Disenfranchisement News: Registered to Vote Before or After Conviction?

In this issue

·         Tennessee: Registered to Vote Before or After Conviction? » GO

·         National: College Press Takes Stance on Disenfranchisement » GO

·         Virginia: Is the Governor's Restoration Power a Conflict of Interest? » GO

 

Contact Us

April 8, 2010

Disenfranchisement News

TENNESSEE

Registered to Vote Before or After Conviction?

An investigation has been opened by a District Attorney to learn whether eight individuals registered to vote after they were convicted, according to the Marshall County Tribune. If residents have not had their citizenship rights restored by a chancellor or a circuit court judge, they are banned from voting, according to State Elections Coordinator Mark Goins.

The Department of State's Office of the Elections Coordinator asked the Department of Corrections to compare its list of prisoners with the list of registered voters. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating whether or not any of the eight people, in fact, registered after a conviction or prior to being sentenced.

"If one of those people was registered to vote before their conviction, then they haven't violated the law because the conviction came after the registration," Goins said.

NATIONAL

College Press Takes Stance on Disenfranchisement

Howard University's student publication, The Hilltop, published an editorial in support of voting rights for individuals who have felony offenses on their records. The Hilltop's position is that the offenses individuals are charged with "shouldn't have anything to do with the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution."

The editorial continues: "They are people and, more importantly in this case, American citizens, ergo their fundamental right to vote should be immediately restored upon the completion of their sentences."

VIRGINIA

Is the Governor's Restoration Power a Conflict of Interest?

In the News & Messenger, columnist Davon Gray poses several questions to readers regarding whether or not individuals should regain voting rights after they have completed their sentence. Though Gray doesn't support automatic restoration to all individuals, he does state that a different system than the one presently used in Virginia should be in place for rights restoration. "Personally I like the idea of the right to vote being restored on a case by case basis. What I don't like is the idea of a governor having sole ability to restore that right," he writes.

Gray goes on to say that rights restoration by a governor could pose a conflict of interest.  He writes that some cases should not warrant loss of voting rights upon completion of sentence.

"If someone steals a dog, should they face a lifetime ban on voting? … I would hate to see someone who has done their punishment for this trying to convince a governor they should have the right to vote back," he writes. "In this hypersensitive 24-hour news cycle we live in, watch groups are just waiting to exploit a politician for being soft on crime if he or she would give a convicted dog thief back the right to vote. The headlines wouldn't say 'Governor Restores Right to Vote for Dog Thief.'  It would be 'Governor Sides with Felon."

Back to top ^