Felons' voting rights back on agenda

Felons' voting rights back on agenda
By Markeshia Ricks • March 2, 2009

Two bills currently in the state Legislature could clear up the decades-old debate about whether felons should be allowed to vote, but advocates for felons' voting rights say the bills would be worse than the existing law.

The Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, founder of The Ordinary People Society, which is based in
Dothan, said the bills would roll back gains made under the current law that gives felons who haven't committed crimes of "moral turpitude" a chance to vote. Last year Glasgow, with the backing of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, sued the state Department of Corrections so he could provide voter registration information to incarcerated people who were eligible to vote.

"Until 2003 when Dr. Yvonne Kennedy brought up the restoration bill no one ever wanted to pay this issue any attention," said Glasgow, a felon who had his voting rights restored in 2004. "For 105 years it wasn't even noted, quoted or talked about and now that we have a president who wants to bring about equality and change some people in the Alabama Legislature want to set us back in time."

"It appalls me now that at this particular time in history, after we have crossed so many barriers that anyone would want to put up anything that would cause another human being to have rights taken away."

The House Constitution and Election Committee advanced a bill during the second week of the session that would define moral turpitude and which crimes involve it.

The proposed bill would increase the number of crimes that involve moral turpitude from about 15 to more than 70 and revoke the voting rights of people who commit those crimes. The same committee also will decide the fate of a bill on Attorney General Troy King's agenda that would go even further than the moral turpitude bill, revoking the voting rights of anyone who commits a felony.

State Rep. Randy Wood, R-Anniston, the House sponsor for the King bill, said it would eliminate much of the confusion over moral turpitude by returning things to the way
they were before the state Legislature changed the law in 2003. Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, is the Senate sponsor of the bill.

Wood said felons who would lose their right to vote under the King bill would truly show that they are interested in being a part of society by applying to the state Pardons and Parole Board to have their rights restored.

"I'm not saying I don't want people to have the right to vote, but losing the right to vote is part of the punishment," he said. "This way, if you serve your time and paid your debts to society, you can apply to have your voting rights restored and go vote."

Though both bills would make the question of who loses their voting rights clearer, the bills could make it more difficult for felons to vote than it is for them under existing law.
The bills likely will face stiff opposition from members of the Black Caucus and others.
State Rep. Yvonne Kennedy, D-Mobile, sponsored the legislation that made it easier for certain felons to get their voting rights back. She said she would adamantly oppose any bill that would roll back the rights that the existing law now provides.

"I think the legislation that we worked on to give ex-felons the right to vote should stand," she said.

Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, was the Senate sponsor of the 2003 Kennedy bill and said he was unaware of legislation introduced this session that would change the law. He said he is drafting a bill that would do exactly the opposite of the King bill by giving felons who have completed their sentences automatic voter restoration.

He said he would be more inclined to support the bill that would define crimes of moral turpitude and a bill in the Senate that would specify that a felon only had to pay restitution associated with the disenfranchising crime to be eligible to have his or her rights restored. Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, is sponsoring the Senate versions of both of the bills Singleton mentioned.

"I haven't seen the bill so I can't offer a lot of comment, but based on what I've heard about the attorney general's bill I can't say that I would support it," he said. "But I'd be glad to get to the table with him and work on a compromise."

Though historians have claimed that the moral turpitude clause was used to disenfranchise poor whites and blacks in the 1901 Constitution, Glasgow is an advocate of the 21st century interpretations that do not revoke the voting rights of many felons and provides an avenue of restoration for others.

Glasgow said civic participation is a part of rehabilitation and if the state wants to reduce recidivism and overcrowding in prisons, it could start by allowing felons to vote. A bill that treats all felons equally by taking voting rights away is a step in the wrong direction, he added.

"Once they have their rights as a citizen they can start acting like a citizen," Glasgow said. "If the state would adhere to giving people their rights back, they would become productive citizens."