As James Bailey, a Virginia Beach voting rights activist, knocked on door after door this summer trying to register new voters, he kept hitting the same roadblock.
Many of the potential voters he encountered were ineligible because they are felons - an automatic disqualification in Virginia.
So Bailey expanded the scope of his activism. His Missing Voter Project shifted gears and began helping felons get their voting rights restored.
With that, he joined a host of civil rights groups and advocacy organizations across Virginia and the nation working to get as many felons as possible to the polls in November. Thousands have been restored to Virginia's voting rolls in the past few years - enough to make a difference in a close election.
Since African Americans are disproportionately represented in the felon population, the campaign would seem likely to benefit Sen. Barack Obama, the first African American presidential nominee. Polls have found support for Obama among African Americans exceeding 90 percent.
Obama's historic candidacy has helped fuel the effort to restore voting rights for felons, Bailey said. "I believe the Obama campaign has motivated folks to believe that their voices should count," he said.
But for many felons, it's about more than Obama. It's also about regaining the most basic right of citizenship.
Darrell Allen, 38, moved back to Norfolk last year after living - and voting - in Pennsylvania for several years. He had assumed that voting in Virginia would just be a matter of transferring his registration.
No such luck. He's disqualified because he spent two years in prison for cocaine possession in the early 1990s.
"I work every day, I pay taxes, I do everything the law tells me to do," he said. "Why can't I vote?"
Allen was among some 75 felons who attended a seminar held by Bailey's group and several other organizations last month at Norfolk State University on how to have their rights restored.
Allen, an African American, has been inspired by the Obama campaign. He attended an Obama rally in Pennsylvania shortly after the Illinois senator declared his candidacy in early 2007.
His interest in voting extends far beyond this election.
"This is my God-given right," said Allen, a cabinetmaker and father of five. "I want to be able to have a say in what's going on with my tax money and my kids' schools."
Regaining that right isn't easy. Virginia is one of only two states - Kentucky is the other - where all felons lose their voting rights for life unless they are restored by petitioning the governor. The prohibition is written into the state constitution.
Nonviolent felons must wait three years after completing their sentences and submit a one-page notarized application to the governor. For felons who are violent or convicted for drug distribution, the waiting period is five years and the application is three pages, plus three letters of reference and various supporting documents.
It can take as long as six months for an application to be processed and approved, according to a state Web site.
The process used to be more complicated. Democrat Mark Warner, who served as governor from 2002 to 2006, streamlined the paperwork and restored voting rights to 3,500 felons, more than the previous five governors combined.
His successor, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, also a Democrat, has restored rights to more than 2,500 felons so far - 40 percent more than had regained their rights at the same point in the Warner administration.
Still, Warner and Kaine together have restored rights to only about 2 percent of the estimated 300,000 former felons in Virginia. The number has ballooned in tandem with the exploding prison population over the past 25 years.
According to The American Civil Liberties Union, an estimated one in four African American men in Virginia cannot vote because of felony convictions.
That is no accident, proponents of voting rights for felons say. They liken felony disfranchisement laws to other now-discredited bars to voting - such as poll taxes and literacy tests - that, while nominally race-neutral, have had the practical effect of keeping African Americans off voter rolls.
"This is the last formal vestige of Jim Crow," said Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU. "This is a civil rights issue."
With the registration books closing today for the November election, activists are turning their attention to a longer-term goal: amending the state constitution.
For years, state Sen. Yvonne Miller, D-Norfolk, has sponsored constitutional amendments that would allow the General Assembly to enact a blanket restoration of voting rights to nonviolent felons once they complete their sentences. The measure typically passes the Senate only to be killed in the House of Delegates.
Miller plans to reintroduce the measure in January and is cautiously hopeful about its chances.
"It seems that there's some momentum building," she said. "There's some embarrassment on behalf of some legislators that we have taken away the constitutional rights of such a large number of people."
Miller will be joined by Del. Frank Hall, D-Richmond, who plans to introduce an identical measure in the House.
"We think the time is right," Hall said. "There is an enormous number of citizens in this commonwealth who've made a mistake and who have paid the price, met all of the conditions set forth in their sentence, and now would like to return to exercising their civil rights and being productive citizens in our communities."
To become law, a constitutional amendment must be passed twice by the legislature and approved by the voters in a referendum.
If it succeeds, there is little doubt that the measure would primarily benefit Democrats.
Research collected by Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University, suggests that about 70 percent of felons would vote Democratic.
Overton has theorized that several Republican officeholders would have lost close elections in recent years - including President Bush in 2000 and Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell in 2005 - if former felons had been allowed to vote and went to the polls.
Miller's proposed constitutional amendment typically has died in a House committee on a straight party line vote: Democrats in favor, Republicans in opposition. Republicans have controlled the House since 2000.
Del. Chris Jones of Suffolk is one of the Republicans who has consistently opposed the measure. In an interview, he discounted any racial intent behind the existing law.
"I think you forfeit certain rights when you commit certain crimes, and it has no bearing on the ethnicity, creed or color of anyone's skin," he said. "It has to do with the act that was committed."
Bill Sizemore, (757) 446-2276, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
i guess the reason i decided
i guess the reason i decided to even make a comment is that voting rights and the right to bear arms seem so significantly different to me.
what does one have to do with the other, really? to be able to have a say in who is going to run the country,how our hard earned tax ollars are going to go for education bills instead of transportation bills...i think that would be he most important. i'm just a high school drop out mother of three, but it just seems so much more important than having a gun.
i was raised in a house
i was raised in a house where voting was mandatory.it was so very important...i have been on my own since i was seventeen, working, paying the rent, bills...a couple of years ago i got into some trouble with my daughters' father,was convicted of a felony...lets just say i made some really bad choices. now i have paid my debt to society, so to speak. i was on probation for a long time. the day i was allowed to petition the governor of virginia to get my voting rights back felt like the first day of my freedom.you have no idea what it means to have your rights taken away from you until it has happened to you. unfortunately, i didnt get to petition in time, i will get my voting rights back, but not before super tuesday. i really wanted to cast that ballot. but i guess in a way i am still paying for it all still.
No Red Herring-or a response from Noon
So tell me noon, why is the restoration of the right to own a firearm a red herring? You claim that a felons voting right should be restored automatically upon release, so why shouldn't his right to own a firearm be restored, too? By denying his right to own a gun because he committed a felony, aren't you also continuing to punish him beyond his prison term?
The simple fact is when you commit a felony, you have certain rights suspended for a period of time (Freedom), other rights can be restored if you apply to have them restored (voting) while still other rights are lost forever (owning a gun). Sorry, but I don't think you should be able to pick and choose which rights you wish to restore automatically and then ignore the others, like gun ownership because afterall, isn't denying the right to own a firearm continuing the punishment, too?
Unless of course you're a liberal which would certainly explain why you refuse to respond to the question, your duplicity and your desire for those 70% of convicted felons to vote for Obama....and your desire to find any means to deny owning a firearm to anyone........
"Maybe talking alot confuses
"Maybe talking alot confuses the less intelligent but it will not work w/ me." That's precious. Ok, sport. One more time. I'll as few of words as I can.
Effective laws are derived from the morals a community holds. This means one valid way of discussing laws is to talk about the morals behind them. My point about voting rights for felons was an expression of those morals, from my perspective. I admit to the possibility that my neighbors might have other perspectives, but submit that laws are based on the shared morals of a given group. You'll find background for this and much more in your intro to philosphy textbook. I'd suggest you read it. it is apparent you haven't.
You asked me
You asked me "WHAT TEXTBOOK?"
I walked over to the bookshelf and pulled the most basic intro book I could provide you with. Your explanation below is not an actual explanation. It is a bunch of nonsense that adds up to nothing. Your view is self centered and nothing more. Maybe talking alot confuses the less intelligent but it will not work w/ me.
Next...
That's ridiculous and
That's ridiculous and meaningless snark and you know it. But thank's for being so condescending. I actually have a limited background in philosphy and am quite familar with the difference between the subjective and objective. In fact, I've demonstrated that understanding in our discussion below. You should try reading it sometimes. You, in contrast, have cited the title of your Philosphy 101 text book. Good going.
Here is a start
You can try starting at:
Living Issues In Philosophy 9th Editon
It is a basic intro to philosophy. It can walk your through basic concepts of the difference in what you think and feel and how it may differ from the reality of a situation or idea.
I have no pulpit. Your wrong. You have simply said the world should be how you think it should be. That cancels out the rest of us who disagree with you. Thus your morals are fallible.
Thanks for the insult. I would suggest you read slowly but I know you will never crack the book open.
What text book?
You've given me nothing but pronouncements shouted down from your mountaintop. The narrow and distorted nature of those pronouncements make meaningful discussion impossible --pretty much like trying to talk to a typical internet troll. The fact that coverage of the law is subjective simply points out that your argument that "morals are subjective" is meaningless. Laws are subjective too because the valid ones (most of them) have a moral basis. I urge you to honestly try to comprehend how the two, subjective (in terms of scope and purpose) law and subjective( in terms of personal and communal points of view) morality, are linked. Once you manage to see that that link, you can return to my previous posts and hopefully understand my argument (even if you don't agree with it)
"The coverage of the law is
"The coverage of the law is subjective as well."
I agree, but it has no bearing on this conversation.
"My morals lead me to think that if prison is meant to rehabilitate"
I have given you a textbook definition of morals. You cannot debate it and I cannot educate you on it. It is what it is. I agree the goal is to rehabilitate. There are some who deserve more and are being punished. I think time should be harder on others who deserve it and the system responds that way. In the end, I cannot think of a larger deterent than being told I am less than others. I would bet you those who fill out this paperwork will only want to do it once.
The coverage of the law is
The coverage of the law is subjective as well. That subjectivity is defined/articulated/constrained by morals. I'm not sure where you think laws come from or why they are required otherwise. The details of those morals are what is at question. My morals lead me to think that if prison is meant to rehabilitate (otherwise, why release anyone?) and if we expect ex-cons to participate in society (pay taxes) then they should be able to vote. Notice, I'm not couching this as some fundamental "law" of the universe. The details you provide about reapplication are meaningless to me. They seem like unnecessary hurdles-- some state employee has to process those forms. The gun law question a red herring and you know it. Go beat that dead horse elsewhere. But it does lead me to wonder if there should be crime based restrictions . . . i.e. if the felon convicted some voting related crime . . .
law lesson
Morals are subjective, different from person to person, thus they cannot be the basis for law. This would remove the balance the law is supposed to provide.
Felons should have to reapply. The point was to stop those who would seek to subvert the laws of the United States by their participation. They effectively surrendered the priveledge by commiting a felony. To say ALL felons should be able to vote opens up another can of worms. Should ALL felons be allowed to possess guns?
I don't think so. The application process is valid. I also think it adds to the punishment having to submit to the procedure.
Then tell me why, Moon
Okay, so to your way of thinking, should we automatically restore the right to own a firearm, too? The problem with your logic is, you want the rights to be granted automatically, what about the fact that many felons commit other crimes after they have been released? People who have committed a felony need to prove that they actually have become responsible citizens and you can't split hairs, you either restore ALL their rights automatically or none.
An automatic restoration of voting rights just so they can vote for the democrats while denying their ability to own a firearm is splitting hairs and supporting one but not the other tells me that those supporting this measure aren't interested in "rights" so much as they are finding a vote wherever they can find it.
There's nothing moral about that.
Laws should follow morals
Laws should follow morals not the other way around, so I am unmoved by those stating the letter of the law as the beginning and end of a discussion. There used to be laws preventing women from voting as well-- those laws were immoral and they did not stand. I don't think prioners should be able to vote ( especially given the bloated prison populations -- Fulson Prison would be a major swing state . . . ) but when we let a person out of prison we are saying they've paid thier debt and restoring their freedom to them. one of those freedoms should be the right to vote. We certainly would expect them to pay taxes. In my view, the petition to get that "right" back is a pointless obstacle.
Voting Rights
In many cases the word "rights" is overused. I do not see anywhere in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights that voting is a "right".
The Commonwealth of Virgina and other states have by law removed the "privilage" to vote. In addition to this removal of the privilage to vote in national, state and local elections, there is a clause that allows all convicted felons the right to apply to have this privilage restored.
As stated, there is a procedure for this restoration to be approved. USE IT. I am sure that many cases, after full investigation, will be approved. That is the American way.
If the argument of Democrats i.e; Socialists is listened to, they would have us believe that it is a continuation of the individuals punishment as set by law, it is not. I have never heard a judge pronounce a term of punishment that ends in "and your privilage/right to vote is rescinded."
There is a PROCESS in place
There is nothing that says a felon can't ever vote, there is simply an additional requirement for felons to have that right restored to them. Since many (not all) felons are repeat offenders, this assures that repeat offenders don't get their voting rights restored. I am still yet to hear why we shouldn't restore a felons right to own a gun-any of you leftists care to respond? Oh, that's right, you don't want ANYONE to own a gun, but that would negate your voting rights argument, wouldn't it? If the felon has to apply to have their voting rights restored, that is part of the punishment and I also think that we should (where applicable) give the victim of the felons crime the chance to have some input into the felons voting rights being restored.
There is a process for felons to have their rights restored-these people broke the law and law abiding citizens through our state legislature have the right to decide when or if those rights should be restored. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
Felonies are a different class of crime...
and that is why the penalty is different.
Everyone knows there are penalties for committing crime and we are not denying them these rights, they FORFEITED them by committing the crime.
Do not do the crime if you cannot handle the penalty.
Now, if you want to change whether certain crimes rise to felonies or not, that is a different discussion and probably it should be discussed, but the Law is what the Law is.
jebryan1
Again I have to dissagree. The quoted opinion of the court is not complete. The full text is: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." This means that once the State decides that that is the way the Electors are chosen, the citizens then have the fundamental right. Please get the statements correct and do not pull sections out. That is just what politicians do!
Petitioning to get voting rights back . . .
Does not mean giving them up forever. It does mean that the repentant former criminal has to exercise some work on his own behalf to get back those voting rights. I think that retribution and hard work to make oneself right with society should be part of the process. Why should rights just be handed back without condition to someone who may not cherish them nor even vote? Cheers, MGM
They served their time
Have you applied to have your voting "PRIVLIDGE" restored? There is a process for it, and rather than complaining about it and trying to impress all of us with your IQ, and if you really want your vote and voice to count, then go through the process. This article even has a link to obtain the necessary paperwork.We all forget that voting is a privlidge and not a God given right and if you commit and are convicted of a felony according to the VA Constitution your privlidge to vote is taken away. If you don't like that answer, call your state representitive, because he/she is the only one who has a forum to initiate an amendment to the state constitution.
vote
(That is no accident, proponents of voting rights for felons say. They liken felony disfranchisement laws to other now-discredited bars to voting - such as poll taxes and literacy tests - that, while nominally race-neutral, have had the practical effect of keeping African Americans off voter rolls.)
when are we going to wake up and realize that the world is at our fingertips.the only real thing you have in this life is what you are born with,and then what you use with your mind and hands to make for yourself.if a man works hard all his life his work will show for it.you take a hand full of idiot racial bigots and set the standard for the world by that.the majority of people in this country are god fearing decent folks.you know when you do something wrong and you are the one committing the crime if caught you lose your freedoms/rights.don't blame that on race its just a cop out and an excuse.
50/50
As long as their sentence is complete, they should be able to vote. However, I am NOT in favor of allowing inmates currently serving a sentence to vote from within prison. As the Democrat Party is. But, then they are also in favor of illegal immigrants, dead people, dogs and cats voting. And, busing people from one voting district to the next to vote several times in one day. Unfortunately for the felons this is supposed to help, the same geniuses who support all of the above, are driving this effort. Which is why no one will take it seriously.
They served their time
I never have understood why people who have already served their time should have to continue to be punished by taking away their voting rights. It removes them from being full citizens of America. It is a form of double punishment that no one should have to go through. It is past due time to allow felons who have paid the price for their crimes the right to vote.
Angels
I can assume by some peoples' comments that they have never broken the law, bull. Keep living in glass houses! Never speeded or littered or any other things like that. There is only one person that is perfect and he is Jesus, shame on you who think different!
Play another card...palease
It's always racism.... always someone else... always not my fault...
When you shed those crutches then you will begin the long journey to responsibility. Hint, it's something responsible parents teach their children through example. Not through promises, embelishment, nor ignorance.
Felons earned their label. They chose their fate through selfish, and often times violent acts. Responsibility is a resource of greater importance to America than oil.
Change is more than a slogan. So says Mr. Obama. He needs to look in the mirror.
This is my man!
"The Civil War Is Over
Submitted by bornfree on Mon, 10/06/2008 at 2:25 pm.
I find the subtle and not-so-subtle undercurrents of racism in some of these postings highly offensive and assume that many of you would prefer to limit the right to vote only to respectable white folk who own homes"
I'm sorry, I am not seeing it. In fact, the majority of bias I see is what some people call "reverse racism." Another thing I have noticed in my life that is true is that homeowners are treated better. So if you say people who own homes are treated better I can agreew/ that. If they are black or white seems to matter less. I have no opinion or reponse at too why this is, I would recomend those who lean on a racial crutch realize sooner than later, that the world is moving on without you. If you want yours, you better come get it; it will not wait. The excuses will only get worse.
Simple
No Obama not felons wanting to vote for "Change". Still an empty word.
Felons getting their right to vote back is a joke.
Felons getting their right to vote back is a joke. Voting is not a constitational right. In addition, when these felons finishing paying back the costs to the taxpayers for room and board and healthcare they received while in jail. Well maybe we can think about letting them vote again (probably did not vote in first place). Wonder why the left organizations are intense to get criminals back their ability to vote? I would not think felons would have a law and order mentality. Thats why they are called criminials!!!
NO RIGHT TO VOTE !
There is NO law that gives anyone the right to vote In a Federal election, NONE ! We do not elect the President, the Electoral College does and there is NO guarantee that they will vote the way the majority of the voters from their respective state did.
I beg
to differ but voting is NOT a God given right as referenced by the person who moved back here after living in PA. It's actually a right given to us by the founding fathers of this country(if at the time you were white and male). As for the vast majority of folks in this country that fall outside of these 2 brackets, our voting rights came later...much later...
I don't have a problem restoring voting rights to felons if they've met the requirements as set forth in this State..I don't have a problem if the law is changed in VA to be less than what it is currently.
I don't, however, see how, according to this article, that African Americans "disproportionately" make up the group of felons in this state. If you've been convicted of a felony...no matter the skin color...you're a felon. Therefore that law applies to you..If you don't commit the crime you won't have to suffer the consequences.
Everything in Virginia is illegal
Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary.
There is a state law prohibiting “corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates.
You may not engage in business on Sundays, with the exception of almost every industry.
If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.You may not have oral or anal sex.Driving while not wearing shoes is prohibited.
Police radar detectors are illegal.