home

ACLU Sues Over Felon Disenfranchisement in Alabama

Good for the ACLU (again):

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Alabama elections officials Monday over what it says is an overly expansive policy disenfranchising felons, amid concern from voting rights groups nationwide that voting lists are being culled with too great alacrity by many states.

Alabama bars felons from voting only if they've been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude." According to the ACLU, the state legislature limited that fuzzy phrase to specific crimes: "murder, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, incest, sexual torture and nine other crimes mainly involving pornography and abuses against children." Alabama's attorney general, Troy King, has expanded the legislature's list to include about a dozen more (mostly nonviolent) crimes, including the distribution of marijuana. The ACLU takes the sensible position that it's the responsibility of the legislature, not the attorney general, to make the law. [more ...]

State election officials appear to be going beyond even the attorney general’s list. One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Annette McWashington Pruitt, a 48-year-old Birmingham resident, was turned away because of her 2003 conviction for receiving stolen property, her lawyers say.

The suit asks a state court judge to stop Alabama election officials from turning away any voter with a felony conviction not on the Legislature’s moral turpitude list.

We last heard from Alabama's arrogant AG here. This post tells you more about Troy King's deficient sense of justice.

Troy King is not alone in his attempt to disenfranchise as many people as he can.

Voting rights groups are especially watchful this year because under a 2002 federal law, states are now coordinating lists to find felons and people who have died or moved, allowing easy — rights groups say too easy — purging of voters. ...

Elsewhere in the South, the voting rights group Project Vote has been expressing concern over what it sees as undue purging of voters in Louisiana, without notification, before this year’s election.

States do the nation no favors by disenfranchising offenders who have paid for their mistakes and who want to live responsible lives. As Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, reminds us:

“It’s in the larger interest of the general public to rehabilitate people. It’s one of the things that rehabilitates people, participating in the political process.”
< Judge Bars Coerced Statements in Guantanamo Trial | Why Should The Iraqi Gov't Need Leverage To Have US Troops Leave? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Those that are disenfranchised.... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:32:38 AM EST
    should be exempt from all taxation...income, sales, vice...I'm talking all taxation.

    Since they have no say in representation and all, I think that is what our principles demand.

    Once ex-cons are getting tax free beer, the state will re-enfranchise them real quick I'd bet.

    Ahh the deep south. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:36:08 PM EST


    Check out immigration law for a history... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:47:49 AM EST
    of the expansiveness of "crimes of moral turpitude".

    For example, in some states, multiple DWI's will constitute such a crime for removal purposes.  There's a lesson to be learned here as to how this may/will play out in the future.

    Isn't this also (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:10:37 AM EST
    an ex post facto violation?

    A change of heart, (none / 0) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:19:40 AM EST

    The ACLU takes the sensible position that it's the responsibility of the legislature ... to make the law.

    This is new!  Will the ACLU now start defend legislatures against judges that wish to make law?

    The whole disenfranchisement thing... (none / 0) (#6)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    ...seems to me to smack more of petty vindictiveness than any protection of the public interest.  Also, of course, since convicted felons are more likely to belong to a group that tends to vote for one party over another, it  smacks of partisan vote suppression, too.

    Really? (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    Which party is more attractive to criminals?

    Parent
    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    Lets see, GOP?  But you can do your own math.

    The Grand Ole Docket tracks trial dates, court appearances and sentencing hearings for players in the current array of national political scandals.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#7)
    by jccamp on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    It appears that the Alabama legislature changed the statutes in 2006, making the 1901 Alabama Constitution the basis for disqualifying convicted felons. This is the language from that Constitution:
    "treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude"

    Obviously, some of the listed 1901 offenses may no longer be crimes, and could not disqualify a person from registering to vote. However, it appears as though the "Felon Disenfranchisement" complies with state law. Could it be that the ACLU is taking some license with their description of the issues?
    If the 2006 law has been amended or invalidated, I can't find it with a search engine.


    Alabama AG (none / 0) (#8)
    by Turbulent Confusion on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
    Last I checked Felons are citizens of the US.  Whether they like it or not.  Our Founding fathers would have been considered felons today due to the treason that they themselves applied against the British Empire.  

    With the laundry list of convictions they apply there, that pretty much invalidates any vote the Alabama Congress has submitted since they passed this act.

    "Pull the string, get a snake." (none / 0) (#9)
    by SeeEmDee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    Or that's how I used to hear it. The ACLU may not know about it, but their suit will also strike at the heart of the DrugWar, because the DrugWar is a very handy tool for disenfranchising minorities. And the lawsuit cannot help but bump into that.