Home Law government Criminals’ voting rights law unconstitutional, North Carolina court finds

Criminals’ voting rights law unconstitutional, North Carolina court finds

4
0

Judges restored the franchise to approximately 55,000 North Carolina residents on parole or probation for a felony.

GOP state lawmakers, who were defending the law in court, plan to appeal Monday’s ruling to a higher court. But if the ruling is upheld on appeal, those convicted of crimes in North Carolina will regain their right to vote once released from prison.

“Anyone on felony probation, parole or post-supervision can now register and vote, starting today,” challengers lawyer Stanton Jones said in a text message Monday. morning after delivery of the decision.

Most states in the United States allow people with a criminal record to regain their right to vote at some point after they are released from prison, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some have the same rules as North Carolina until Monday’s ruling, requiring people to complete their probation or parole first. But more have the rules judges have now tipped North Carolina to, with people recovering their rights upon release from prison.

This is the biggest expansion of voting rights in North Carolina since the 1960s, said Daryl Atkinson, co-director of the Durham Forward Justice civil rights group and lawyer for the challengers in the case.

“Our biggest bickering in this state has been over which groups of people have a voice at the ballot box to be included in ‘We the people’,” Atkinson said at a press conference Monday, later adding: ” Today we have expanded the ‘we’ into ‘We the people’.

The law challengers argued that the criminal disenfranchisement laws were explicitly created to prevent black people from voting in the years after the Civil War and coincided with a widespread campaign to accuse newly black people. freed from crimes – disturbing trends, they said, which have continued into the present day.

Jones said in his opening arguments at trial last week, The News & Observer reported, that while blacks make up 21% of North Carolina’s voting age population, they are 42% of those whose Voting rights have been taken away because of this law – “which is not surprising because that is exactly what it was designed to do,” he said.

If Monday’s ruling survives on appeal, North Carolina will be the only southern state to automatically restore people to voting rights after they are released from prison.

Next steps

GOP leaders said on Monday that in addition to appealing the decision, they would also ask that the decision be blocked until the appeal is made.

In the meantime, however, the North Carolina State Council of Elections said Monday it would immediately begin updating its website, voter registration forms and other documents to reflect the decision.

And some advocacy groups are already planning to start educating people with criminal records about the decision.

“Starting tomorrow, we plan to launch a statewide voter registration campaign,” said Dennis Gaddy, who founded the Community Success Initiative, a group in Raleigh that helps ex-inmates get back into society.

Gaddy’s group was one of many opponents of the law, who said that once people get out of jail they return to society and should have a say in how it is run. Even if they are on probation, they can still pay taxes and send their children to school – and therefore should be able to vote on who is responsible for spending their taxes or running schools, they said.

“They can’t defend themselves” without being able to vote, Gaddy said. “They cannot defend their communities. They cannot defend their families.

In addition to Gaddy’s group, other challengers in the trial included several people on probation or parole and the North Carolina NAACP.

NC NAACP President T. Anthony Spearman said Monday that North Carolina should go one step further and let all adult citizens vote, even if they are in jail. Two states, Maine and Vermont, already do this.

“I think it is immoral to deprive any individual, who is a citizen, of the right to vote,” Spearman said. “The states of Maine and Vermont got it right. “

Some other Western democracies allow prisoners to vote as long as they are citizens, including Israel, Canada, and Germany.

GOP defense of the law

In court last week, attorney for GOP lawmakers defending the law, Orlando Rodriguez, said they agreed with the challengers that the law was rooted in racism when it was passed in the 1870s. state lawmakers significantly updated the rules in the 1970s, he said, to make improvements in the wake of the civil rights movement.

“This more recent history clearly indicates a trajectory towards improving the ability to have the right to vote,” said Rodriguez, noting that some of the changes made in the 1970s were proposed by Mickey Michaux, a politician from longtime Durham leader and civil rights leader.

After Monday’s ruling, Republican Senator Warren Daniel de Morganton said he did not believe judges had the power to make the decision they made. Daniel, who co-chairs the Senate committee on electoral law issues, said the question of when criminals should regain the right to vote is simply a political debate that should not be settled in the courts.

“If a judge prefers a different path to reclaim those rights, then he or she should come to the General Assembly and propose that path,” he said in a written statement to The N&O.

He called the decision a “takeover” and added: “Judges are not supposed to be oligarchs who issue decrees they think are best. “

The decision itself has yet to be written, but the judges delivered their decision on Monday morning, saying they had voted 2-1, Carolina Public Press reported.

They were Lisa Bell from Mecklenburg County, Keith Gregory from Wake County and John Dunlow, whose district includes Franklin, Granville, Person, Vance and Warren counties north of Raleigh. Most trials in North Carolina are heard only by one judge, but constitutional law trials are heard by panels of three Superior Court judges selected from across the state.

North Carolina Speaker of the House Tim Moore, who was the main defendant in the case, declined to comment on Monday morning. His general counsel, Sam Hayes, called the decision absurd and said they would appeal and in the meantime they would immediately seek a stay of the decision.

Later Monday, the offices of Republican legislative leaders informed Attorney General Josh Stein’s office that they had hired an outside lawyer to take on the defense of the law, saying lawyers in Stein’s office had refused to initiate the appeal process until there is a written decision to be reviewed. .

Stein said in a written statement to The N&O that he was not yet legally able to appeal, as there is no order to appeal.

“The lawyers in our office have worked diligently on behalf of the state over the past year,” he said. “We would have continued to do so – but only within the limits of the law, which requires a written order to appeal. Without a written order, our office was unable to commit to a future legal strategy.

For more information on North Carolina government and politics, listen to The News & Observer and NC Insider’s Under the Dome political podcast. You can find it at link.chtbl.com/underthedomenc or wherever you get your podcasts.

Under the dome

On The News & Observer’s Under the Dome podcast, we unpack the legislation and the issues that matter, keeping you up to date with what’s going on in North Carolina politics twice a week on Monday and Friday mornings. Check us out here and sign up for our weekly Under the Dome newsletter for more political news.

Related articles from Raleigh News & Observer

Will Doran reports on North Carolina politics, with a focus on employees and state agencies. In 2016, he started The News & Observer’s fact-checking partnership, PolitiFact NC, and before that he reported on local governments around the Triangle. Contact him at [email protected] or (919) 836-2858.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here