FROM HANGING CHADS TO THE PRISON WALLS

WASHINGTON - Does the election-reform bill that recently made its way out
of a congressional conference merit the accolade of "first civil rights
legislation of the 21st century" as claimed by Senate Rules Committee
Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.?

My vote is "yes" - "but."

There is much to praise. The bill provides serious money - $3.9 billion -
for states to buy improved voting equipment and train poll workers and
create (for the first time ever) truly authoritative statewide registration
lists. It sets up a federal Election Assistance Commission to disburse
federal funds and serve as a clearinghouse - but not a rule-setter - on
election technology.

And by such devices as mandatory voter identification and a requirement
that provisional ballots be given to voters whose names do not appear on
registration lists, the bill protects and advances millions of Americans'
effective franchise.

Dodd is right that the bill - itself a current-day miracle of bipartisan
compromise - should "help America move beyond the days of hanging chads,
butterfly ballots and illegal purges of qualified voters."

But let's be clear. Two huge challenges to full American electoral
democracy aren't yet addressed.

First, the Electoral College. Until it is revamped by constitutional
amendment, we continue to run the risk of putting - as we did in 2000 - the
national popular vote loser in the White House.

Second, there's the stark fact that all states (except Maine and Vermont)
deny felons the right to vote while they're imprisoned. The result: roughly
3.9 million people, including 1.4 million black men, are barred from
voting, according to the Washington-based Sentencing Project.

Political support for the prohibition is broad. "Convicted felons did it to
themselves ... they should have thought about (the consequences) before
they committed the crime," says Ray Larson, commonwealth attorney for
Lexington/Fayette County in Kentucky.

But who believes a young punk about to pull off a crime thinks about losing
his voting privileges? In time, most people do grow up. And does it serve
justice - or society - if a ban on voting continues after a convict has
served his time?

Indeed, wouldn't voting itself have rehabilitative qualities? Minnesota
Public Radio recently quoted a 33-year-old Minneapolis man on probation for
felony assault, but now eager to vote: "I'm married and I have a family and
I have two sons and I'm concerned about their future. I'm concerned about
the future of this state and this country."

Giving the vote to ex-cons would telegraph a new message - you count, we
respect your right to be part of your community and country, and voting is
a top way you can take part.

What's more, says Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, "We're seeing all
too clearly that apprehension and punishment for criminal acts is highly
skewed and often racially based." Reason: the tough drug laws enacted from
the 1970s to '90s. Drug convictions soared for inner-city black men, even
while middle-class drug users were rarely apprehended.

Mauer's research shows that African-Americans are just 13 percent of drug
users, but represent 35 percent of those arrested on drug charges, and 55
percent of those convicted. There's been a 1,000- percent increase in drug
offenders incarcerated since 1980 - up to 453,000 in 1999. Three-quarters
have no convictions for violence; four of five are minorities.

Voting restrictions on ex-convicts, say critics, are direct descendants of
laws passed by white politicians in the Reconstruction South - literacy
tests, poll taxes, property requirements. The constant goal: stop blacks
from voting, preserve white supremacy.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally consigned those laws to the dustbin
of discredited history. But Joseph Hayden, who served time on a
manslaughter conviction in New York, had it about right when he told a
justice conference this month in Washington: "The civil rights movement
never got over the prison walls."

Reform pressure is starting. Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico and Connecticut
have all recently scaled back their voting bans for felons. The Center for
Policy Alternatives (www.stateaction.org) has issued a model state
Restoration of Voting Rights Act.

But are mainline politicos willing to link historically low voter turnout
records to the millions now disenfranchised by law? Did the much-hailed new
election-reform law include the proposal of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., to
let all released convicts vote?

No way. For electoral democracy worthy of our professed ideals, we still
have a long ways to go.