VILSACK TAKES MORAL ROAD IN FELON VOTING

Bravo to Gov. Tom Vilsack for deciding to rid Iowa of a racist law.
On July 4, he'll sign an executive order restoring voting rights to
convicted felonies after they've finished serving their sentences.

The move gives voting rights to 50,000 state residents. Until then,
Iowa remains one of five states -- the rest all once boasting a star
on the Confederacy's flag -- that ban a convict's ability to vote for life.

In a racially-blind society, Vilsack's decision ought to be
celebrated as a crime-fighting step in a state with prisons so
overcrowded we must ship inmates across our borders. When felons
maintain the right to vote, to reconnect with their communities,
crime rates and recidivism actually decline. Recidivism contributes
greatly to overcrowded prisons -- a situation that strains safe
working conditions for security guards and costs the state more
dollars for courts, local law enforcement and prisons.

But Vilsack's move largely is about ending racial discrimination in
our society. For the five states with no-voting-for-life laws,
minorities (and blacks in particular) are convicted in much larger
proportions than their actual numbers in the general population. High
drug rates and few economic opportunities, factors directly affecting
those who eventually commit crimes, remain the worst in minority
communities; our failure as a nation to adequately address these
problems unfairly condemns many minorities to eventual imprisonment
and loss of voting rights. "Felony disenfranchisement laws are the
last vestiges of Jim Crow," Catherine Weiss, a lawyer with the
Brennan Center for Justice, aptly told The Associated Press last week.

Whether white or black, no-voting-for-life laws violate civil
liberties. After all, if you've served your time in prison, why
continue to be punished? Perhaps organized crime or acts aimed at
bringing down the state -- such as terrorism or treason -- warrant
loss of voting rights for life. But why should an OWI or a theft
conviction affect one's ability to decide if the city should take out
bonds to build a library or which assembly candidate will best ensure
economic growth? In any case, advocates for the permanent loss of
voting rights have yet to show that this punitive measure ultimately
prevents crime.

A few state GOP leaders unfortunately see the move as politically
motivated. They argue that as a disproportionate number of felons
come from minority and lower-income groups, that likely means more
votes for Democrats than Republicans. It's an odd complaint to make
at the same time that the GOP has rightly criticized Democrat Party
Chairman Howard Dean for calling Republicans "... pretty much a
white, Christian party." Such rhetoric aside, a bipartisan group of
state lawmakers asked Vilsack to revoke the law.

Given the potential political fallout of restoring felons' right to
vote, the governor made a bold move. It is, in the end, the morally
right decision.