The state of Washington thinks so. In fact, when it comes to felony disenfranchisement laws, our state is far from a bastion of progressive, pluralistic thought. Indeed, the question of ex-felons' voting rights is rapidly emerging as a statewide hot-button issue as it becomes increas- ingly apparent that Washington has far more in common with many Southern states still straining under the legacy of Jim Crow laws--which stripped many blacks of their voting rights--than with the rest of the country.
Shockingly, nearly a quarter of the African American men in Washington are prohibited from voting, a situation that continues despite ongoing local efforts, including proposed corrective legislation and two pending court cases, one in federal and one in state court. Unlike here, the issue has generated major media attention nationally, prompting other states--New Mexico, Delaware, and Maryland, most recently--to eliminate or narrow their own restrictions.
The number of people impacted by these laws is huge. As an unintended legacy of the war on drugs, which has quintupled the American prison population, felony disenfranchisement laws ensure that nationally 1.4 million black men--13 percent of the total--are kept from voting.
That's bad enough, but Washington's record is worse. Here, 151,500 citizens have been purged from the voting rolls, a total of 3.7 percent of the state's population (compared to two percent nationally), despite the fact that nearly half of those are "ex-felons" who have completed their terms of imprisonment, parole, or probation. Moreover, 16,700 of the 150,000-plus unfortunates are black men, 24 percent of the state's male African American population.
Most states do partially restrict felons' voting rights. Only two states allow current prisoners to vote, while 32 prohibit parolees from voting and 29 disenfranchise those on probation. But Washington's laws are some of the strictest: All offenders convicted prior to July 1984 are permanently disenfranchised, and those convicted after that date are barred until they fully complete their sentences and pay all attendant fines, after which point they are supposed to be granted a formal discharge from the Department of Corrections (DOC).
But many former felons are never able to pay off those fines--on which the state charges 12 percent compound interest--according to Paul Marvy of the Defender Association. Currently, when the DOC realizes a former felon can't pay, it "terminates" that individual from further supervision. Once terminated, they are de facto barred from voting for life, since no clear procedure exists to restore their rights.
According to the Washington ACLU, far more ex-felons are terminated than discharged; between 1998 and 2000, more than 20,000 suffered termination, while barely more than 9,000 won a DOC discharge. To make matters worse, many offenders who fulfill discharge requirements fall through the cracks and never receive the expected restoration. The system "has many flaws, and doesn't work well at all," explains Julia Hampton of the ACLU.
That's no surprise to State Senator Adam Kline (D-37), who recently sponsored a bill to establish clear procedures whereby ex-felons could apply for reinstatement to the voting rolls. Though only a partial reform, likely affecting only a few hundred ex-felons, it died in committee.
The courts may step in to fill the gap, however. First is a federal case initiated by Professor Larry Weiser of the Gonzaga Legal Clinic in Spokane. Grinding forward since 1996, the case challenges Washington's disenfranchisement rules as a violation of the Voting Rights Act, which bars restrictions that disproportionately deprive minorities of voting rights.
More limited, though perhaps more promising, is a local effort by the Defender Association. After years of study, the group is launching a test case this month through which it intends to challenge the DOC's mandatory imposition of fines on those clearly unable to pay, which results in so many terminations. "The termination procedure is completely made up administratively--it has no basis in law," Marvy explains. "What's unique about our case is we are going to challenge it at the front end, at sentencing, rather than wait till our client is already terminated."
