Felons Shoudn't Lose Right to VoteBy Ronald Hampton and Anthony Miranda
Published June 23rd 2005 in Whittier Daily News
We have dedicated our careers to promoting strong, just and effective
law enforcement. But we oppose felon disenfranchisement: the practice
of denying prisoners and former prisoners the right to vote.
As black and Latino law-enforcement personnel, we know full well the devastation that is wrought upon minority neighborhoods when prisoners are not rehabilitated. And stripping prisoners and former prisoners of the right to vote undermines the aims of rehabilitation.
It frustrates them in their efforts to reintegrate into society. It distances them from the larger community.
And it serves no educational only a punitive function.
Effective law enforcement means pursuing policies that will actually reduce crime. Felon disenfranchisement laws do not make communities or correctional facilities any safer. Instead, they reinforce racial disparities in sentencing, and they reinforce racial disparities in voting rates.
Our law-enforcement organizations support the full realization of equal opportunity in the political process. For this reason, we are supporting the plaintiffs in a federal appeals court in New York. A panel of judges there are hearing arguments in two cases (Muntaqim v. Coombe and Hayden v. Pataki) that ask whether the Voting Rights Act can challenge New York's tradition of depriving the right to vote to individuals convicted of a felony.
Our position would in no way affect the length of the sentences that the incarcerated plaintiffs will serve for their crimes, or the length of their parole supervision. Nor would it adversely affect the quality of life of the communities where former felons reside.
Quite the contrary.
By giving former felons a stake in our democracy, it would help restore the health of these communities.
Above all, this is about enforcing the protections of the Voting Rights Act for black and Latino voters. The effect of felon disenfranchisement in New York City neighborhoods is to minimize the collective voting strength of black and Latino voters.
This discriminatory outcome cuts at the basic principle of this country: one person, one vote.
The wholesale disenfranchisement of felons must come to an end. They should be able to participate again in our democracy.
Ronald Hampton is executive director of the National Black Police Officers Association. Anthony Miranda is president of National Latino Officers Association of America.
As black and Latino law-enforcement personnel, we know full well the devastation that is wrought upon minority neighborhoods when prisoners are not rehabilitated. And stripping prisoners and former prisoners of the right to vote undermines the aims of rehabilitation.
It frustrates them in their efforts to reintegrate into society. It distances them from the larger community.
And it serves no educational only a punitive function.
Effective law enforcement means pursuing policies that will actually reduce crime. Felon disenfranchisement laws do not make communities or correctional facilities any safer. Instead, they reinforce racial disparities in sentencing, and they reinforce racial disparities in voting rates.
Our law-enforcement organizations support the full realization of equal opportunity in the political process. For this reason, we are supporting the plaintiffs in a federal appeals court in New York. A panel of judges there are hearing arguments in two cases (Muntaqim v. Coombe and Hayden v. Pataki) that ask whether the Voting Rights Act can challenge New York's tradition of depriving the right to vote to individuals convicted of a felony.
Our position would in no way affect the length of the sentences that the incarcerated plaintiffs will serve for their crimes, or the length of their parole supervision. Nor would it adversely affect the quality of life of the communities where former felons reside.
Quite the contrary.
By giving former felons a stake in our democracy, it would help restore the health of these communities.
Above all, this is about enforcing the protections of the Voting Rights Act for black and Latino voters. The effect of felon disenfranchisement in New York City neighborhoods is to minimize the collective voting strength of black and Latino voters.
This discriminatory outcome cuts at the basic principle of this country: one person, one vote.
The wholesale disenfranchisement of felons must come to an end. They should be able to participate again in our democracy.
Ronald Hampton is executive director of the National Black Police Officers Association. Anthony Miranda is president of National Latino Officers Association of America.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.