BARRED FROM THE BALLOT BOX

On the Anniversary of Women's Suffrage, a Case for Letting People
With Felony Convictions Vote

The picketers began to appear at the White House gates in January,
carrying banners emblazoned with barbs for a president entangled in
an overseas war: "Democracy Begins At Home." The year was 1917. Their
protest lasted 18 months. During that time, 218 women were arrested
on specious charges like "obstructing traffic"; 97 were jailed. Many
were beaten, threatened, mistreated, and force-fed. Their
"ringleader," Alice Paul, was held in solitary confinement and denied counsel.

The women - demonized by the media, often dismissed by those in power
- - were fighting for their constitutional right to vote. Their
struggle ended 86 years ago today, when Secretary of State Bainbridge
Colby signed into law the 19th Amendment, which stated that the right
to vote could not be denied or abridged in the United States on the
basis of sex - years after similar laws had passed in New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan.

Now, once again, the United States is behind the times in protecting
its citizens' right to vote, cited by the United Nations Human Rights
Committee for having the worst record in the free world when it comes
to felon disenfranchisement. While countries as diverse as the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Israel, Japan, Kenya, and Peru continue to permit
individuals to vote even in prison, in the U.S. 48 of our 50 states
strip the right to vote from anyone with a felony conviction for
varying periods of. Because felon disenfranchisement laws differ
greatly across the nation, an alarming amount of misinformation
surrounds them: Many eligible voters are convinced they cannot vote
or prevented from voting. In New York State for example, an
individual loses the right to vote only if she has been convicted of
a felony and is currently incarcerated or on parole. Yet 40 percent
of those who have been arrested, and close to 40 percent of elections
officials, mistakenly believe that you cannot vote while on
probation. In practice, this can mean that a mother sent to jail for
a joint 20 years ago may still believe she can't vote, or a father on
probation for changing the expiration on a temporary license plate
may be illegally barred from casting his ballot.

Our current patchwork of felon disenfranchisement laws, like pre-19th
Amendment election laws, unjustly removes a particular body of
citizens from participating in the political process. These laws
would be unfair in any criminal justice system, even one without the
profound disparities in ours. Although the Federal Household Survey
found that 72 percent of current illicit drug users are white, over
94 percent of those serving sentences in New York State under the
Rockefeller drug laws are Black and Latino. Most of the 16,000 people
serving sentences under these laws have never been convicted of a
violent offense. They're imprisoned by a system that does not offer
adequate alternatives to incarceration, removes sentencing discretion
from trial judges, and allows the state legislature to renew harsh
mandatory minimum sentences. Nationwide, sentencing trends like these
have created a country where one in three black men between the ages
of 20 and 29 is under correctional supervision or control.

As a result, felon disenfranchisement severely dilutes the power of
poor communities of color to hold elected officials accountable. The
laws perpetuate the legacy of discrimination that those fighting for
the 19th Amendment worked so hard end.

Now, it is unthinkable that so many doubted the ability of women to
participate meaningfully in our democracy. Eighty-six years ago
"suffragette" was a slur, dismissing the activists it described as
"unwomanly." In 1920, Tennessee was the 36th and last state needed to
ratify the proposed 19th Amendment. As the vote came to the floor on
August 18, one young male delegate was poised to vote against it. At
the last moment, he received a note from his mother admonishing him
to change his mind. Suddenly, the women he would be disenfranchising
were no longer anonymous. He cast the deciding ballot?in favor of the
amendment.

We can no longer dehumanize people with felony convictions as
"criminals" undeserving of their rights. These "faceless" men and
women are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and neighbors. They
are the people who ride the bus with us, who share our tax burden,
and who send their children to our schools. We must ask ourselves, as
a nation, whether we would want to be judged by our single worst act,
and denied all opportunity to affect the laws that impact our lives
and our families. Now as before, democracy must begin at home.