SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
felon disenfranchisement
Nebraska Supreme Court Orders Election Officials to Obey Law Letting Former Felons Vote
"This decision is a victory for Nebraskans, democracy, and the rule of law," said one ACLU attorney.
Oct 16, 2024
Democracy defenders on Wednesday welcomed a Nebraska Supreme Court
ruling that orders state election officials to comply with a law allowing former felons to vote immediately after they complete their sentences instead of waiting two years.
Nebraska's unicameral Legislature voted 38-6 in favor of LB 20 on April 11. Although Republican Gov. Jim Pillen declined to sign the bill, the measure took effect the following week, as the Nebraska Constitution allows lawmakers to enact laws without gubernatorial consent five days after a bill's passage if the Legislature is still in session.
After allowing the Legislature to pass the law, Pillen explained that Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Secretary of State Bob Evnen—both Republicans—"have identified significant potential constitutional infirmities regarding the bill" and encouraged them to "promptly take such measures as are appropriate" to redress these purported flaws.
In July, Evnen ordered county election offices to stop registering former felons who have not received official pardons, claiming LB 20 is "unconstitutional."
The Nebraska Supreme Court justices did not rule on the law's constitutionality, as the state constitution requires five members of the tribunal to declare legislation unconstitutional.
"Because the requisite number of judges have not found that the statutory amendments are unconstitutional, we issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the secretary and the election commissioners to implement the statutory amendments immediately," the court's split decision states.
The ruling referred to Patty and Selma Bouvier—the chain-smoking twin sisters of Marge Simpson from TV's long-running animated series "The Simpsons"—in a swipe at Hilgers and Evnen for overstepping their authority by opining on the constitutionality of LB 20.
"Only the Nebraska Supreme Court declares statutes unconstitutional," the decision states. "The [five-justice] supermajority requirement is also well known. Patty and Selma at the Department of Motor Vehicles may not be constitutional scholars, but they know that they are expected to follow the law."
Plaintiff Gregory Spung of Ohama said that Wednesday's ruling left him feeling "ecstatic."
"For so long, I was uncertain if my voice would truly count under this law," he said. "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that every vote matters. It's a victory not just for me, but for thousands of Nebraskans who can now exercise their right to vote with confidence."
ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy counsel Jane Seu said: "This is justice. Given the sheer scale of disenfranchisement that this decision corrects, there is no question that it will be remembered as one of our state's most consequential voting rights decisions."
"For Nebraskans who have been caught up in this mess for the last few months, the key takeaway is this: If you are done with all terms of your sentence, you are eligible to vote, and there is now a court decision backing that up," Seu added. "Now is the time to know your rights, get registered, and make a plan to vote."
The ACLU—which along with the ACLU of Nebraska, Civic Nebraska, and the law firm Faegre Drinker sued on behalf of Nebraskans seeking ballot access under the new law—said that the voting rights of approximately 7,000 people hung in the balance.
As The Associated Pressnoted following Wednesday's ruling:
Many of them reside in Nebraska's Omaha-centered 2nd Congressional District, where both the race for president and the makeup of Congress could be in play. Nebraska overall is heavily Republican but is one of only two states—the other is Maine—that apportions its Electoral College votes by congressional district. The Omaha-area district has twice awarded its one vote to Democratic presidential candidates—to Barack Obama in 2008 and again to Joe Biden in 2020. In a 2024 presidential race shown by polling to be a dead heat, a single electoral vote could determine who wins.
"This decision is a victory for Nebraskans, democracy, and the rule of law," ACLU Voting Rights Project staff attorney Jonathan Topaz said of Wednesday's ruling.
"Secretary of State Evnen and Attorney General Hilgers attempted to overturn two decades of rights restoration law by executive fiat and re-disenfranchise thousands of Nebraska citizens heading into a presidential election," he continued. "We are grateful the Nebraska Supreme Court invalidated this lawless attempt to reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and are thrilled for the thousands of eligible Nebraska voters who will be able to cast ballots in November and beyond."
"We also urge the state to extend its voter registration deadline," Topaz added. "Thousands of Nebraskans have lost months to register due to the secretary's unlawful directive, and they should be allowed sufficient time to register to vote ahead of the November election."
Nebraska's online voter registration deadline is Friday. In-person registration ends October 25. Early voting in the state began on October 7.
As voter registration surges ahead of the November 5 contest between Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump, GOP federal and state lawmakers are trying to make it harder to vote.
In July, for example, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas) Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.
State-level examples include legislation signed last year by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.
Last week, the Sentencing Project, a decarceration advocacy group, published a report estimating that 4 million U.S. adults are ineligible to vote in November's election due to felony disenfranchisement, including a disproportionate number of people of color.
Earlier this year, a federal court struck down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction. Similar legal battles are playing out in other states. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently upheld a law signed in 2023 by Gov. Tim Walz—the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate—restoring former felons' voting rights upon completion of their sentences.
Last December, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote while behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Pro-Democracy Movement Fighting Back Against the GOP Nationwide Offers Hope for 2024
State-level progress on election protection, ballot access, and voting rights is a reflection of a basic reality documented in poll after poll: Voters want meaningful reforms to democracy.
Dec 19, 2023
Over the past few years, states across the country have passed laws that make voting more difficult and elections more vulnerable to partisan interference, and 2023 is no exception. But it is critical to remember that there is also flourishing pro-democracy movement that has pushed many states to make important strides in the opposite direction.
This past year, at least 24 states enacted over 50 laws that protect the freedom to vote, prevent attacks on the electoral process, crack down on gerrymandering, or strengthen campaign finance safeguards as of December 1, 2023. Yet state lawmakers cannot safeguard democracy on their own. Robust federal legislation is needed to ensure that democracy is protected across the country and that every voter has equal access to the ballot.
Among the most notable advances in 2023 was Minnesota’s passage of a transformative package of pro-voter reforms. Among them is automatic voter registration, bringing the total number of states with automatic voter registration to 23 plus the District of Columbia. This means that when eligible Minnesota residents interact with certain state agencies—including when applying for a driver’s license or state health insurance—they will automatically be registered to vote unless they choose to opt out. The legislation also allows 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote, enacts new protections for election workers, and creates a permanent absentee voter list.
While state reforms are critical, they are not a substitute for federal legislation that would set baseline national standards to protect the freedom to vote and make other critical changes.
Minnesota lawmakers also passed legislation this year that restores voting rights for people convicted of a felony, instantly re-enfranchising over 50,000 Minnesotans on parole, probation, or community release—and countless more in the future.
Another closely divided Midwestern state, Michigan, made important advances. This year, lawmakers passed a package of legislation to implement Proposal 2, a pro-voter constitutional amendment that was approved by Michigan voters in 2022 with nearly 60% of the vote. (Proposal 2 is one of several pro-democracy amendments that Michigan voters approved with overwhelming margins in the past few years.)
Michigan voters now have nine days of early voting, improved absentee ballot options, a higher number of ballot drop boxes, and an expanded list of acceptable voter IDs. This reform will benefit the many voters who prefer to vote by mail, a trend that exploded in popularity during the pandemic and remains highly popular in the state.
Additionally, Michigan lawmakers passed legislation this year protecting election officials from harassment and another that automatically registers individuals to vote upon release from incarceration—the first state to offer such an immediate and automatic restoration of voting rights.
In New Mexico, the legislature passed a wide-ranging bill that restores voting rights to individuals with a felony conviction, establishes automatic voter registration, and added voting rights protections for Native Americans. It also made it so voters who want to vote by mail only have to opt-in once.
The Nevada legislature passed a series of pro-voter laws this year that were signed by the state’s Republican governor: one that improves ballot access for eligible incarcerated voters by requiring jails to better provide voting materials, another that standardizes the design of mail-in ballot return envelopes and clarifies electioneering rules, and one that make it easier to vote on Native American reservations.
In another notable development, Connecticut became the sixth state to establish a state-level Voting Rights Act. In recent years, states have passed their own versions of the Voting Rights Act to protect voting access for historically disenfranchised groups. This trend is in response to two Supreme Court rulings that gutted the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
2023 also saw several states enact significant new campaign finance reforms. Minnesota improved campaign finance safeguards to boost transparency and deter foreign influence in elections. Almost 90% of Maine voters adopted new safeguards to prevent foreign governments and corporations from interfering in the state’s elections. And New York State’s groundbreaking small donor matching system went into effect, and over 150 candidates have already signed up to participate.
Important voting reforms are not exclusive to blue states, with many pro-democracy bills also passing in red and purple states this year. For example, Oklahoma codified protections for election officials, and Louisiana and Utah improved voting access for voters with disabilities. The divided Virginia legislature voted to ease absentee ballot requirements, a measure that was signed into law by a Republican governor. Lastly, an important win for direct democracy took place in Ohio, where 57% of voters rejected a proposal that would have increased the threshold required to pass citizen-initiated constitutional amendments from 50% to 60%.
This state-level progress is a reflection of a basic reality documented in poll after poll: Voters want meaningful reforms to democracy. And in 24 states this year, elected officials have responded, passing critical reforms that will improve the state of democracy for many Americans.
Ultimately though, while state reforms are critical, they are not a substitute for federal legislation that would set baseline national standards to protect the freedom to vote and make other critical changes. Access to the ballot box, secure election systems, fair district maps, and strong campaign finance laws are the basic safeguards needed to ensure we have a democracy that works for all Americans, regardless of where they live.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular