAuliffe granted, the Virginia Supreme Court may now take away. Top Republicans in the state legislature are seeking to block Mr. McAuliffe’s sweeping order, which re-enfranchised 206,000 Virginians who have completed sentences, probation or parole. Last week, the Supreme Court announced a special session to hear arguments in July — in time to rule before the November election.

Virginia: State Supreme Court calls special session to hear GOP challenge on felon voting rights | Richmond Times-Dispatch

The Supreme Court of Virginia will hold a special session on July 19 to take up the Republican challenge to Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s order restoring voting rights for more than 200,000 felons. Republican leaders in the General Assembly had sought to have the case heard as early as next month, arguing in court filings that the matter should be decided by Aug. 25 at the latest to avoid “casting doubt on the legitimacy” of the November election. “We are pleased the Supreme Court recognizes the urgency of our challenge to Governor McAuliffe’s unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of executive power,” House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, said in a statement Wednesday. Howell is a plaintiff in the case along with Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, and four voters.

Virginia: Supreme Court takes up challenge to McAuliffe rights restoration order | The Washington Post

The Virginia Supreme Court next month will hear a legal challenge to Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s order restoring the voting rights of more than 200,000 felons. The court will take up the lawsuit, filed by state Republicans, on July 19 in Richmond during a special session scheduled to accommodate this and other cases. The decision came in response to Republicans’ request for an accelerated timeline. They would like the court to issue a ruling well ahead of the November general election. In their lawsuit, House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City) and four voters argued that McAuliffe (D) could not legally restore rights to nearly a quarter-million felons with one sweeping executive order. Until now, governors restored voting rights to felons on a case-by-case basis. “We are pleased the Supreme Court recognizes the urgency of our challenge to Governor McAuliffe’s unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of executive power,” Howell said in a statement.

Virginia: Herring defends McAuliffe’s voting rights order in face of GOP lawsuit | The Washington Post

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said Friday that Gov. Terry McAuliffe acted within his constitutional authority when he restored voting rights to more than 200,000 felons. Herring (D), acting as the state’s attorney, defended the governor’s action in a court filing in which he also objected to Republicans’ request for the Virginia Supreme Court to accelerate the timetable for a lawsuit they filed this week to stop the restoration of rights. The legal battle is the latest showdown between the Democratic governor and his allies and the Republican-controlled General Assembly over voting rights. Republican leaders have accused McAuliffe (D) of trying to add potential voters to the rolls to bolster the presidential bid of his friend, Hillary Clinton. McAuliffe denied any political motives and framed the order as a removal of the last vestige of laws such as poll taxes and literacy tests that disproportionately affected the voting rights of African Americans. One in 4 African Americans in Virginia had been banned from voting because of laws restricting the rights of those with convictions.

National: House bill would allow felons to regain voting rights | Sun Sentinel

Calling it “the civil rights cause of the 21st Century,” U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Orlando, has sponsored a bill that would restore voting rights to more than a million Floridians. The bill, dubbed the No One Can Take Away Your Right to Vote Act, would guarantee that ex-convicts have the right to vote after they leave prison, though it excludes anyone convicted of murder, manslaughter or a sex crime. Florida, which is one of only three states in which all felons lose the right to vote forever unless it’s restored by the state, has more than 1.5 million citizens unable to vote. That’s about ten percent of the state’s voting age population.

National: The race-infused history of why felons aren’t allowed to vote in a dozen states | The Washington Post

These things happen often enough these days that they can be easy to ignore. Lawmakers from one party vehemently disagree with the actions or policies of another and file suit. Sometimes the suits amount to a last-ditch effort to stop something they consider potentially disastrous. Sometimes they amount to little more than political grandstanding in court venues. And sometimes, they are really a combination of both, wrapped in highly principled talk about the separation of powers and abating tyranny. On Monday, the leaders of Virginia’s Republican-controlled state House and Senate filed suit against Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, in a bid to stop an executive order that would restore the voting rights of an estimated 20,000 Virginia residents who have been convicted of a felony. McAuliffe wants to restore voting rights to those who have completed their sentences and any ordered time on probation or parole. These, in short, are the people who have officially paid for their crimes but, under Virginia law, remain barred from the ballot box. And state Republicans insist that their favored list of vaunted Virginians — including Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, former Democratic Virginia governor Timother M. Kaine (now a senator) and former Republican governor Robert F. McDonnell — would agree.