News

Sports

Business

Multimedia

Life

Opinion

Obituaries

Community

Classifieds

Jobs

Motors

Real Estate

Editorials

In our view April 16: Progress for Felons

Those who have completed incarceration are one step closer to regaining right to vote

Thursday, April 16 | 1:00 a.m.

State senators correctly voted on Wednesday to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons once they complete their incarceration. The decision was as decisive as it was logical. The vote was 29-19, basically along party lines, with Vancouver Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it.

The bill returns to the House, where it passed last month, for a vote on an amended version. Senators on Wednesday approved an amendment that would allow voting rights to be revoked again if a felon intentionally fails to comply with legal financial obligations. We're not sure that amendment contributes much to the bill. It would seem to place on felons who no longer are incarcerated an additional financial requirement to vote that nonfelons do not face. Even so, the imperfect bill would be an improvement over the status quo. We hope it is approved by the House, where its sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver.

Arguments both for and against felons regaining voting rights (after incarceration) are rational and reasonable. Two opposing views are presented in capsulized forms accompanying this editorial.

If this change occurs, Washington will become the 14th state (joining Oregon) to restore voting rights to felons who complete their incarceration. Two states — Vermont and Maine — allow even incarcerated felons to vote. That's too lenient, in our view, but once a felon comes out from behind bars, regaining the right to vote could accomplish three things.

First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government's thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.

The partisan debate is driven by the fact that a disproportionately high number of people of color are felons; conceivably that could favor Democrats. But more than a political dispute, this is a civil rights issue. When felons complete their time behind bars, they have earned the right to vote, and that right should be restored.

by M Johnson : 4/16/09 12:17pm - Report Abuse

I agree fully.

by Robert Gaskin : 4/16/09 12:42pm - Report Abuse

One can only but wonder if the editorial staff of this newspaper and the grand poo bah Dems who try to run roughshod over the people of this state would have been so magnanimous if felons on the whole preferred to vote for Republicans.

by M Johnson : 4/16/09 12:50pm - Report Abuse

Well, Robert, you can wonder all you like. If you bother to look up the facts throughout our recent history, you would actually KNOW (rather than wonder) that many professionals in the criminal justice field have advocated this change for decades. Your simple cynical thought could easily be beefed up if you took just a teeny bit of energy and looked it up.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 4/16/09 2:03pm - Report Abuse

Also look at the history of where and when voting rights were stripped from felons and look at the 9 remaining states like florida where felons still cannot vote unless moving from another state that allows estoration of voting rights. After the Civil War, some of the Confederate die-hards decided to take over local state governments and set up de fact what they tried to set up through war--southern fiefdoms outside of the U.S. Constitution and its rights and protections. How to do that? Voting taxes, literacy tests and laws stripping felons (that the rednecks assumed non-whites were likely to wind up being and/or could be framed into being) of voting rights.

by Matthew M : 4/16/09 2:04pm - Report Abuse

Give them voting rights after serving AND restitution has been made. That's the reasonable and sound choice.

by Jaime E : 4/16/09 5:57pm - Report Abuse

In My Opinion: A Reader's Editorial By Jamie E...
A news organization should have some sense of independence, even in its editorials, to maintain their credibility. "The vote was...basically along party lines...Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it." Are you stating that Republicans are unwise? And that's just one example. The Columbian is more and more looking like an organ of the Democrat party. Maybe you could have just one guy on the editorial board able to articulate a conservative point of view. You wouldn't even have to hire him, just be a guest writer.

But into the meat of the story, the reason voting rights were permanently taken from felons was to have a lasting reminder of their actions. That all was not forgotten. If not voting is that much of an issue to a felon, they can petition the court to have it re-instated if they meet certain criteria. But to most repeat offenders, do you think they care about voting? And do we want their stellar judgement wielded in the voting booth? Not to mention this is only one right felons are stipped of when they're convicted. Would you support domestic abusers regaining their 2nd Amendment rights? It would be consistent with your opinion.

by Bruce Cipowski : 4/16/09 8:58pm - Report Abuse

1. The bill was supported by the Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, and I believe by the Republican Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey.

2. It was an unenforcable law to prevent all felons who have not paid all restitutions from voting. The county elections officials throughout the state had no reliable way to screen all ballots for such circumstances. The new law is a practical solution that may help some felons re-enter society.

The debate

Should voting rights be restored to felons who are no longer incarcerated?

-- PRO: According to felonvoting.procon.org, Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a former state attorney general, in 2007 wrote: “Some who favor the current system argue that restoring civil rights is somehow ‘weak on crime,’ as if restoring the right to vote … lessens the punishment or encourages a person to commit new crimes. In fact, the opposite should be true. Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society … and participate in our democracy will incentivize good behavior.”

-- CON: According to a 2007 Washington Times editorial: “Most people think perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed … serious lawbreakers should not help elect the country’s lawmakers.”