Iowa's voting laws made news last week when the Des Moines Register reminded us of who cannot vote here. Iowa has become one of the most difficult places to vote for felons.
It's not clear to me why everyone who is 18 years old cannot vote, criminal record, even presence in jail notwithstanding. Is this a democracy or not?
Now the Iowa Justice Reform Coalition is asking for your help. They are soliciting letters to the editor on the subject of felon disenfranchisement. Since Iowa's last step forward on this front happened on July 4,2005, now is a good time for those letters:
Iowa’s Horrible Turnaround on Ex-felon Voting Rights
We became complacent. During the years prior to Terry Branstad’s move back into the Iowa Governor’s Office, we should have been making permanent changes to Iowa’s law on the restoration of ex-felon voting rights. We didn’t.
When Governor Tom Vilsack issued Executive Order No. 42 on July 4, 2005, ex-offenders in Iowa were given the right to vote and hold office, providing they had completed their court-imposed sentences. Governor Chet Culver continued the process. Then, overnight, Governor Terry Edward Branstad turned the process over completely.
A recent Associated Press article reports that Governor “Branstad has made Iowa one of the most difficult states in the nation for felons to vote, with an executive order he issued last year already having disenfranchised thousands of people.” http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20120624/NEWS/306240062/Few-Iowa-felons-pursue-voting-rights
A University of Pennsylvania white paper matches “discharge records to the Iowa voter file,” and found that “ex-felon turnout substantially increased following Executive Order 42.” One figure estimates this increase to be as much as “four to eight percentage points.” http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/IowaFelons.pdf
So if ex-offenders are turning out to vote in substantial numbers, why is Governor Branstad making it more difficult for them to vote? Didn’t he and a tsunami of Republicans take office with the help of those votes from ex-offenders? There is no scientific connection, but it makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
The 7th anniversary of Governor Vilsack’s executive order is this upcoming Independence Day, July 4 (Wednesday). We’re asking you to write a letter-to-the editor of your local newspaper and describe the problems you see with disenfranchisement of ex-felons.
It always helps to see where a pattern exists. Recent calls to stop student voting in some states, to end same-day voter registration in some states, to demand photo ID cards in some states, and to repeal parts of the federal Voting Rights Act are all part of this pattern of disenfranchisement. Eternal vigilance is the price of voting rights. If you have a story to tell about disenfranchisement, find a way to tell it now.
If you need to address this matter for a particular disenfranchised voter, you can start with this ACLU flier on the nuts and bolts and paperwork required.
3 Comments
last week's AP story by Ryan Foley
was eye-opening. Of approximately 8,000 felons who have completed prison terms or probation since Branstad signed his executive order the day of his inauguration, Foley reported that fewer than a dozen have gotten their voting rights back.
Voting is a fundamental civil right. It should not be permanently revoked for, say, stealing a pop machine as a teenager 25 years ago.
I saw over the weekend that Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz marched in a parade with a banner encouraging people to vote as an expression of patriotic duty. Yet as a newly-elected state official in January 2011, Schultz encouraged the governor to force offenders to apply before having their voting rights restored. In an open letter to Branstad, Schultz said doing so would “send a message to Iowa’s voters that their voting privilege is sacred.” I wonder whether he had in mind a process that allowed only one-tenth of one percent of ex-felons to get their voting rights back.
desmoinesdem Mon 2 Jul 7:12 AM
also worth noting
that the governor has full confidence in Jeff Lamberti, his appointee to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission who just pleaded guilty to drunk driving. If someone like Lamberti can continue to serve on an important state commission, and two-time drunk driver Kim Reynolds is trustworthy enough to be next in line for the governor’s job, why shouldn’t felons who have completed their terms at least regain the right to vote?
desmoinesdem Mon 2 Jul 8:45 AM
agree in part
with retiring Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Gene Fraise:
It’s obvious where the governor is coming from. Creating a lengthy and difficult process for getting your voting rights back reduces the number of eligible voters by thousands every election cycle.
desmoinesdem Wed 4 Jul 4:59 PM