Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Governor Doubles Down on Effort to Restore Voting Rights to Felons appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe received fierce opposition from Virginia republicans when he released an executive order in late April to restore voting rights to over 200,000 ex-felons. McAuliffe’s opponents argued that he was overstepping his restoration powers in his capacity as governor and that he only had the power to restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis. On July 22, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he had indeed overstepped his constitutional powers in a 4-3 decision, shooting down his blanket restoration move. 

When he first took up the fight to restore voting rights for released felons, McAuliffe—who has historically been engaged in national democratic politics as former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign—was criticized for using restoration as a political tool. With one in five adult African-Americans being disenfranchised in Virginia, republican opponents argued that McAuliffe was trying to “unlock” the minority vote in the wake of the 2016 presidential election.

McAuliffe starkly denies this. Rather, he claims that any citizen who has completed the full term of their sentence shouldn’t be disenfranchised. McAuliffe aims to relieve some of the ex-felons’ burden by restoring voting rights, as disenfranchisement is one of the most significant collateral consequences facing prison releasees.

While the Howell v. McAuliffe decision is certainly a setback, McAuliffe isn’t done with his battle for voting rights quite yet. In a statement released following the July 22 decision McAuliffe promised that he will still pursue restoration. The governor will individually sign 13,000 restoration orders this month and will not stop signing restoration orders until all affected individuals reclaim their right to vote.

Virginia is one of less than ten states that still disenfranchises felons who have completed all terms of their sentence, and is one of less than five states where over 20 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised. Thus felon disenfranchisement—in addition to the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans—has the innately undemocratic effect of suppressing minority votes and minority voices.

McAuliffe holds that his action is unpartisan, that he is acting to alleviate the intense injustices that have plagued Virginia’s past. He holds that voting rights ensure certain citizens aren’t being unfairly targeted and excluded from the democratic process.

During his tenure, McAuliffe has championed many issues of inequality. Such instances include initiating preschool programs in impoverished schools/communities, vetoing multiple pieces of legislation aiming to restrict abortion access, and more. The closing sentiment of his statement on the voting rights case sums up the progressive governor’s spirit: “The struggle for civil rights has always been a long and difficult one, but the fight goes on.”

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Governor Wages Fierce Fight for Voting Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Though homelessness is not recognized as a protected class under the Hate Crime Prevention Act (HCPA), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has been tracking what it considers to be hate crimes for 15 years now. The coalition has documented more than 1,437 crimes against homeless people committed by housed individuals since 1999.

The FBI defines a hate crime as any “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The NCH adamantly believes that targeting individuals solely because they lack a place to call home is just as serious as targeting them because of their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.

“There is a very high prevalence of violence against homeless people. They are sought out and targeted because of who they are, and folks are being injured and attacked in large numbers,” Jerry Jones, executive director of the NCH, explained in a phone interview.

In fact, while there have only been 132 homicides in the last 15 years that qualify as hate crimes, the number of homeless related homicides is almost three times as many, totaling 375 deaths since 1999.

These attacks are believed to be motivated by the housed perpetrators’ bias against homeless people. Jones explained that the perpetrators of these crimes “view homeless people as an easy target since they’re living out on the streets,” adding, “they seem to be guided by a twisted rationale that no one will care if they get  hurt.”

With 610,042 people found homeless on any given night across the United States, and with attacks occurring in 47 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, this is quickly becoming a problem that can no longer be ignored.

Who’s Keeping Track?

One of the most disturbing elements of these crimes is the fact that they are not being recorded. No one aside from the NCH tracks the victims of this particular crime, which is primarily the reason why the Coalition is trying to amend the HCPA to include homelessness as a protected class.

“It’s part of our mission to highlight these [violent] acts,” Jones said of the National Coalition for the Homeless. “It’s an issue that we’ve dedicated a lot of time and effort to, but the government has more resources.”

If homelessness were to become a federally recognized protected class, it would require the FBI to track crimes against the homeless the same way that it tracks crimes against other protected classes. It would also show that the government acknowledges not only that there is a problem, but also the fact that these people are worth protecting.

While the NCH publishes annual reports that provide a vivid account of the crimes committed against the homeless, it does not have the resources that the federal government has at its disposal. A complete and accurate count of these crimes will not be possible until the federal government takes over the data collection process.

This is a problem because until we know the extent of the issue, fixing it is relatively impossible. From the data compiled by the NCH it is clear that homeless people frequently suffer from beatings, rape, murders, and even being lit on fire at the hands of housed perpetrators. But the question remains: is this enough to constitute the creation of a new protected class under the HCPA?

The Violence Against the Homeless Accountability Act

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson seems to think so, introducing the Violence Against the Homeless Accountability Act (VAHA) last year. In a press release she states that “before we can solve the problem, we must understand the problem,” arguing that such legislation is needed to send the message that crimes against the homeless will not be forgotten or ignored.

Johnson is not alone in this belief either. Several states have taken it upon themselves to individually include homeless people as a protected class under their hate crime statutes. At least 11 states have passed some form of protection for the homeless as of 2012, but until homeless people are protected under federal legislation, the fight is far from over.

The Homeless Accountability Act only has a six percent chance of getting past committee in the House and only a one percent chance of being enacted. This is slightly lower than the average bill, which stems primarily from the fact that it has failed to garner support from Republicans who are opposed to any further expansion of the HCPA.

The Debate

There is a lot of trepidation about expanding the scope of existing hate crime laws as people are fearful that such an expansion will infringe on citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, criminalizing hateful “thoughts” rather than hateful acts (though the HCPA explicitly states it does not limit hateful thoughts or even hateful speech).

Another argument is that since homelessness is not an immutable characteristic like race, it does not warrant the same protection under the HCPA. Others believe that inclusion as a protected class is not necessary because existing laws are strong enough to deal with any discrimination directed toward the homeless.

Though it may be true that homelessness is not an immutable characteristic, the homeless are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, quite literally without a place to call home. They are veterans who served our country, struggling families who have had their homes foreclosed, and fellow citizens who no longer have the means or the mental capacity to support themselves.

They, of all people, deserve extra protection from senseless violence, yet current legislation has proven to be inadequate in protecting them from the violent actions of housed perpetrators. Until the homeless are protected under the federal hate crime statutes, the discriminatory violence they face will only increase and, sadly, continue to be largely ignored.

[The National Coalition for the Homeless’ Annual Report 2013]

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sebastian via Flicker]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crimes Against the Homeless: Who’s Keeping Track? appeared first on Law Street.

The effect of crime on society is often — and justifiably so — more victim-focused than offender-focused. We tend to think of someone breaking the law as an affront to society at large. That’s why in some states criminal cases are titled “The People v. ______.” To be sure, in many ways our criminal justice system is retributive. We are meant to feel some form of solace when someone is punished for offending the morals and values of society in the form of breaking the law. But I ask, when has our justice system gone too far? When do the  consequences on the offender far outstrip the damage that person did to society?

Two words: Felony Disenfranchisement.

Felony disenfranchisement is a so-called collateral consequence — the impediments to normal life and reintegration convicted persons suffer beyond their actual sentence of incarceration or supervision — and is often seen as part-and-parcel of our criminal justice system. While some may feel having been incarcerated is enough for an individual to pay their debt to society, still many others think that when you choose to break the law, you do so with the implicit acknowledgement that because you have deviated from the norms of our culture, you must take all the bad that comes from that deviation. A cold look at the facts, particularly in the area of felons who have been released from their conditions of custody being permanently denied their fundamental right to vote, might convince some to change their minds.

The Sentencing Project estimates that about 5.8 million Americans are denied their right to vote due to laws that prohibit voting by convicted felons. As a matter of perspective, that’s like the entire population of the State of Wisconsin not being allowed to vote.

The disparate impact these laws have on minority communities is quite telling. These draconian laws lead to 1 in every 13 African Americans not being able to vote due to felony conviction. According to Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent statements on this issue at Georgetown University Law Center, 1 in 10 people in the state of Florida may no longer vote due to its laws restricting felony voting. Did I mention that 38 percent of those nearly six million Americans are Black? The Attorney General is now leading the charge to help push policy reform in this area, and for that he should be applauded. In his own words:

“These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive”

I would venture to add that these laws are not only counterproductive, but oppressive. In a nation that considers voting so fundamental to the democratic process that  we have an entire amendment to the Constitution dedicated to it, one might think these laws would have been struck down by now. Alas, the Supreme Court in Richardon v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) upheld the California law disenfranchising felons by pointing to the lesser known section 2 of the 14th amendment which states:

“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime . . . .”

That last line, according to both the text of the Constitution and the debate history around the provision, allows states to prevent certain classes of convicted individuals from voting.

Yet more important than the historical practice of disenfranchising those convicted of a crime is the modern impact of the practice today. What does it say about a system that prides itself on the democratic process that nearly 6 million American are essentially left out in the cold? Sure, they could lobby their respective state legislatures to get these laws repealed, but they don’t have access to the most potent form of lobbying imaginable: the ability to disapprove of a legislator with one’s ballot. They must do indirectly what the rest of us can do directly.

We must ask ourselves what goals are being advanced withholding the ballot from millions of citizens. Is disenfranchisement really the deterrent to crime some hope it to be, or is it just another major impediment to the reintegration of people who should have already “paid their debt to society.”

Without a doubt, crime is crime is crime, and those who commit crime should be punished. It is not the fact of punishment but rather the nature and extent that motivates this analysis. Must we continue to isolate individuals from our society even after they have been released from confinement? When will it ever end?

Felony disenfranchisement is just one more badge on the permanent underclass our society is creating with many of its criminal laws. It’s time we move forward.

—

Dominic Jones (@DomPerinyon) is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films.

Featured image courtesy of [Rama via Wikipedia]

Click here for additional Law Street coverage on felony disenfranchisement.

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Felony Disenfranchisement: Collateral Consequences appeared first on Law Street.