Wisconsin Assembly Bill 353 would restore the right to vote to roughly 40,000 “citizens” (if a resident with absolutely no input on their leaders can be considered a citizen) currently on probation or parole for a felony. These people are taxpaying members of society contributing as much or as little as anyone else, except they committed a crime in the past and got caught. This bill would not put polls in prisons, just offer the felons still serving time on probation or parole the ability to participate in the most fundamental act in our democracy.
Current Wisconsin law grants voting rights to convicted felons only after the completion of any probation or parole handed down in sentencing. A bill similar to AB 353 failed to pass the last session of the WI legislature, but with Democrats taking control of the Assembly this year (for a total of both houses of the legislature and the governors office) this bill stands a much better chance, unless Attorney General JB Van Hollen has his way. His office, The Department of Justice, issued a press release last month stating his opposition to AB 353. Some of his stated concerns;
Potential voter fraud connected with the proposal, increased burdens on the criminal justice system, judges and voting officials and unanswered technical issues of custody status not addressed in the bill.
Van Hollen offers no evidence as to potential voter fraud, and is refuted in a WPR story;
Opponents of the measure are worried that parolees who are revoked just before an election, may try to vote absentee. But state elections board director Kevin Kennedy says current state laws would prevent that.
Not to mention a felon on his way back to jail is not going to make voting absentee his last act as a free man. As to increased burdens on the justice system and officials? A Department of Administration analysis (page 5) determined that up to $14, 000 could be saved without distributing lists of felons on probation and parole to election officials. I think the voting process would be simpler if an election official did not have to concern themselves with the probation or parole status of a potential voter.
The press release from Van Hollen’s state-funded Department of Justice website also appears on his personal campaign website. This is a questionable act, seemingly mixing state business with political business.
Van Hollen picks-and-chooses the cases he wants to work on. He issues negative statements about laws before the legislature that if passed, would be his job to defend. It appears he mixed state business and campaign politics.
Democrat Scott Hassett has filed to run against Van Hollen for Attorney General in 2010 (assuming my prediction is wrong, as usual, and Van Hollen does not run for governor). I can’t find a website for Hassett, all I know is he was head of the DNR for five years, and has to be better than the incumbent. Maybe I’ll vote for him…
This one hits close to home eh buddy?
In all seriousness though, I have never understood the point of taking away voting rights. There is no way that losing voting rights has ever been a deterrent for criminals, it’s just a great way from keeping the poor and the minorities who are convicted of felonies from voting. I say if any American wants to vote let ‘em, in a representative system it only follows that the more voters there are, and the more diverse the group of voters, the more representative the government actually is.
Pingback: JB Van Hollen’s Negative Performance Rating Should Fire Up Scott Hassett « Pretty Important Politics
Pingback: Attorney General candidates need to capitalize on Van Hollen’s partisan failure « Pretty Important
I would agree with you if current law said they never regained voting privileges, but as you point out, rights are restored after probation or parole is completed. So… what’s wrong with that? You commit a crime, you lose rights, including this one. When you served your time, you get them back. Probation (w/ or w/out jail time) and parole are still part of the sentence.
What’s the plan here, smokes for votes as they walk off prison grounds? Maybe Jim Doyle wants to play bingo again? Where’s the Dem bill allowing illegal aliens to vote? Heck, they already wanted to give them drivers licenses and cheaper tuition, why not the sacred right of voting too.
It is not a questionable act at all that JB has the same information on a campaign website. Ever hear of the 1st amendment? You are grasping at straws trying to say that he has politicized his office. Were you alive and paying attention when James Doyle was AG?!
What is wrong with not allowing non-incarcerated felons to vote is the expectation that they perform all aspects of citizenship (especially paying taxes), yet have no say in their leadership. Aren’t you righties all about “no taxation without representation?” Actually that’s more of an American regardless of placement on the political spectrum value.
Your theories about motive behind this border on whacky conspiracy. I don’t imagine very many of those this bill would have made eligible would even vote, much less for one party or another (except immediately after passage, when the few recently enfranchised that actually cared would certainly reward the party giving them a civil right back). A more realistic motive would be for the status quo as one commented on by Eric above — keep some minorities down. Your argument is simply anti-democracy, Forgot.
The 1st amendment doesn’t grant the right to promote a campaign with taxpayer resources. I don’t know who wrote that press release (JB himself, campaign press sec, state press sec, or someone else) but the same release on both official and campaign sites was something I had never seen before and thought worth pointing out.
Hey, if Democrats want to go out this fall and defend to the electorate the right to vote of convicted felons, by all means have at it. I’m sorry, but when you commit felonies, you lose some of your rights. When they have completed probation, then they are restored full rights.
As far as JB’s press release, my point is that if it was written and published on the official site, nothing prevents the campaign site from obtaining it and using it on their site too.
It’s just punish, punish, punish with you conservatives. But taking away the right to vote is more than just punishment. Jail is punishment. Community service is punishment. Not allowing a citizen to vote is infringing on a basic American right. In some states, the right is never returned, even fifty years after a felony. What’s your take on that?
Jim, if you look at my first comment here I said in that I would agree with you if they never regained voting privileges, but that’s not the case in Wisconsin. I know permanent loss is true in some states, and I completely disagree with that.
If it is your take not being able to vote is infringing on a right and should not be a part of punishment, would you favor allowing voting rights for felons currently serving a prison?
Not allowing a citizen to vote may be infringing on a right, but felons lose other rights too. Or do you want to restore their 2nd amendment rights too?
Meanwhile, the current administration infringes on rights of all law-abiding citizen and you don’t seem to care.
Thanks for one’s marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and may come back someday. I want to encourage you to continue your great job, have a nice weekend!