House panel approves felon voting rights amendment

For the fourth time in as many years, a provision to allow convicted felons who have served their time to vote has passed a House committee.

The House elections and constitutional amendment committee approved the measure, 7-1, prompting applause from advocates attending the meeting. The lone Republican who attended the meeting, Rep. Joseph Fischer, R-Fort Thomas, cast the only "no" vote.

Rep. Jesse Crenshaw, D-Lexington, presented House Bill 70, which requires re-writing part of the constitution, and noted that last year's version cleared the full House by 70 votes before withering in the Senate. Since the 2007 version, Kentucky and Virginia became the last two states in the country that still block felons from having their voting rights restored after finishing their sentences.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, last year issued an executive order easing the restrictions on voting restoration.

Dave Stengel, Jefferson County Commonwealth Attorney, said blocking felon voting rights is akin to "piling on after the whistle," adding that they still face difficulty getting jobs with such a black mark on their permanent record.

He said the loss of voting rights is rarely cited as an effective deterrent of crimes.

"Not one of them said, 'Oh my God, I'll lose my right to vote,'" he said.

About 128,000 Kentuckians currently haven't had their voting rights restored. That has, in effect, made "a felony conviction a life-long sentence," said Raoul Cunningham, president of the Louisville NAACP.

Former Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration tightened the policies to reinstate voting rights by requiring felons to submit a written request and three references. That slowed the process for many people, said Teena Halbig, president of the Kentucky League of Women Voters.

Fischer, before he voted against the measure, noted that each governor has the power to tighten or relax the process as they see fit.

"We shouldn't do this on a governor by governor basis," Crenshaw responded.

- Ryan Alessi 

Comments

[Edgar]

That's great. This is long over due. Now lets get this bill through the House then we can see if the Republican controlled Senate wants to keep disenfranchising people or if they will finally pass this bill.

[Noah]

I don't think felons should get the right to vote back unless they get all their rights back...including the right to keep and bear arms.

[shoring up the Democrat constituency]

Is this just another way for the Democrats to get more voters? I can see it now: Felons For Beshear/Hillary/Lunsford!

LOL

[Chaz]

They chose to leave civilize society. They no longer deserve its benefits.

[Chaz]

They chose to leave civilized society by breaking its laws. They no longer deserve any of its benefits.

[Chaz]

They chose to leave civilized society by breaking its laws. They no longer deserve any of its benefits.

[vote them all OUT!]

Who votes these House people in?

Are they nuts? They need to be voted out of office!!!

Here's what you say to a felon that is sad they lost their right to vote ... you play you pay.

[felons should NOT vote]

Rep. Crenshaw is not speaking correctly. He should go the website www.felonvotingprocon.org and he will see that he is wrong, Ky. and Va are not the only 2 states that still block felons from voting after finishing their sentence.

Since part of their sentence includes probation, no felon should be allowed to vote until after they have completed their probation.

What in the heck are these elected idiots doing spending our money worrying about whether or not a child predator can vote?

[InTheNameOfJesus]

Let me get this right-In the past week they have said it's okay for murderers & rapists, aka convicted felons, to vote and participate in the democratic system, but domestic partners shouldn't have health insurance. Where are the priorities of our legislators?

Is anyone home?

[Roger]

It's time that Kentucky finally passed this. After a person has served their sentence and paid their dues, we should be ENCOURAGING them to become more involved. Not trying to ostracize them, which would only make them more likely to return to crime.

[Malletman]

Roger's right here. Further means to ostracize someone who has already served their sentence, especially something which serves as no deterrent to crime nor harms society by their involvement, only pushes them back into crime.

Basically, the idea is this: They've served their time separated from society by their offense, so why are they unfit to publicly voice their opinion in the democratic process when they're fit to be let loose among society?