Less asphalt expected in Cedar Rapids’ Westdale Mall transformation
Gov. Branstad, Iowa legislators reach health-care expansion accord
New Pioneer Food Co-op starts expansion discussion
Update: Authorities find backpacks, purse in Dayton abduction case
Peeping trial of accused Iowa City landlord moved to July
Are Iowa rules for felons to regain voting rights too restrictive?
Related Stories
An "I Voted" sticker. (image via KCRG-TV9)
Leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) said this week they were encouraged by discussions with Gov. Terry Branstad that they hope will lead to changes designed to make it easier for thousands of convicted Iowa felons to get their voting rights restored.
At the start of his current term in January 2011, Branstad issued an executive order rescinding action in July 2005 by former Gov. Tom Vilsack that established a process that gave voting rights and right to hold public office to felons and those who committed aggravated misdemeanors. Branstad’s executive order requires felons to complete a lengthy application process if they want their voting rights restored that includes requirements that they submit a current credit report, provide the address of the judge who sentenced them to prison and other information.
“We find that very problematic. We think that flies in the face of democracy, but we are very much hopeful to work with this governor,” said Jotaka Eaddy, a special assistant to the NAACP national president in Washington, D.C. “It is really not about politics. It is about a fundamental right to vote.”
What’s your take? Are Iowa’s requirements for felons to regain their voting rights too restrictive?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Iowa’s requirements for a felon to regain their voting rights are considered some of the most restrictive in the nation. That’s not a destination to be proud off.
People make choices and should accept the consequences of their actions. I’m guessing when those criminals were making the choice to commit a felony, losing their voting rights was something they were willing to risk. Now that they have served their time, doing the actions to restore their ability to vote is an appropiate requirment.
I think that the paperwork that is required to secure restored voting rights could be, and should be, reduced to just one question: “Please submit documentation which substantiates that you have liquidated all fines, costs, and judgements associated with your case.” I would with-hold restoration of rights until all crime-related financial matters were settled, but would otherwise make that the only condition.
This logic implies that anyone who is behind in child support payments or behind in the payments of any tax obligation or debt obligation is ineligible to vote. That is unacceptable.
Unacceptable to the victims of the convict’s acts who have not been compensated by him as the court ordered?
I am not equating general debts with specific “conviction-related financial obligations”. I see no reason to restore one’s rights before the entire societal obligation associated with the sentence is met.
What about court ordered child support or court order tax settlements?
Non-crime-related debts are not directly relevant to the rights issue, in my book. Obviously a felon with a pile of criminal fines and civil judgements against him is probably going to have difficulty paying them all off; given that he probably wasn’t a “high earner’ in the first place and being a convict wouldn’t have improved his prospects in that respect. But, so what? Everyone who has debt is in the same boat- how many finance companies will hand a house deed over to a homeowner before the last mortgage payment is sent in?
Requiring a credit report to be considered for civil rights restoration is over the top. Really Branstad is merely using this as political posturing; it does not do one thing for keeping the public safe. If someone gets into trouble, pays their debt to society and never gets into trouble again, what purpose does it serve to disenfranchise them? I find that those who think Branstad is doing the right thing, sing an entirely different tune when it’s one of their own who ends up in this situation.
All of this voter obstructioning by republicans and billionairs is for the purose of setting up a minority controled government, and you can be sure they will drive the rest of us into servatude.
Most of the time, a person that commits a felony is sentenced to be confined or probated for a certain length of time, fined, and ordered to pay restitution. I agree that all three requirements should be met before getting voting rights reinstated. Also, I have seen people that have had a commit indicator of K, you get a letter for each time you are sentenced to prison beginning with A. This does not include a parole violation. I feel that after the first sentence for a felony and have had you rights reinstated. that that should be it. No chances after that.
I see no point in denying people their basic rights regardless of what their situation is.
In our democracy the only qualification to vote is that the individual be a citizen. This “amend section A” bit is pure vindictive. I don’t see any other reason for it. People should be able to vote and hold public office regardless of what they’ve done in the past. In fact they should be able to vote while still in prison and vote in their home precinct.
Being convicted of a crime does not automatically revoke one’s citizenship no matter what people like Terry Brandstad think
“Being convicted of a crime does not automatically revoke one’s citizenship no matter what people like Terry Brandstad think”
No. Being convicted of a crime does relieve you of a host of ‘rights’ though. Included in that list of lost rights, is the right to vote.
All you have to do is get one legislater to submit a bill to the legislature to allow convicted felons to vote while still in prison. I would enjoy watching that puplic debate. It will never happen, but I can dream.
Somehow I bet that those wanting to reinstate voting rights will have a 180 degree different opinion about convicted felons and their enumerated right to keep and bear arms.