5.3百万人のより多くのアメリカ人が投票できれば何か。
月曜日、2008年4月21日
によって Erika木 |
何百万の米国の人々。 重罪の有罪判決のために投票できない。 民主主義を元通りにする平均を投票する権利の回復。 これはアメリカの民主主義のための大きい年である。 数十万人の新しい投票者は投票でしか登録するが、実際に現れていない。 第一次競争がの前に決して数えたあらないことは状態は突然注目の的である。 長く第一次季節の間に無視されて行ってしまったワイオミング、ミシシッピー、ノースカロライナおよびケンタッキーの投票者は最終的に声および投票との彼ら自身を見つける。 今年それらは重要である。
これにもかかわらず、私達の民主主義はまだ遠い不足分偽りなく市民の意志を表す政府である約束の下る。 全国各地からある 5.3百万 彼らの過去の重罪の有罪判決のために投票する権利を否定されるアメリカ人。 これらの人々のほぼ4,000,000は刑務所にない; 彼らは住みが、働き、税を支払い、そして私達のコミュニティの家族を育てたり、頻繁に長年、および時々生命の間公民権を剥奪されて残る。
状態 広く変えなさい それらが前の囚人に選挙権を元通りにする時。 メインおよびヴァーモントは信念の人々の公民権を剥奪しない; 囚人はそこに投票するかもしれない。 監禁される間、だけ13の州そしてコロンビア特別区は人々の公民権を剥奪する; 5つの州は誓言でまたは監禁されるが公民権を剥奪したり、試験期間の人々が投票することを可能にする人の; 20の州は刑務所の、誓言で、そして試験期間の人々の公民権を剥奪する; そして10の州は永久に彼らの教化の監督を完了した人々のある部門の公民権を剥奪する。 に適用し、個人を受け取ればケンタッキーおよびヴァージニアは永久に重罪の有罪判決のすべての人々の、知事からの任意の寛大な処置公民権を剥奪する最後の2つの残りの州である。
黒人は定着する
十分にこれらの法律が私達の民主主義をいかに妥協するか認めるために、彼等の理解することは重要である 深い根 アメリカの人種関係の悩まされていた歴史。 1800年代後期にこれらの法律はaの一部として広がった より大きいバックラッシュ 復元の修正-米国の第13、第14、そして第15修正の採用に対して。 隷属を終え、放された奴隷に等しい市民権を与え、そして投票の人種的な差別を禁止した憲法。
Over time, Southern Democrats sought to solidify their hold on the region by modifying voting laws in ways that would exclude African-Americans from the polls. Despite their newfound eligibility to vote, many freed slaves remained effectively disenfranchised.
Violence and intimidation were rampant. The legal barriers employed ― including literacy tests, residency requirements, grandfather clauses, and poll taxes ― while race-neutral on their face, were intentional barriers to African-American voting.
Felony disenfranchisement laws were a key part of this effort. Between 1865 and 1900, 18 states adopted laws restricting the voting rights of criminal offenders. By 1900, 38 states had some type of felon voting restriction, most of which disenfranchised convicted felons until they received a pardon. At the same time, states expanded the criminal codes to punish offenses that they believed targeted freedmen, including vagrancy, petty larceny, miscegenation, bigamy, and receiving stolen goods. Aggressive arrest and conviction efforts followed, motivated by the practice of “convict leasing,” whereby former slaves were convicted of crimes and then leased out to work the very plantations and factories from which they had ostensibly been freed. Thus targeted criminalization and felony disenfranchisement combined to produce both practical re-enslavement and the legal loss of voting rights, usually for life, which effectively suppressed the political power of African Americans for decades.
The disproportionate impact of felony disenfranchisement laws on people of color continues to this day. Nationwide, 13 percent of African-American men have lost the right to vote, a rate that is seven times the national average. In eight states, more than 15 percent of African-Americans cannot vote due to a felony conviction, and four of those states ― Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, and Nebraska ― disenfranchise more than 20 percent of their African-American voting-age population.
These statistics mirror stark racial disparities in the criminal justice system. A recent study by the Pew Center on the States revealed that 1 in 100 Americans is now behind bars. That figure is startling enough, but the study also reports that 1 in 9 African-American men between the ages of 20 and 34 is in prison.
The Ripple Effect of Disenfranchisement
Felony disenfranchisement laws do not only impact those who lose their voting rights. Entire communities lose their political capital when their citizens cannot vote. Denying the vote to one person has a ripple effect, dramatically decreasing the political power of urban and minority communities.
Evidence suggests that disenfranchising the head of a household can discourage his or her entire family from civic participation. Many people’s first experience with voting or political engagement comes through their parents ― by joining them at a town meeting, attending a school board hearing, or accompanying them into the voting booth. A parent can a>, including such basics as how to register and where to vote. In fact, of the various factors included in the study, the parent’s political participation had the greatest effect on the child’s initial decision to vote.
Andres Idarraga, who recently had his right to vote restored by a recent change to Rhode Island’s law, explained, “coming from a family in which voting had rarely, if ever, been discussed, this was a new beginning.”
Throughout the country, minority communities have lost political influence thanks to felony disenfranchisement laws. In the last 25 years, as incarceration rates skyrocketed and African-Americans were sent to prison at a rate seven times that of whites, the political power of minority communities has been decimated. It’s a simple
equation: communities with high rates of people with felony convictions have fewer votes to cast. Consequently, all residents of these communities, not just those with convictions, lose their political influence.
What’s more, even when people with felony convictions are eligible to vote, they are often de facto disenfranchised due to bureaucratic barriers. In 2003, Alabama could not process more than 80 percent of applications within statutory time limits, and completely failed to respond to dozens of applications. And in New York, Brennan Center surveys have repeatedly uncovered widespread confusion and misinformation among elections officials. In 2005, one third of local election boards mistakenly advised that people could not vote while on probation, and many illegally required unnecessary documentation before allowing people to register.
Dispelling Disenfranchisement Myths, Restoring Democracy
Fortunately, there are signs of progress. Advocates, policy-makers, and some unusual allies have made great strides towards restoring voting rights, and have built significant national momentum towards building a more just and inclusive democracy.
Critics of voting restoration argue that disenfranchisement is an appropriate punishment for breaking the law. But in fact, many in law enforcement have come to believe that felony disenfranchisement laws do more harm than good. The American Probation and Parole Association recently released a resolution calling for restoration of voting rights upon completion of prison, finding that “disenfranchisement laws work against the successful reentry of offenders.” Many realize that, in terms of public safety, bringing people into the political process makes them stakeholders, helping to steer former offenders away from future crimes. As one Kentucky prosecutor wrote, “Voting shows a commitment to the future of the community.” Branding people as political outsiders by barring them from the polls disrupts reentry into the community and does not do anything to keep people from re-offending. There is absolutely no credible evidence showing that continuing to disenfranchise people after release from prison serves any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Disenfranchisement has nothing to do with being “tough on crime.”
Since 1997, 16 states have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. Recent reforms include an executive order signed by then-Governor Tom Vilsack in Iowa which restored voting rights to 80,000 Iowa citizens on Independence Day, 2005. On Election Day 2006, Rhode Island voters were the first in the country to approve a state constitutional amendment authorizing automatic restoration of voting rights to people as soon as they are released from prison. The Rhode Island Department of Corrections became a voter registration agency, and now every individual is handed a voter registration form on the day they leave prison. In April 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued new clemency rules ending that state’s policy of permanent disenfranchisement for all felony offenders. Also in April 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed a law streamlining the state’s complicated restoration system by automatically restoring voting rights upon completion of sentence.
This law also eliminated the a> that people in Maryland pay off any court-imposed fees and fines before being able to register to vote.
And just last month, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear eliminated some of the burdensome requirements his predecessor imposed on people trying to get their voting rights restored. People with felony convictions are disenfranchised for life in Kentucky and can only regain their right to vote by receiving clemency from the governor.
Beshear’s predecessor had required all applicants to provide three character references and write an essay explaining why they should get their right to vote back. While Kentucky still has a long way to go, Beshear’s executive action was certainly an important step.
Still, millions of U.S. citizens continue to be denied the right to vote. This year, Congress has decided to address the issue on a national level. Senator Russ Feingold and Representative John Conyers will soon introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, a bill that seeks to restore voting rights in federal elections to all Americans who have been released from prison and are living in the community. In February, Senator Feingold, joined by former Republican Congressman and Bush I cabinet member, Jack Kemp, wrote, “once the criminal justice system has determined that [people] are ready to return to the community, they should receive the rights and responsibilities that come with that status, and should not continue to be relegated to second-class citizenship.”
The energy and optimism spreading across our country this election season is palpable. But our democracy stands for nothing if not the fundamental tenet that each citizen is entitled to one vote, and each vote counts the same regardless of who casts it. The promise of our democracy will never be realized if 4 million Americans remain disenfranchised. It is time to end this last blanket barrier to the ballot box.
See More:USA News VotingHave Your Say: What if 5.3 Million More Americans Could Vote?
Please note, only selected comments will be published.
2 Responses to “What if 5.3 Million More Americans Could Vote?”
-
pingback:
Posted: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Link to this
invisible blog » Blog Archive » The Grapevine: Links to news that matters to you -
ACTIVENWFL
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 pm | Link to this
ReplyFlorida still has a long way to go before disenfranchisment of ex-offenders has been fairly handled.
The recent changes allow the wealthiest of ex-offenders to regain their right to vote after all fines and court costs have been paid. It may seem as though it is insignificant but if you look at the numbers AND think, you would be surprised.
Florida requires arrest for technical violations of probation/parole. A technical violation occurs when no new crime has been committed but the cost of supervision, fines and court costs have not been paid. Many of these Floridians lose their jobs that were inadequate to pay the fines because they are in jail for not being able to pay their fines?!?
It seems to me that the “Jim Crow” connection has changed from slavery based on race to slavery based on economic standing. Why do we always send the poor?!?
Free Newsletter
Loading ...Related News
- Will The 2008 Vote Be Fair?
- E-vote ‘threat’ to UK democracy
- Uproar: Bush official’s quip on black voters
- VIDEO: How many times can you vote?
- Bush Government to Poor Voters: We Don’t Want You to Vote
Latest Headlines
- Teachers threaten more strikes
- FBI: We Warned About Torture of Detainees
- US ‘war on terror’ backfiring, says thinktank
- White House Influence Is Cited in Corruption Trial
- Promotion an ominous sign of possible war with Iran
- Question For RINF Users: Do You Want a Forum?
- Students Skip Class For Obama Event, Get Suspended
- Olympic protest movement turns its sights on to sponsors
- Gitmo Torture Orders Came From The Top
- Feds to require visitors’ fingerprints when they leave US
More Breaking News
Archive
[…] AlterNet asks: what if the severe restrictions on felons’ voting rights were reviewed? The piece examines the history of the restrictions and their links to Jim Crow legislation, and points out that “entire communities lose their political capital when their citizens cannot vote. Denying the vote to one person has a ripple effect, dramatically decreasing the political power of urban and minority communities. […]