More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Lee Rowland

GET UPDATES FROM Lee Rowland
 

A Dark Day for Democracy in Iowa

Posted: 01/25/11 05:32 PM ET

It took just a stroke of newly-elected Governor Terry Branstad's pen to turn the clock back on Iowans' voting rights by decades. Immediately upon taking office this month, Governor Branstad rushed to revoke Executive Order 42, a policy signed in 2005 by former Governor Tom Vilsack, which automatically restored voting rights to individuals with criminal convictions once they had completed their sentences. Now, Iowa has become one of just three states that permanently disenfranchise all citizens after a criminal conviction. Prior to Executive Order 42, Iowa disenfranchised adults at a rate twice the national average, and had the nation's highest rate of African-American disenfranchisement. Governor Branstad has resurrected one of the most punishing and discriminatory voting bans in the country.

Currently, 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of a criminal conviction. As many as 4 million of these people live, work and raise families in our communities, but because of a conviction in their past they are still denied the right to vote. Nevertheless, in the last decade 23 states have either restored voting rights or eased the restoration process. Governor Branstad, however, just placed Iowa in the shrinking company of just two other states - Virginia and Kentucky - that permanently disenfranchise their citizens.

A broad coalition of Iowans representing Methodists, Catholics, Quakers, social workers, juvenile justice advocates, and the disabled wrote to the Governor before he took office, urging him to reconsider his campaign promise to revoke Executive Order 42. Perhaps most notably, two well-regarded national law enforcement organizations, the American Correctional Association and the American Probation and Parole Association, wrote personally to the Governor urging him to continue the policy of restoring voting rights. As the American Correctional Association, the oldest and largest association of correctional officers in the world, explained: restoring voting rights "encourages [ex-offenders] to lead law-abiding lives, thereby reducing recidivism."

Although Governor Branstad chose to ignore the views of the law enforcement and community advocates, both Republicans and Democrats understand the need to address reentry on a national scale. Just last week, Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan announced the "Right on Crime Campaign," a conservative effort to support reentry and community-based rehabilitation. Although the group does not yet have an official position on voting, Gingrich and Nolan note that a more community-oriented criminal justice model achieves huge reductions in both budgetary cost and recidivism. There is no question that the right to vote is the very definition of having a full stake in one's community.

In addition to being good policy, restoring voting rights is an important civil rights issue. Prior to Executive Order 42, Iowa permanently denied the right to vote to nearly 40% of the African-American population in the state. Compounding this racial disparity is the fact that the only way to get one's right to vote back is through an application to the Governor - but only after having paid all fees and fines associated with a criminal conviction. The only difference between an ex-offender who is entitled to apply for clemency and one who is not? An ability to pay. The state NAACP held a press conference denouncing this modern-day poll tax and its disparate impact on African-Americans. Many who go through the criminal justice system return to the community saddled with multiple debts. It often takes years if not decades to pay off the fees and fines. Voting should never be contingent on one's wealth or ability to pay.

In spite of hearing many voices of experience and reason, Governor Branstad has taken a giant step backward for democracy and fairness. Fortunately, the principles of democracy are winning the broader war: more states than ever have dismantled these misguided and discriminatory laws. And the full-throated reaction to Governor Branstad's order shows that Iowa has a strong coalition of leaders, advocates and activists eager to convince current and future policy makers that it's never too late to advance the cause of democracy.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:07 PM on 01/27/2011
If the denial of voting rights is for convicted felons only, then by and large, I would agree with it.

"...the only way to get one's right to vote back is through an application to the Governor - but only after having paid all fees and fines associated with a criminal conviction." Seems to me that not paying fines and fees assiciated with the conviction is not completing the sentence.
12:43 PM on 01/27/2011
I have no sympathy for felons who can't vote. They committed a felony, losing voting privileges is a consequence. Just an extra reason not to be a criminal.
10:05 AM on 01/27/2011
An ex-con should have to pay fines and make restitution to his victims as a condition for having voting rights restored. My family and I have been the victims of crimes and we have not been repaid for property damage or medical expenses. If the ex-con can't make their victims whole, the loss of voting rights is a small price to pay for their transgressions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheIndependenceParty
Cranky yankee and a rehabilitated ex-Republican
12:51 PM on 01/27/2011
While I understand why you feel as you do, I do not agree. As the author describes, such a restriction on the right to vote, which in no way is connected to the crime committed, constitutes a de facto poll tax. The courts should be the recourse for those victimized by a crime, ... not the polling booth. Why not also prohibit the ex-convict from receiving a driver's license, or professional license, a library card, etc.? The reason is that the punishment has been completed.

The governor is wrong in this instance.
10:04 AM on 01/27/2011
So Vilsack issued an executive order which in effect increased the potential voter roles for the Democratic party. The new governor issued an executive order to reduced that potential. What is the problem? Shouldn't the Iowa state legislature be where this is decided and not by executive decree?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheIndependenceParty
Cranky yankee and a rehabilitated ex-Republican
12:53 PM on 01/27/2011
Sometimes simply doing the right thing should be the basis of a politician's actions. Please explain the rational excuse for denying the right to vote for a person who has completed their punishment.

There is none!
02:23 PM on 01/27/2011
And the right thing should be following the representative process and not by pure dictate.
photo
txadams
"Here, let me spark up that Mary Jane for you"
01:06 PM on 01/27/2011
The problem is that American Citizens who served their time in prison and now pay taxes and contribute to their community have no representation. This is a civil rights issue and should be settled once and for all by the Supreme Court. Providing Scallia and his lapdog Thomas won't block it.
09:40 PM on 01/27/2011
Respectfully, I disagree, this is an issue for Iowa and should be handled within the legislative process. Violent criminals do not automatically get their right to bear arms back after they serve their sentence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
03:10 AM on 01/27/2011
Apparently the GOP is for perpetual punishment of criminals. Gee, wonder how that squares with the whole notion of Christian forgiveness, not to mention e.g. pardoning folks like Scooter Libby.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morgansher
just disgusted in general
02:03 AM on 01/27/2011
It is a sad thing. I bet if people dig a bit, he is like so many other republican governors - backed by money from the evangelical, fundamentalist churches who stopped believing in redemption during the Reagan years, but will happily apply the rod where ever they can.
02:00 AM on 01/27/2011
Speechless. It's hard to believe that this was a platform promise and earned him winning votes.