“The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy,” said The New York Times in an editorial, but for 5.8 million American citizens with past convictions for felonies, that right has been withheld for far too long. In an “unflinching speech” to a civil rights conference, Attorney General Eric Holder last week denounced the patchwork of state laws that restrict convicted felons from voting after they’re released from jail as unjust and “profoundly outdated,” and called for their repeal. He’s right: Once people have paid their debt to society, “the restoration of the right to vote should be automatic.” But it’s not. Four states bar ex-felons from voting for life; Florida denies them voting rights for five years; other states require released felons to pass through complicated processes and waiting periods to re-register. The laws that exclude ex-felons have an ugly history, said Jamelle Bouie in TheDailyBeast.com.Most were passed back in the days of Jim Crow, with the goal—often openly stated—of impeding black people’s access to the ballot box. Even today, these laws have a “hugely disproportionate effect on African-Americans,” with more than 13 percent of black men barred from voting.
Holder should put away his race card, said Jason Riley in The Wall Street Journal. To state the obvious, these laws don’t target people based on skin color, but solely on whether or not they’ve committed a serious crime. If this burden falls disproportionately on the African-American population, that’s only because “a disproportionate number of blacks are felons. The problem is black criminality, not racist laws.” Not everyone gets to vote in a democracy, said Roger Clegg in NationalReview.com. We don’t let children vote, or the mentally incompetent, and the logic for denying felons the vote is just as strong: “If you aren’t willing to follow the law, then you can hardly claim a role in making the law for everyone else.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
Gun control: Has Newtown already been forgotten?feature Three months after Newtown, meaningful gun-control legislation seems doomed to failure.
-
Gay marriage: How will the Supreme Court rule?
feature In March, the court will consider challenges to the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.
-
The Supreme Court: Did Obama try to bully the justices?
feature The president's public caution to the Supreme Court unleashed a flurry of opinion.
-
Health care: Will the Supreme Court judge fairly?
feature Before last week’s Supreme Court hearings, most legal experts assumed the health-care law would be upheld.
-
Obama: Did his appointments violate the Constitution?
feature The President's recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board have raised the ire of Republicans, who say the Senate was not really in recess.
-
The death penalty: Was an innocent man executed?
feature In Georgia, Troy Davis was executed for the 1989 shooting of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail, in spite of recanted testimony.
-
Guns: Would tougher laws have prevented a massacre?
feature Since Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were gunned down in 1968, more than a million Americans have died of gunshots, in crimes, accidents, and suicides.
-
Gay marriage: A case of fundamental rights?
feature A federal judge threw out California's Proposition 8, arguing that it violated gay citizens’ rights to due process and equal protection under the law.