Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 12 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Governor's list bars vote to shoplifters
Published Saturday, October 4, 2008
BIRMINGHAM – A list of crimes compiled by the governor’s office and used to disqualify Alabama voters includes hundreds of felonies – such as animal cruelty and shoplifting – not previously considered serious enough to cost convicted criminals their voting rights.
State court administrators say the list includes far too many offenses and has been wrongly used for months by county registrars to disqualify an undetermined number of state voters ahead of the Nov. 4 presidential election.
Republican Gov. Bob Riley’s office said it did nothing wrong, but Democrats say the move may cost tens of thousands of qualified voters their right to cast a ballot next month – a number large enough to sway the outcome of some races.
The secretary of state’s office said it is trying to determine the size of the problem and fix it before Election Day. Officials haven’t been able to determine exactly how many voters may be affected because of how new the information is and the huge number of disqualifying crimes involved.
“It’s a very fast-moving issue that we were just hit with,” said state elections official Adam Thompson.
With Riley serving as a federal judge’s court-appointed overseer of Alabama’s election system, legal aides to Riley last year compiled a list of 444 felonies they considered to be convictions of moral turpitude, which state law says are the only crimes that disqualify citizens from voting. Riley’s office released a list of the crimes to The Associated Press late Thursday.
The governor’s list includes about 70 felonies that court administrators and state attorneys general previously have said involve moral turpitude, including violent crimes like murder, robbery, rape, drug trafficking and numerous sex-related offenses.
But the governor’s legal aides also classified about 370 other crimes as involving moral turpitude, including attempted arson, breaking and entering a vehicle, attempted burglary, criminal mischief, possession of burglary tools and burning a U.S. flag or cross.
The list also includes absentee balloting fraud, cruelty to a dog or cat, domestic violence, forgery, killing livestock illegally, leaving the scene of an accident with an injury, disrupting a funeral, ethics violations and conspiring to set an illegal brush fire.
The Administrative Office of Courts said the governor’s office has no legal authority to classify so many crimes as involving moral turpitude.
After months of denying that the long list was being used to prevent some people from registering to vote and to strike others from voting, the governor’s office last week admitted its list had been used in error, said Griffin Sikes, AOC legal director.
The mistake surfaced as a federal judge ended Riley’s role as special master in charge of developing a computerized system for voter registration.
Civil libertarians and some Democrats have accused Republicans of attempting to suppress voter registration, but Riley spokesman Jeff Emerson said it was “ridiculous” to suggest Riley’s office was part of such an effort.
Alabama’s elections system has been plagued by confusion and lawsuits over the hazy definition of which felonies are “crimes of moral turpitude.” Emerson said the governor’s office was forced to come up with its own list because court administrators failed to compile one.
While court administrators and the attorney general’s office have identified a relatively small number of crimes as involving moral turpitude based on state law and court rulings, Emerson said the shorter list is incomplete.
“Our legal staff ... put in hundreds of hours into researching both case law and statutory law to come up with a comprehensive list of crimes of moral turpitude,” he said.
Republican Secretary of State Beth Chapman’s office was placed in charge of voter registration after a court ended Riley’s oversight.
Thompson, who oversees compliance with federal voting law for the secretary of state, said staffers learned of potential problems with the governor’s list only this week from the Administrative Office of Courts.
“It’s our goal to see that every eligible voter can cast a ballot on Election Day,” he said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 4:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds exactly like voter suppression to me. It is interesting that in an election year Riley decides to add 370 other crimes to the list that will prevent people found guilty of those crimes from having the right to vote. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is happening under a Republican administration when Democratic voter registration numbers are higher than ever.
I do agree that some of these crimes should indeed disqualify someone from being able to vote (such as when violence is involved), but come on...shoplifting, disrupting a funeral and conspiring to set an illegal brush fire? This really makes me wonder what other crimes are on Riley's list. Also, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that burning a U.S. flag is protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution so I'm not even sure how anyone could be convicted of such a crime in this country.
The law on felony voting rights in Alabama is obviously too vague. Whenever one person is given the power to determine what is or is not moral, you're bound to run into a controversy, and it's way too easy for someone to abuse that power when the law is so hazy.
The final quote from Thompson baffles me. “It’s our goal to see that every eligible voter can cast a ballot on Election Day,” - Well, the problem here is WHO exactly is eligible to vote based on the definition of moral turpitude as interpreted by Riley and now Chapman.
In case anyone is wondering, moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals". Who is qualified to determine these community standards? I don't know, but it sure as hell shouldn't be one person who could easily use this law to disqualify voters for less than honest reasons, and that seems to be the case with Governor Riley.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on October 5, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE, the definition of moral turpitude seems to be pretty much cut & dry. If you know the definition of justice, honesty, and good morals with regards to community and social standards, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to determine what felons are eligible to vote. Emerson stated that the legal staff put in hundreds of hours researching case and statutory law to compile a comprehensive list of crimes of moral turpitude. There weren't two lists, giving felons of the Republican persuasion more voting rights. Perception is a black hole. No matter who determined the criteria for crimes of moral turpitude, the outcome will always be construed as corrupt or politically inclined. Felons commit crimes against society and the good of man. They know the rewards of their actions before they act. They don't deserve rights. We are too lenient on criminals.
Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AllSeeingEye states, and I quote,"In case anyone is wondering, moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals".
Then he asks, "Who is qualified to determine these community standards?"
I will tell you who..the courts. We have laws. If you break them you are a criminal. Same as with illegal aliens. Either you are a criminal or you are not. If you break the laws of this state or country you ARE a criminal. Period.
I would like to see the day when not only do you lose the right to vote but also the right to run for office (or to continue in one you were previously elected or appointed to) if you are a convicted criminal. Yes, this would disqualify a huge part of current office holders at all levels but it would get the rotten apples out of office.
One more thing. Is it just me or does it appear the Democrats are saying these changes affect only Democrats? Is it truly the case that the vast majority of criminals are Democrats, or is that just the belief of the Democratic party? The Democratic leadership is certainly giving that impression.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude - The definition of moral turpitude is wide open to interpretation. One person's morals may be different than another. Some people find it perfectly ok to drown a bag full of unwanted kittens. Some people think that justice is executing a person suspected of committing a murder without evidence or a trial. How would you feel if one of those people was in charge of deciding who should have the right to vote based on whether or not they fit under the definition of moral turpitude? That is what this issue really is about. One person (in this case the Governor) has the ability to determine which felony convictions fall under the definition of moral turpitude and I believe this is too much power for one person to have and his motivations are in question.
Phil - I agree with you that the courts alone should determine which felonies fit under the definition of moral turpitude. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case. Governor Riley alone was in charge of making this determination, and I believe that is too much power for one person to hold and that is why this is a controversy.
You wrote: "If you break the laws of this state or country you ARE a criminal. Period." I don't think it's so simple. What if, for example, a shoplifter who needed food for her hungry child was caught and convicted of a felony, went on to do her time in jail and served a probation period. Would you still consider her a criminal and deny her the right to vote even after she's fulfilled her obligation to the state and her community?
Also, I don't care which party's votes are being suppressed. Voter suppression should not be tolerated in a democracy. It is true that that majority of convicted felons are more likely to vote Democrat. I believe that this is because felons are more likely to be poor and those people usually vote Democrat.
I'm amazed at the lack of forgiveness in both of your comments. In a state where people hold their Christian values so dear you'd think that people would hold true to that one value that is a major part of their faith - forgiveness. I believe Governor Riley is a Christian man and his belief in forgiveness is exactly why his administration pushed to give felons their voting rights back. Unfortunately, he is also a Republican and that party has a long history of dirty tricks to keep Democrats from getting votes. I sincerely hope this is not his motivation, but the fact that extra crimes were added to the interpretation of moral turpitude in an election year shows that this is probably the case.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It might be helpful to point out that voting is not a Constitutional right, but rather a privilege granted or withheld by State or local governments.
A persons' criminal history, or lack thereof, notwithstanding, I have always thought that before a person is granted the voting privilege, he or she should have to pass a competency test, much the same as getting a drivers' license. It might not prevent people from making stupid choices at the polls, but it might prevent a few stupid people from voting. There should a few more minimum qualifications than just breathing air and being able to show a power bill. As a matter of fact, I think the evidence will show that lots of people have voted that weren't even breathing air. I realize that this is a bit off the topic, but what the hey.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Because he's a dimwit. I'm sure a Christian dimwit, but a dimwit.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on October 5, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kw, that's not quite what I had in mind. As I said, perception is a black hole. Depending on the circumstances, redemption and the test of time should restore one's individual rights.
Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Graves, as you well know from our previous conversations, I am an ordained minister currently working as a Chaplain. I read your argument with great interest, noting the same failure of understanding in you that I see in so many who stand in the pulpit or claim the mantle of Christian.
Yes, we are taught in the Bible to show forgiveness. We are also taught to show respect toward those in authority over us and to follow the law. These people broke laws. So long as it is on the books that those who commit felonies should not be allowed to vote, that is the standard we must accept and live with.
We should pray for them, and we are all certainly free to work to replace legislators with those who would make the changes we might desire. But that does not absolve us of our responsibilities to follow the laws that are in place. So to answer your hypothetical question, yes I would deny her the right to vote unless she was pardoned or the law was changed. I forgive all so far as I have the capacity and God given right to, but I do not excuse them from meeting their responsibilities.
I realize you think it amusing and to some degree your "place" to stir things up but please take care to show God the respect He deserves, which is absolute.
I have stated my position and it is not going to change unless God should reveal to me some error in my ways, which He has done in the past and is quite likely to again as I too am still a sinner. I hope you do not take this as judging you or as a personal attack. It is neither. I love you as my brother in Christ.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Steven - Riley is probably doing this because of pressure from state Republicans who want to get elected or reelected, but who knows with that guy.
I just found out that a few months ago the ACLU challenged Alabama voter disenfranchisement laws in court on the grounds that the "Moral Turpitude" interpretation violates the constitutional right to vote. quote: "Although this term is not defined, the constitution clearly states that only the legislature can decide which felonies qualify under this category."
Apparently this has been going on for years by the Attorney General Troy King as well.
I really suggest you read these articles:
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffen...
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia...
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/st...
I can't find the list of what "Lord Riley" thinks are moral turpitudes. This problem is pretty damn big since perhaps tens of thousands of Alabamians could be ineligible to vote let alone having their constitutional rights trampled. Maybe a trip to the State Capitol is in order?
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And for those that won't believe anything unless it comes from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul22/0...
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Constitutional 'right' to vote?
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The U.S. Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, but it does contain many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. That means it is indeed recognized in the Constitution as a "right". The qualifications for voters are left to the states. I believe that makes it both a right and a privilege. Like many things, it doesn't have to be one or the other, it is both.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)