The American Spectator : Federal Court Requires State of Washington to Allow Incarcerated Felons to Vote

Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Federal Court Requires State of Washington to Allow Incarcerated Felons to Vote

In the wake of this bizarre ruling, Congress will need to revise the Voting Rights Act.

(Page 2 of 2)

Not only may prisoners have the right to participate fully in political processes, but conversely, candidates, and proponents and opponents of ballot measures, would have the concomitant right to seek the votes, and other forms of support, of prisoners.

Sixth, the mantra during the count of the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election was "make every vote count." The right to vote is the right to make a difference. A real vote is not like the one that the Delegate of the District of Columbia has in the Congress; by law, his or her vote is ignored if it makes a difference in whether a bill is passed or rejected. Rather, a vote is like that of the Vice President who, per the Constitution, votes only in the case of a tie.

We have seen in recent elections, like the 2000 presidential one, and the 2008 Coleman v. Franken Minnesota election for U.S. Senator, how close elections can be. In the latter, it was 312 votes out of 2,887,646 votes cast (or 0.011%). One of the legal briefs in Bush v. Gore cited instances, like one involving Illinois State Representative Penny Pullen, where the votes were tied. I ask you: Is it thinkable or unthinkable for our Congress to retain language in the Voting Rights Act that would require our judges to demand that an American citizen of color in a state prison who

• bilked thousands of elderly of their life savings millions of dollars in a Ponzi scheme (a Bernie Madoff of color),

• conspired to commit voter fraud or intimidation (like the Black Panthers or ACORN),

• killed four police officers in the State of Washington, or

• committed an act of terrorism resulting in the deaths of hundreds,

would cast the deciding vote –-- in an election for sheriff, for district attorney, for judge, for governor, for president of the United States?

I also ask you: What person of honor would agree to hold office where the margin of his or her victory was less than the number of voting prisoners? (Not a good question, I suppose, since Roland Burris accepted his Senate seat from a governor charged with corruption.)

Finally this observation. In a typical Voting Rights Act case, the defendant State can resolve the issue by modifying its voting procedures and there is no other alternative. In the Ninth Circuit case, the State of Washington could go through the process of amending its Constitution to remove the ban on voting by incarcerated felons. (No one could predict how the people would vote on this, of course.) There is an alternative, however, for the State of Washington: making systemic changes to its criminal justice system. The order by the trial court would provide criteria which, when met, would allow the State to get out from under the requirement to allow incarcerated felons to vote. What racial balance would the State be required to achieve among individuals searched, arrested, convicted, and sentenced to satisfy the Voting Rights Act? Must it be approximately the same as the racial balance in the general population? Note that, even if the racial balance required were achieved tomorrow among newly convicted criminals, it could take decades before that same racial balance was achieved in the entire prison population.

Congress should end this litigation by amending the Voting Rights Act.

Page: < 12

About the Author

James M. Thunder is a Washington, D.C. attorney.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (22) | Leave a comment

Richard Baker| 2.8.10 @ 7:07AM

What's next with this loony Circuit, Death Row convicts must be allowed conjugal visits and furloughs?

Alan Brooks| 2.8.10 @ 10:39PM

But wouldn't you have wanted an incarcerated Watergate felon to vote for Ford in '76-- to try to help defeat Carter?

Osamas Pajamas| 2.11.10 @ 2:14AM

Forget Carter, that poisonous old woman who has been peeing in America's soup all his life. Better for America that all Democrats were stone, cold dead.

Ret. Marine| 2.8.10 @ 7:33AM

Hey as far as I am concerned you lost the privledge to vote the minute you committed the feloney and turned against the norms of society. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. If you want a say in the process, keep your nose clean.

JohnMD1022| 2.8.10 @ 7:39AM

The Ninth Circus strikes again.

Is it any wonder that they are the most overturned Court in history?

Melvin| 2.8.10 @ 8:04AM

Now that the Ninth has spoken it's wisdom, can it be said that convicted felons while in prison will have their 2nd Amend. rights restored?
Hmm. might not be such a bad idea, might be a solution to the prison overcrowding issue.

LoafinPJs| 2.8.10 @ 11:45AM

You are right, the same argument can be made for any constitutional right - that a justice system that causes plaintiffs of a certain race to be investigated more frequently than other races is discriminatory.

However, the other side of the argument is that we have way too many felony acts, where even drug possession as a youth can brand some one as a felon for life. Imagine if Mr. O had been nabbed when experimenting!!

martin j smith| 2.8.10 @ 8:17AM

Obama criticizes a SCotus ruling on free speech. SCOTUS justices and others think they are above it all ? I think not !!!!!! They are fair game for criticism and when appropriate: letem have it publicly. Constantly remind voters of BHO's criticism of SCOTUS decsions he made.

Galen| 2.8.10 @ 10:59AM

Does it matter if we are governed by polititions awaiting indictment and conviction or by those who've already been vetted and convicted?

jim Spence| 2.8.10 @ 12:16PM

Their right on schedule, a couple of hundred thousand convicts, a couple of hundred thousand Haiti refugees and who knows how many million illeagal aliens, the Democrats are slowly building a constituency for 2012

Paul from SA| 2.8.10 @ 3:00PM

Maybe these prisoners were kidnapped?

Paul from SA| 2.8.10 @ 3:03PM

What about prisoners' right to bear arms?

Does the 2nd Amendment allow for an exception?

Yosemeti Sam| 2.9.10 @ 5:06AM

LOL.

Before I reviewed this article, I knew it must
have been the 9th Federal circus of appeals - El Rushbos' apropos designation.

Breakers of the law - afforded privileges equal
to non-breakers of the law.

Mindless - just, mindless!

FTM| 2.9.10 @ 5:10AM

Seems to me that the president needs to dismiss and then reseat a new 9th circus court of appeals. Lincoln did this during his administration. The president apparently has this perrogitive.

What do you think that the odds of this president doing this?