voting rights – RI Future

May 2, 2014May 2, 2014

What the master lever and voter ID have in common

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

All across America, Democrats – and quite frankly courts, too – are waking up to the oppressive reality voter ID laws represent for too many minorities, the poor and the elderly. Judges in Arkansas, Wisconsin and other states have almost systematically ruled against voter ID provisions and well-respected Washington Post political scribe Chris Cilliza recently blessed the issue with this post.

The president of the United States even weighed in last month. “I am against requiring an ID that millions of Americans don’t have,” he said. “That shouldn’t suddenly prevent you from exercising your right to vote.”

Not Rhode Island, though. We the only blue state (along with Hawaii) with such a law, and we seem more content with it than some pretty red states. The Senate had its hearing (you can watch all sorts of good government groups and equal rights activists testify against it here) but the voter ID law seems pretty safe here in spite of the widespread liberal and legal opposition.

That’s not to say there isn’t the political will for state legislators to address election law this session.

The anti-master lever bill passed the House last night 70 to 0. This puts amazing pressure on the Senate to do likewise – note the activist role the Providence Journal is taking by urging readers to call legislators.

The master lever, or straight party voting, doesn’t serve democracy well and should go. Ken Block in particular deserves great praise for leading the charge against it. I’d say it’s solid evidence he can effectively use a bully pulpit to affect political change, and that’s what he says he wants to do as governor.

To that end, I kinda find myself wishing voter ID laws hurt Ken Block supporters, too. Then he may have taken me up on my offer to tackle both voting rights issues. Because just as we should ensure the ballot is as straightforward as possible, we should also ensure that everyone has access to a ballot.

Rhode Island wasn’t mentioned in the Washington Post’s list of 13 states “to watch” on voting rights despite the big push here to end straight party voting. Maybe we could gain some positive national attention on a good government issue if we did away with both the master lever AND voter ID this year?

PS – I suggested this last year too.

February 19, 2014February 20, 2014

Cranston residents suing because prison ‘residents’ dilute political power

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Today marks the announcement that Cranston residents are filing suit because their voting rights are being violated. Cranston! You might be wondering: “Where do these lawsuits come from?” It turns out, good ol’ RIFuture played a part.

About eight years ago I saw Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) founder Peter Wagner give a presentation on “Prison Based Gerrymandering” in New York State. He illustrated how taking thousands of men from, typically, New York City and sending them to live in cages Upstate shifted political power to those Upstate areas. They did this by counting the prisoners as “residents” who are then represented by politicians at the same rate as the free residents. Naturally, the politicians do not cater to the interests of the prison residents; in fact, the politicians interest is in getting more prisoners, to inflate their power. A tiny little district with a big warehouse full of cages will get the same vote in Albany as a place with twice as many people living in it.

About five years ago I did an analysis of Rhode Island, posted it on RIFuture (archive unavailable), and Peter Wagner took note. It turns out that Cranston, with its consolidated Adult Correctional Institutions, is one of the most impacted areas of the country. A small coalition formed on this esoteric elections issue, including Direct Action for Rights & Equality, PPI, ACLU, and Common Cause. Senator Harold Metts sponsored a bill to make this change, targeting the 2010 Census, but the bill was not passed before redistricting time.

“The Residence of Those in Government Custody Act,” introduced as S 2286 by Senators Metts, Crowley, Pichardo, and Jabour on February 4, 2014, and as H 7263 by Representatives Williams, Tanzi, Slater, Diaz, and Palangio, on January 30, 2014.

Now the issue has gotten down to the personal level, as residents of Cranston who don’t have the blessing of living next to the prison are challenging why they have less political power. For example, six people who live near the prison will fight for their politician’s ear for every 10 people who live on the other side of town. Multiply that out. There is a reason that districts should be of similar population size, and its about ten people’s voices being the equivalent of ten people’s voices when making large decisions. Unless those people locked up in the ACI start getting their voice in the discussion, they are being used to puff up the district.

Some states have already passed laws that eliminate this problem. Of course, if Rhode Island did so, the lawsuit would be moot.

January 30, 2012January 30, 2012

How To Confront a Candidate, or How to Drink Liberally.

It is often bemoaned that candidates only talk about certain issues, only debate the same topics, and hardly ever disagree on anything of true substance. “My economic package is better than yours.” “I’m tougher on our enemies than the other guy.” Blah, blah, blah. When we consider that Obama, Bush, and McCain all agreed on (1) the Bailout of the banks, (2) hundreds of thousands of American soldiers patrolling multiple Middle Eastern nations, (3) the Patriot Act, (4) maintaining the Drug War, (5) paying mercenary armies like Blackwater, (6) appointing industry insiders to regulatory positions, (7) accepting billions of dollars in campaign donations, and so many other things… what do they have left to disagree about?? The level of discrimination against gay people. A few percentage points on the tax bill.

So the key to getting your issue on the map is to ask the candidate in public, with voters and media in the room. Even if you are creating your own media, the key is to get them “on the record.” Wait in line for the microphone and ask away. Obviously this is easier to do in a local race than a big national one, but those interactions are going to have more impact anyway. People need to see that the president is, in many ways, inconsequential because there is little difference between candidates.

Go look in the mirror and practice how to load up a question. Here, try these on for size:

“With prison spending exceeding education spending, and legal discrimination against 200,000 people in our state due to their felony record, where they are barred from employment, where computers are deleting applications that reflect a felony record, where public housing is denying the reunification of families… do you think we should continue to use prisons as a solution for mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse? Or do you think we should find an alternative?”

Check out the tactic of leading in with some facts. Frame the question. Make it so they must agree… in public at least.

“Considering that education is the oldest form of self-empowerment and the only known pathway for stability, not only for an individual but for a community, do you think prisoners and former prisoners should be allowed to get an education?”

Follow-up: “And what do you say to the person who feels that a former prisoner’s education is taking a classroom seat away from someone who was not in prison, and more deserving?”

Who can be against education?

“In a society where defense attorneys are sometimes earning millions of dollars each year defending drug clients, do you find any conflict of interest for a legislator, who has ties to the defense attorneys through their own firm or their close associates, to make laws that create more clients?”

“With all the failed results from rehabilitation and re-entry programs designed without the input of those who have direct experience, do you think it is time to listen to former prisoners (those who are truly the primary stakeholder in rehabilitation) about what works and doesn’t work… or should we keep giving money to so-called experts and the politically connected entities?“

“Do you think people released from prison should be encouraged to get more involved in their community by voting, holding jobs, and raising their children… or should they be pushed into the shadows of an underclass where drugs and violence are essential for survival?”

Here’s one I have for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is coming to do a talk on voting at my law school. Let’s see if he selects it, and answers….

“In Louisiana there are 66,000 people on probation and parole who cannot vote, and over 10% of New Orleans is barred from voting. Considering as Felony Disenfranchisement laws have a disparate impact on People of Color, do you believe theJustice Department should consider enforcing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in states, such as Louisiana, that are covered under Section 5 of the Act?”

Film it, post it, share it. Let the follow-ups begin, and let the candidates show their knowledge, intelligence, leadership, and compassion for all their constituents shine… or not.

What question would YOU ask?

January 16, 2012

Santorum and Romney Square Off On Felon Disenfranchisement

Rick Santorum asked Mitt Romney point blank: “Do you believe people who were felons, who served their time, who exhausted their parole and probation, should be given the right to vote?” This was in response to an ad by Romney’s “Super-PAC” attacking the former Pennsylvania senator.

The ad says Mr. Santorum voted to “let convicted felons vote” — something the senator says is “explicitly false” because it implies, though it never says, that he wanted felons to be able to vote from jail. The vote Mr. Santorum cast, Senate vote No. 31 in 2002, would have overridden state laws when it comes to federal elections. It would have required them to let felons register to vote once they have completed their prison sentences and any probation or parole.

Romney, at first, beat around the bush. “I don’t believe people who have committee violent crimes should be given their right to vote.”

Santorum retorted that, while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the law allowed people on probation and parole (including those who committed violent crimes) could in fact vote. And Romney did nothing to fight it.

In fact, until 2000, prisoners in Massachusetts could vote– just as they currently can in Maine and Vermont.

The problem here is about creating and underclass in America, a caste of Americans with no stake in the democracy. A group, millions strong, who are told to pay taxes, abide by the laws, yet have no representation. How can a democracy survive with parents barred from the ballot box? How can such a large group, with further discrimination in employment and housing, be expected to abide by the law? Most of them will, and most do, but this is a credit to people’s basic human instinct to live in peace and harmony. It is not due to political leadership.

Was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts somehow saved when prisoners were barred from participation? Was the state of Rhode Island somehow dismantled when people on probation and parole were granted their voting rights in 2006? I was part of the latter ballot campaign, going so far as drafting the final constitutional amendment… just one year removed from prison, for a violent crime. It is ironic that I move to Louisiana for law school and legally lose my right to vote. It should come as no surprise that I felt much more connected to the democracy, to my responsibilities as a citizen, in the state where I could vote.