Posted on 07/07/2005 3:48:15 AM PDT by joshhiggins
Governor restores the vote to felons
By CHARLOTTE EBY, Courier Des Moines Bureau
DES MOINES --- While Gov. Tom Vilsack has come under fire from Republicans for an executive order restoring voting rights of Iowans with criminal convictions, many are hailing the action as a civil rights victory.
Vilsack's order, which he plans to sign today, will allow those Iowans to register to vote as long as they have completed their terms of prison, parole or probation.
Before, those offenders had to apply to get their voting rights restored by the governor.
Walter Reed of Waterloo, director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, called the new policy a "a bold move forward."
"Iowa has always been a leader as far as dealing with human and civil rights issues. That goes way back to the 1800s, and this particular effort by Gov. Vilsack, I think, puts us back in a pro-active mode, and I think it's positive in the long run for the state of Iowa," said Reed, a Vilsack appointee.
Vilsack's order is expected to have an impact on voting rights for Iowa's African-American community. A 2002 study by University of Minnesota sociologist Christopher Uggen estimated one in four black adults in Iowa was ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction.
Reed agreed Iowa's previous policy disproportionately affected Iowa's minority population.
"Just looking at the raw numbers and looking at the districts in which these people come from, it has a major impact upon what happens in local governments and the involvement of people," Reed said.
But some Republicans in the state are angry about the decision by Vilsack, a Democrat.
House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, urged Vilsack to reconsider. He said criminals who have not paid their fines or made restitution to victims shouldn't be allowed to vote.
"Serving your time is not the same as paying your debt to society," Rants said at a meeting last week.
Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Ray Hoffmann charges the move was political and made without the input of state lawmakers.
"We have a system in place, what a criminal is supposed to do after he comes out of jail. We have that in place; we need to follow through with that," Hoffmann said.
Muscatine County Attorney Gary Allison, a Republican, has filed a petition asking a judge to block Vilsack's order from going into effect. A hearing on the matter is set for next Monday in Muscatine County District Court.
Looking forward to voting again
The secretary of state's office has a list of more than 58,000 people who have lost their right to vote in Iowa because of criminal convictions. But because the order will also apply to Iowans who lost their voting rights because of out-of-state convictions, it is difficult to peg exactly how many people will be affected, said spokeswoman Phyllis Peters.
And some of those on the list will still have to finish serving prison terms or probation or parole before they will be eligible to vote.
Since 2000, 10 states, including Iowa, have moved to liberalize their laws on felons' right to vote, said Catherine Weiss of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Weiss was one of those who advocated a change in Iowa's policy.
"It strengthens democracy, generally, when more people have the right to participate in the political process, and the right to vote is at the very heart of political participation," Weiss said.
She argues that allowing people convicted of crimes to vote actually helps improve public safety.
"It's because voting is part of a whole array of positive social behaviors that demonstrate ties to and commitment to a community and that whole package acts as a barrier to crime," she said.
State Rep. Deborah Berry, a Democrat from Waterloo, had tried unsuccessfully in the Legislature to change Iowa's law and is pleased Vilsack took action.
"This is a huge victory for voting rights, and as far as I'm concerned, civil rights. And the fact that he's signing it on the Fourth (of July) is symbolic," Berry said.
Berry's Black Hawk County district has a high percentage of minority residents, and the lawmaker has talked to many during her campaigns who were unable to vote because of criminal convictions.
"I think this, again, will give these people an opportunity to get back into society, you know, work toward being law-abiding citizens," Berry said.
She predicts a voter registration boost where she lives.
"We've already had a strong push in voter drives in the past, but now with this executive order, I can guarantee we'll see more people registered," she said.
LOL. In quest of a constituency they can be expected to press for illegal immigrant voting rights, too.
He did this because he has aspirations which require that he make friends in the party at the national level. I'm sure they're all impressed by his timing. The felons will get to vote in the upcoming November gubernatorial election before the legislature reconvenes in January. Meanwhile, it can't hurt him, since he's not running.
Admittedly, it's a brilliant move on his part, and it looks like the SOB may very well get the last laugh.
I think the person met the "law" was achieved by executive order and not through the State leg.
I will admit that I believe there are crimes for which the penalties should be much stiffer than they are today, up to and including a mandatory death penalty for some crimes.
I do believe, however, that if you have paid that debt you should get your rights back.
Liberals also love the dead, before their cold. Their bluing flesh for..... them to vote.
VilsacOcrap is just ensuring that his most ardent democrap supporters are ensured a vote (or two or three). I'm sure the next step is to re-enfranchise dead voters, after all, they are just dead; they haven't changed their party affilliation.
Let's do Democrat math. 58,000 felons now able to vote translates to 116,000 new votes. More in coming elections as they get the practice and the pay off method down.
What a victory for Iowa. Maybe If Joseph Duncan, the Idaho sex offender, had murdered and raped children in Iowa, the governor could use him as the example of a civil rights victory and new Democrat precinct captain.
I am afraid that you are in the minority here with your opinion. too many knee jerk "conservatives" are ready to brand all felons the same. I actually read on a thread one person said he thought that all felons should be branded on the forehead with a large letter "F".
What about my long time friend and co worker who had three DUIs when he was 20 years old and was convicted of a felony for the third one? I have known him for more than 30 years and in that time he says he hasn't touched a drop of alcohol and I have never known him to do so. Should he be allowed to vote?
In Jan. 2002 I was arrested, tried and convicted of possessing a fire arm, a felony in Illinois. I didn't brandish or threaten anyone with it, I just had it.
My first and only offense ever. I spent 36 hours in the cess pool of a county jail, 4 months on home confinement, 18 months on probation, $1500 on fines,$2500 for an atorney and now at the age of 60 years I have a felony conviction on my record.
Should I be allowed to vote?
Regardless of anyone's opinion, Illinois still allows me to vote.
And they don't even require me to be branded.
By the way, this felon has never voted for a liberal in his life.
That's OK. I'm in the minority with many of my opinions here. Not all, but many.
The two examples you brought up are two, of but many, prime examples. Felony for 2nd amendment rights and felonies for youthful stupidity.
Due process of law is fine and dandy but when it comes right down to it, due process of law is not justice.
But what about the other 44 states that allow it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.