Tag: voting rights

One easy trick to help our electoral process

The Nebraska unicameral passed LB75 this week. This was a priority bill from State Senator Justin Wayne. This bill would eliminate the 2 year waiting period for felons in Nebraska to be able to vote in Nebraska. Prior to 2005, felons were required to apply for a pardon from the State of Nebraska Board of Pardons. Based on the report for the Vote Nebraska Initiative Report, they found that “[the] process can be so lengthy and overwhelming, that many ex-offenders do not apply for a pardon.” At the time of the report, they estimated that 9,427 Nebraskans were disenfranchised based on their felony convictions. According to a 2003 study, 13% of the Latino population was ineligible to vote due to disenfranchisement. In a 1998 study from Demos, they found that 10.2% of African American men in Nebraska were disenfranchised. Seantor DiAnna Schimek introduced LB 53 in 2005 to restore the rights of felons to be able to vote.

The bill was passed with a supermajority able to withstand a gubeneratorial veto. However, despite not having a single witness in opposition to the bill in testimony, there was a compromise made to get out of committee. The compromise would only restore a felon’s right to vote after a two year waiting period. Despite it being a decade after this bill was signed into law the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nebraska found that only half of the counties in Nebraska were able to provide the correct information that a former felon could register to vote after two years.  Since the ACLU’s report came out in 2016,  the Nebraska Secretary of State has included a FAQ that includes the language that you can register to vote if it has been two years or more.

The ACLU ultimately concludes in their report that the simplest way to make sure these ex-felons can vote is to automatically reinstate the right to vote at the conclusion of the sentence. They argue that the rules of reinstating after 2 years serves as de facto disenfranchisement if not all the counties know the actual rules.

Why it matters

But why do we care if ex-felons get their civil rights restored? Throughout the country, more than 6 million Americans are unable to vote because of a felony conviction, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Going further, the Brennan Center for Justice notes that one in every 13 voting-age African Americans have lost their right to vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued in a 2002 Senate Debate that “states have a significant interest in reserving the vote for those who have abided by the social contract that forms the foundation of representative democracy…those who break our laws should not dilute the votes of law-abiding citizens.” This argument is premised on the idea that voting is a privilege rather than a right. There are a number of people who advance this argument who really believe that voting should be only held by a select few. This is undermined by civil rights, women’s suffrage, etc. that have been fought for the last 140 years. Not to mention, the Constitution has generally expanded the right to vote since the Constitution was adopted. The authors of various amendments have done quite a bit of work to expand the right to vote and to take down previous impediments to vote. There are 4 Amendments added to the Constitution that expanded the right to votes, covering the race, gender, and age while also prohibiting poll taxes.

The goal of these Amendments have been to greatly expand who can vote in elections and to give protection for those people. There is not an affirmative right in the Constitution to vote; however, the right to vote is mentioned multiple times in the Constitution as one can see if he looks at the text of the amendments. The idea of voting as a privilege is simply incompatible with our Constitution.

One of the equalizing and underlying principles of our society is the idea of “one person, one vote.” Regardless of how much money you may have or your status in society, your vote is just as equal as any other person’s vote. Denying franchise to ex-felons undermines this principle.  As the Brennan Center for Justice writes “a strong, vibrant democracy requires the broadest possible base of voter participation, across all sectors of society.”

When prisoners leave prison, we are hopeful that they will reintegrate themselves into society. We ask them to clean up their lives, to find a job, to work to become productive citizens. We have long held, in our country, that we are a country of second chances for those willing to change. Christy Visher and Jeremy Travis found that the identity of a responsible citizen is important to proper rehabilitation into an ex-prisoner’s new life.  The Brennan Center for Justice noted that ex-prisoners viewed themselves as not full citizens until they had their rights to vote had been given back to them.

Revoking the right to vote from felons has a ripple effect on urban and minority communities. Many children learn their civic engagement from their parents. The parents might take their children to vote or watch political news together. Going further, parents can provide information such as how to register to vote, how easy it is to vote, and where to vote. According to Eric Plutzer in Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood, “the parent’s political participation had the greatest effect on the child’s initial decision to vote.” Plutzer goes forward to argue that voters and non-voters develop habits that help determine whether or not they will vote based on habits.  By preventing ex-felons from being able to vote, we are robbing future generations from being able to form good civic habits and to develop “inertia” to vote in future elections. This lack of inertia hurts families and communities alike. As young voters are unlikely to form the habits to vote, the community loses political power and their voice in the political process.

Beyond that, with the loss of political voice and power, the impact of ex-felons losing their right to vote can be seen on who will run for office. One of the biggest factors in someone running for office, is the belief that she can win an election. In a 2013 article, Luke Keele, Paru Shah, Ismail White, and Kristine Kay note that “serious black candidates do not enter races where they expect to lose.” They study whether or not the race of a candidate impacts the turnout rate. In their research of who will run as a candidate, they write “black candidates for mayor might not only attempt to run in places with large African American populations, but might also choose to run in places with above average turnout in that black population.” The disenfranchisement of ex-felons disproportionately affect the black population and as a result may prevent strong black candidates from running for office. Not only may it prevent some black candidates from running, it may be an impact on whoever does run. People bemoan the idea of bad candidates running for office but one of the many ways that we can push back and have better candidates is to give back the right to vote for ex-felons.

The path forward

LB75 has passed the Nebraska Unicameral with a vote of 27-13. Governor Pete Ricketts has announced that he will not sign the bill into law. If he does not veto the bill within 5 days, the bill will have the same effect as if he does sign the bill. If the bill is vetoed, there are three state senators who will need to vote to override the veto, assuming nobody defects. This may be problematic as Governor Ricketts has handpicked challengers to those who have voted to override his vetoes in the past. According to Nebraskans for Civic Reform, there are 7,069 Nebraskans who have completed their sentences and are disenfranchised who will receive their civil rights back if the bill becomes law. If you have not done so already, I urge you to contact your Unicameral representative to ask for their support.

Nebraska is certainly not the most onerous of the stats out there to prevent ex-felons from voting.  Governor Terry McAuliffe has restored the rights of thousands of ex-felons in Virginia.  The biggest offender of this type of law seems to be in Florida, where 1 in 5 African Americans are disenfranchised. 1.6 million Floridians are denied their rights. This is the highest rate in the country. Floridians are collecting signatures to put this issue on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky signed an executive order giving the right to vote back to thousands of ex-felons. Matt Bevin signed an executive order one month later reversing this decision. Notably Republican Senator Rand Paul does support restoring of the rights of ex-felons. The Democracy Restoration Act was introduced in 2016 by Rep. John Conyers do do this on a federal level.  I have not seen it introduced in this session of Congress and will update as soon as I do. If you are interested in this issue, I do urge you to contact your representative to support similar bills going forward.

 

 

 

 

Legislative Priorities: Voting Rights

 

Legislative goals:

  1. States that require voter registration should make same-day voter registration available at the polling place on the day of the election
  2. Allow the use of a single absentee ballot application for subsequent elections
  3. Prohibit election officials for requiring identification that has a cost as a condition to vote or register to vote
  4. Require states to automatically register individuals registering with DMV’s for driver’s license.  Require states to follow pre-registration for individuals who are 16 to ensure that they are registered to vote by the time that they are 18.
  5. Change election day to  Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for the first Friday after the first Monday in November on even number years, as well as every fourth year for presidential elections.  Election day Friday should be declared a federal holiday.
  6. Create a new determination for preclearance by the Department of Justice for any changes made to voting laws and regulations.  This new determination will be for states if there there were at least 5 voting rights violations in the last 25 years and 3 voting rights violations during the previous 15 years, if at least one of the violations were committed by the state itself.  The preclearance requirement for districts and states would also be triggered if it was determined that less than 50% of those who are of voting age are registered to vote on November 8, 2016.
  7.  Restores the right to vote for non-violent felons provided that they are not in a correctional facility at the time of the election.  For those on probation, the right to vote will be restored at the end of their probation.  This will also apply retroactively.  Those affected will be automatically registered to vote and will be notified that their voting rights are restored and that they are registered to vote.
  8. Redistricting after a census can only take place once after each census and can only be done by an independent district commission.

Information for legislative goals:

Our goal is to try to make voting even easier than it currently is.  The hope is that when people do not have as many roadblocks in their way, it will increase voter turnout and provide a more representative electorate.  I’m not naive enough to believe that a more representative electorate will elect politicians that share my views.  I do believe that having a more representative electorate is a worthy goal in and of itself.

In the 1980 book, Who Votes?, the authors concluded that the voter registration date was the single largest impact on voter turnout.  They recommended a move to same-day voting registration.  Same-day voting registration allows voters who are not registered to vote to go to their polling place and fill out the voter registration form and then be able to vote.  The authors predicted that if same-day voting registration was enacted in all 50 states, voting turnout would be 9% higher.  This prediction held on rather nicely.  In a study titled “Election Day Registration’s Effect on U.S. Voter Turnout” the authors Craig Leonard Brians and Bernard Grofman project based on their studies that moving to same-day registration would product about a 7 percentage point boost in the average state.  Laura Rokoff and Emma Stokking looked at the effect of same-day registration in “Small Investments, High Yields: A Cost Study of Same Day Registration in Iowa and North Carolina” for Demos and write that average turnout in states with same day registration are 10-12 percentage points higher than states without same day registration.  In 2008, same-day registration states led the nation in turnout by 7 percentage points and by nearly 6 percentage points in the 2010 elections, they write.  Brians and Grofman conclude that it may be a higher turnout boost in states with higher urban populations.  By looking at past elections, they found that those in the low and high portion of the socioeconomic spectrum have a 3% boost by moving from voting registration from 30 days out to same day registration.  The middle socioeconomic status which has more people in it had a 5% increase when moved from a 30 day deadline to same day registration.

The biggest stumbling block for this policy is the idea that same day registration would advantage one political party.  While intuitively it would make sense that voters taking advantage of same-day registration would tend to be Democratic voters, they did not find any significant evidence that same-day registration would help one way or the other for either major political party.  The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Jacob Neiheisel and Barry Burdern found that there was a slight increase for Republican voters with the same-day registration rules. The other stumbling block that I can think of is that it is cost prohibitive.  Rokoff and Stokking looked at North Carolina and Iowa in their paper.  In 2008, over 250,000 citizens used same day registration in 2008 and 45,000 used it in Iowa in 2008.  Rokoff and Stokking found that the majority of counties in Iowa reported little to no additional costs.  The costs that they discovered were primarily due to printing and mailing the forms.  North Carolina, likewise, did not see that much of an increase in spending but did need additional staffing at smaller counties.

Voter ID is a very common response called on for trying to fix our electoral woes.  On the one hand, conservatives and Republicans argue that voter ID is necessary to ensure that the electoral system is not abused by fraud.  On the other hand, liberals and Democrats claim that voter ID unfairly target minority voters and the poor.  In an investigation of over 1 billion votes cast, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levett found only 31 credible incidents of voter impersonation.  In a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) where they reviewed 10 studies regarding voter ID, they found that 5 studies showed that there was not a statistically significant effect on voter turnout.  In 1 study, there was an increase in voter turnout nationwide of 1.8 percentage points.  The 4 other studies showed voter turnout decreased by 1.5-3.9 percentage points. More than half of the population of the United States now lives in states that require ID’s to vote, as 34 states have passed some type of voter ID law.  The strictest voter ID laws have been passed since 2008.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called the laws “purposely discriminatory.”

It’s fairly difficult to pin down the exact percentage of the population does or does not have proper identification to be able to vote.  The Washington Post reports that there’s an estimated 1-11% of registered voters who do not have valid photo identification.  The GAO looked at various studies to help determine this information.  In a 2012 study that they looked at, 86% of all registered voters had a driver’s license, state id card, or gun permit.  Yes, a gun permit is a valid ID for voting purposes in Texas.  89% of registered whites had valid voting ID.  This compared to 83% of Hispanic registered voters and 79% of African-American registered voters.  Comparatively, a similar study showed that 84% of all registered voters had valid photo ID in Indiana.  In a nationwide study in 2013, they found that 84% of white registered voters had a valid driver’s license.  This compares to 73% of registered Hispanic voters and just 63% of registered black voters.  That seems like a problem as Zoltan Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi, and Lindsay Nielson present in a working paper from the University of California-San Diego note that there is clear evidence that they “tend to emerge in states with larger black populations.”  If we couple that with the fact that minorities are disproportionately asked for identification by poll workers, we can see the problem for voter id’s.

The studies show that there is not a statistically significant effect on voter turnout, overall.  However, as Nate Silver points out that is giving deference to the null hypothesis.  Or to paraphrase former President Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of statistical significance is.  In the working paper by Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson they tried to identify the impact on voter id compared to states without strict voter id laws.  What they found is fairly striking.  In general elections, they found that Latino turnout was 10.3 points lower in states with photo ID than in states without strict photo ID regulations. For multi-racial Americans, turnout was 12.8 points lower under strict photo ID laws. For blacks, the turnout was 4.8 points lower in general elections with states with stricter voter id laws.  Multi-racial Americans voted at almost the exact same predicted rate as whites in non-photo ID states but were 9.2% less likely than whites to participate in general elections in photo ID states.  The GAO’s study looked at turnout in Kansas and Tennessee compared to a list of other states that did not implement voter id laws.  Turnout declined by 1.9-2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2-3.2 percentage more in Tennessee.  Nate Silver noted in that FiveThirtyEight piece that photo id decreased turnout by about 2% as a share of the registered voting population.

Possibly a bigger effect on voter turnout would be the restoration of voting rights who have completed their sentence and probation.  According to The Sentencing Project, 2.5% of the total US voting age population is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction.  Taking away voting rights from those who are felons effects African-Americans disproportionately.  1 out of every 13 African-Americans of voting age is disenfranchised.  In some states including Florida and Kentucky, more than 205 of African-Americans are disenfranchised.  In a study of felon voting patterns, the authors found that on average about 30% of felons and ex-felons would vote, if given the chance.  Not surprisingly, based on the racial disparities of this laws, the vast majority (about 3 our of 4) would vote for the Democratic nominee for President.

Taking away the right to vote of a criminal has a long tradition going back to ancient Greece and Rome.  However, I don’t believe it does anything in our modern society.  The Brennan Center for Justice argues in numerous amicus briefs that “permitting individuals the right to vote upon release from prison substantially promotes” reintegration mechanisms.  In their amicus brief for Griffin v. Pate LVW, they argue that continued disenfranchisement “undermines the process of reintegration by treating individuals who have served prison sentences as second-class citizens.”  In McLaughlin v. City of Canton, the court argued:

Disenfranchisement is the harshest civil sanction imposed by a democratic society.  When brought beneath its axe, the disenfranchised is severed from the body politic and condemned to the lowest form of citizenship, where voiceless at the ballot box…[he] must idly by while others elect his civic leaders…choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family.

As we see with voting and most political issues, how you choose to vote is generally based on discussions that you have with your family or with other members of your community.  Giving felons the right to vote gives them an additional way of conversing with their neighbor to be able to help reintegrate into society.  Further, voting is an acquired trait.  In their amicus brief, the Brennan Center argues “taking one’s children to vote…is seen as a simple and effective way to demonstrate to them the function and importance of American democracy.”  They argue that this is a ripple effect.  If one person is disenfranchised, they will not take their children to vote and an entire family can become discouraged.  If the family is discouraged, they may not show up to vote.  Their voices are weakened and not heard.  It continues on until an entire community is weakened from their voices not being heard.

Changing the registration date deadline, not requiring ID to vote, and restoring felon’s voting rights would have the biggest impacts on voter turnout.  Our goal for a democracy is to have as many people turn out to vote to allow their voices to be heard.  We believe that out democracy and our communities are strengthened when there are more voices heard.  Much like the Brennan Center for Justice argues, is a ripple effect.  We will have more people interested in strengthening their communities.  These three ideas are relatively simple to implement and should be implemented as soon as possible on a national level to maximize turnout.