Can Ted Stevens Vote for Himself? Not Anymore

The New York Times reports, correctly, that Sen. Stevens can run for reelection despite his convicted felon status:

"Despite being a convicted felon, [Sen. Ted Stevens] is not required to drop out of the race or resign from the Senate. If he wins re-election, he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress. The Senate could vote to expel Stevens on a two-thirds vote."

Ironically, though, it looks like Stevens may not be able to vote for himself. Felons whose crimes involve "moral turpitude" (defined by state law to include bribery, Alaska Stat. 15.60.010(9)) cannot vote in Alaska, at least until their civil rights are restored, which only happens when "a person is released from all disability arising under a conviction and sentence, including probation and parole." (The statute is at this citation: Alaska Stat. 15.60.010(39).) Deregistration from the voting rolls is automatic upon conviction.

Stevens was convicted of violating ethics disclosure rules. Technically the indictment charged violation of the federal criminal statute 18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly fill out a federal form falsely. I guess the question now is whether that offense fits within the definition of a "felony involving moral turpitude" under Alaska law, below:

(9) "felony involving moral turpitude" includes those crimes that are immoral or wrong in themselves such as murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor, robbery, extortion, coercion, kidnapping, incest, arson, burglary, theft, forgery, criminal possession of a forgery device, offering a false instrument for recording, scheme to defraud, falsifying business records, commercial bribe receiving, commercial bribery, bribery, receiving a bribe, perjury, perjury by inconsistent statements, endangering the welfare of a minor, escape, promoting contraband, interference with official proceedings, receiving a bribe by a witness or a juror, jury tampering, misconduct by a juror, tampering with physical evidence, hindering prosecution, terroristic threatening, riot, criminal possession of explosives, unlawful furnishing of explosives, promoting prostitution, criminal mischief, misconduct involving a controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance, permitting an escape, promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography;

I would guess it does, but I invite input from the legal experts out there in the comments. If I'm right about that, Stevens joins the 5.3 million Americans who will be denied the right to vote because of their status as felons. In about a dozen states, one can lose the right to vote even after your probation is over. More on that issue generally here.

UPDATE: See the discussion below in the comments regarding whether Stevens is officially "convicted" (for purposes of the Alaska voter laws) upon the jury issuing its verdict, or whether something more needs to happen -- the judge issuing a final sentence (which won't happen here until February), or a "judgment of conviction" under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(k), which would include the results of the sentencing (and thus would also issue far after the election). Murky issues like this, at the intersection of state and federal law, are what we lawyers get paid the big bucks to sort out.

--October 27, 2008

Comments

[keemia]

that's exactly the first thing that popped out to me when I read the article. how come average citizens can't even vote if they're convicted felons, but we can have a felon in the US senate? I "betcha" this will soon change.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I don't think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned so many disenfranchised voters due to felony convictions. It may be time to revisit this, especially given the racial disparity.

That being said, CONVICT Stevens should be tossed from the Senate by Friday.

[ElBruce]

Disallowing felons from voting is silly. There shouldn't be enough of them to affect the outcome of any election. If there are, then there's a problem with the judicial system and/or legal code.

Nevertheless, voting rights shouldn't be rescinded for ANY reason. In the order of rights taken away from anyone, voting should be the last one.

[holyhandgrenaid]

Agreed, however there should be laws against convicted felons serving in Congress or any other elected office for that matter. Sure, most of them are crooks, but those who0 have been found guilty of crimes should not be allowed to represent the American public

[slaxx]

agreed.

[pumpkin]

I completely agree. And it shouldn't matter if therea re enough of them to affect the outcome of an election. They are still citizens, they have a vested interest in the outcome of elections (as do we all). They should be allowed to vote.

[gotborked]

I disagree. There are many rights (assuming voting is a right) that are more important and should be taken away later, such as the right to life.

Certain crimes evidence the criminal's breach of the public trust. They show that the criminal cannot be trusted with certain rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with citizenry. If a criminal has no problem with, say, defrauding a customer, how can we trust them not to defraud the voting system?

[islandchris]

The use of felony convictions to strip a person of his/her right to vote was dramatically expanded during the post-Civil War reconstruction. The crimes for which you could lose the right to vote were carefully tailored to be more likely to apply to newly enfranchised African-Americans. It really is outrageous that someone who has served their sentence can be stripped of such a basic democratic right - and in this America is "exceptional" amongst western democracies.

From http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Election_Reform/Felon_Disenfranchisement.html

"Overall, some four million Americans-two percent of the adult population-cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction; the rate for African-American males is a staggering 13 percent. "

[gotborked]

In essence, I think the rationale is that the entirety of their sentence has not been served.

Many criminals continue to have limits on certain freedoms even after they exit the prison (consider the sex offender who has to inform his neighbors).

[akaJohnQ]

Stevens might have voted early.

[TheOldSchool]

Knowing Stevens, he probably voted often, too.

[unclesmedley]

Interesting point. An early ballot is not counted until after the election. So, the question becomes, does his ballot become invalid? and is he obligated to inform the election commission about his change of status? I'm generally leery of sending octogenarians to prison--even the really obnoxious ones like Stevens. In this case, I foresee a death by a thousand cuts. This man has no idea what it's like not to be the King of Alaska. He's about to find out, and he's not going to like it. When his son and Don Young get theirs. And the Governor comes home to her grief. Alaska will be set back 40 years, and eighty-something is too late to start over.

[Gidster]

If he is in jail, will he still be a Senator? Can he campaign with a house arrest bracelet on his ankle?

[touchdown]

I am a retired judge from Arizona. In all fairness, Stevens will not be a convicted felon until the Judge in the case enters the guilty verdict and sentences him. This will probably take place after the election, so he will be able to vote.

When he is sentenced he will be yet another Republican criminal. There are many, including Bush, Cheney, Rove, and countless others who have not been charged and tried. Many have of course.
Justice is very slow.

[dlinguist]

In my layman's understanding, I agree. My understanding is that prior to judgement being entered, a mistrial may still be declared, for example, so technically it is not official until then.

[Frannyvida]

It will be interesting to see where your State stands in 8 or 9 days. Unfortunate about that vote for Stevens.

[ZenBastard]

Convicted felons also may not possess firearms. I'm sure an Alaska man like Stevens owns a few guns for hunting. Someone needs to go confiscate them, along with his passport.

[gotborked]

You can vote for anyone, but not anyone can vote.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this scenario.

The laws prohibiting felons from voting don’t just penalize the wrongdoer, they protect the citizenry. They protect the citizens’ votes from being diluted or lessened by those who have proved that they are untrustworthy with such a responsibi­lity—those who have decided to shuck the freedoms, privileges, and responsibilities that come with being a good, or at least not a harmful, citizen.

We the people (i.e., the government) deem it wise to take away many if not all of life’s freedoms from people who commit felonies…and for good reason. Just because a felon has served his jail time doesn’t mean other punishments, other limits on his or her freedom, cannot or should not last beyond the time he exits the prison. --sex offenders have to inform their neighbors, felons have to identify themselves when applying for certain jobs, and criminals who committed crimes of moral turpitude can't vote. If a person cared to keep their ability to vote, they shouldn't have committed such a crime (in that way, the loss of one's vote serves to inhibit one from committing such a felony).

[pumpkin]

Who says all non-felons (and that, of course, includes unconvicted and undetected felons) are good, non-harmful citizens. I've known people with felony convictions who were a helluva lot more trustworthy and better citizens than a lot of "fine, upstanding" people.

The only time I would support disenfranchisement of a convicted felon is if the person was convicted of voter fraud, intimidation, or other voting-related crimes.

And,what a laugh to try justify disenfranchisement based on it's deterrence effect. The death penalty isn't even an effective deterrence.

[gotborked]

How do you prove that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrence? How can you quantify the individuals who DIDN't commit a crime?

Anyway, it is true that some non-felons are more untrustworthy than some felons, but (thankfully) our system is built around process. There will always be those who don't get caught and are proven guilty, but that doesn't mean that sentences should be commuted for those who are.

[sammynsf]

Interesting that he would not qualify to vote in his home state but able to represent their interests and vote in the Senate... somehow this seems like a disconnect.

[Alethea]

Muwahahaha!

The Republicans sure are on a roll. And the beauty is that they are all doing it to themselves. It's so pathetic to watch it's funny.

I guess Karma really does exist!

[fmjohnson]

All he has to do is follow his governor's lead, say that he is pleased that the jury cleared him of any wrong-doing, and he'll be fine.

[Shayana Kadidal - Huffpost Blogger]

If he wins the election and his fellow senators vote to remove him from office, Governor Palin gets to replace him (assuming she isn't Vice President by then).

[Texdude]

I don't think that's correct. It is my understanding that Alaska passed legislation, after former Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to a Senate seat, taking the appointment power away from the Governor and requiring a special election. As I am not licensed in Alaska, however, this is not my official legal opinion.

[agm214]

Can she replace him with herself? HORRIFYING.

Excellent piece! It's mind-boggling that the law could forbid Stevens to vote but allow him to serve as a U.S. Senator. That's power, I suppose, and a telling tale of the irrational and illogical policies behind the massive voter disenfranchisement that states have been allowed to and have run rampant with since the 15th Amendment was passed.

Republican crooks all in all.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

How can you not have the right to vote, yet retain the right to be re-elected? Odd.

The Senate can toss him tomorrow, by 2/3 vote.

[supervoter]

It's my understanding that if he resigns before the election that the Democratic candidate, Mark Begich, is the de facto winner of the election. True or false?

[Frannyvida]

It's gone from Rovian to Palinese. She's a quick study. I'm waiting for the next trial in Alaska regarding the building of her house. Same "contractor friends" that built the Ice Rink in Wasilla that left the town in major debt. And the beat goes on.

Think that'll catch on? "Palinese"

[NationalTreasure]

this also means one less vote for McCain/Palin

[NationalTreasure]

Stevens has not been sentenced yet so he is not quite a felon

[Shayana Kadidal - Huffpost Blogger]

It's unclear from the statute what the definition of "conviction" is -- there is an opinion from the Alaska Att'y General stating that conviction with a suspended sentence that hasn't expired is still a conviction for purposes of this section. (January 29, 1985 Op. Att'y Gen.) Same deal for convictions that are on appeal. (June 27, 1983 Op. Att'y Gen.) But here there's just the jury verdict; sentencing would only happen after the election -- February according to the judge in the case.

The A.L.R. article on the subject says the usual rule is that a sentence needs to be issued, thus creating final judgment from the court. Again, Alaskan law is going to control here. And again, I invite comments from the experts out there on this issue.

[Patters]

Actually, he is not officially a convicted felon until he is sentenced and the judge enters an order of conviction. So it looks like he and his brain-washed, ethically-­challenged followers can still vote for him.

[JSINAK]

The Alaska Statute and corresponding case law provides that a convicted felon may not vote until his civil liberties have been restored. This usually occurs after his sentence has been completed and all probation/parole orders have been satisfied. If I understand correctly, Stevens is currently released on bail, probably on his own cognizance or that of counsel, immediately following his convictions - which would infer that he is not subject to the civil liberties of an ordinary citizen. Therefore, he would be barred from voting from today's date onward.

[JSINAK]

The ALR article does imply that sentencing must occur, but the case law relied upon is Washington State (if I read the same ALR as you). From what I can tell, the Alaska Courts interpret the disenfranchise statute more literally. Also, see Aug 17, 1982 Opinion of Atty Gen which provides that "one whose conviction is on appeal may neither vote nor run for public office."