National: Media Spotlight on the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009
A Project Vote blog posting notes the media attention and editorial support for the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009. Highlighting passages from national media outlets including The New York Times, the Patriot News in Pennsylvania, and the Detroit Free Press, the blog stated, "whether the message will affect the change needed to enfranchise the millions of Americans who currently cannot represent their communities in the democratic process, it is encouraging to find more citizens recognize the value in voting rights restoration and its impact on rehabilitation."
Responding to a New York Times editorial calling felon disenfranchisement "bad prison policy," Adam Fogel, Right to Vote Director of FairVote, stated in a letter to the editor that the "lack of uniformity in election administration cannot help but lead to fundamental inequalities in our democracy." The Times' editorial noted that California, New York and, most recently, Massachusetts have upheld voting rights bans for individuals with felony convictions. Fogel further suggested that Congress set national standards for all elections. The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 would grant individuals with felony convictions voting rights in federal elections only.
Massachusetts: Court Denies Voting Rights Act Challenge to Felony Disenfranchisement
In Simmons v. Galvin, a First Circuit panel ruled the persons currently incarcerated in Massachusetts' prisons cannot challenge the loss of their voting rights under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Ex Post Facto clause. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act states, "no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State ... in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right ... to vote on account of race or color." According to Ballot Access, plaintiffs wanted to present evidence that Massachusetts' felon disenfranchisement law has a disproportionally adverse effect on African Americans and Hispanic Americans, who are overrepresented in the prison population.
The two-judge majority rejected the arguments and determined that Congress never intended for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be used for this purpose. The dissenting judge, Juan Torruella, said the section's language is clear and unambiguous, and therefore speculation about what Congress intended is irrelevant. Advocates say his dissent was similar to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's opinion in Hayden v. Pataki. Some believe that the case might end up before the Supreme Court, presenting Justice Sotomayor another opportunity to consider an issue with which she is familiar. Click here to read the decision.
- - - - - -
Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today.
Contact Information -- e-mail:
zhughes@sentencingproject.org , web:
http://www.sentencingproject.org .
