voting while incarcerated · vwi: voting while incarcerated a tool kit for voting rights advocates...

A Tool Kit for AdvocatesSeeking to Register, and Facilitate Voting by,

Eligible People in Jail

VOTING WHILEINCARCERATED

VWI

Voting While Incarcerated

VWI: VOTING WHILE INCARCERATEDA Tool Kit for Voting Rights Advocates

Published September 2005

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, leg-islatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by theConstitution and the laws of the United States.

An ACLU/Right to Vote Report

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This tool kit was drafted by Laleh Ispahani of the ACLU and Tricia Forbes, a consultant to the Right to Vote campaign.Special thanks to those who provided information and comments, including Marc Mauer, Deborah Goldberg, LudovicBlain, Rachael Devaney, Jody Kent, Ryan Haygood, Norris Henderson, Charlie Sullivan, Rosa Goldberg, John Lieb,Wilfredo Rojas, Malik Aziz, Molly Wieser, Dorsey Nunn, Derrick Johnson, Dan Salvin and Elton Edwards. This tool kitis the responsibility of the authors.

The Right to Vote Campaign gratefully acknowledges the generous support for its felony disfranchisement work pro-vided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Tides Foundation (with funds from the Ford Foundation, JEHTFoundation, Open Society Institute, and the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation).

RIGHT TO VOTE is a coalition of six national civil-rights and public-interest organizations: the American Civil LibertiesUnion, Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, Demos, Mexican American Legal Defenseand Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and The Sentencing Project. These groups cametogether in 2002 to work collaboratively to end felony disfranchisement through research, public education, voter reg-istration and litigation. While the Campaign’s principal focus is on de jure disfranchisement, or disfranchisementbased on state statutes and constitutional law, the campaign also works to redress issues arising out of what may becalled ‘de facto disfranchisement’. De facto disfranchisement includes faulty policies and practices that result in thedisfranchisement of citizens who are eligible to vote, including those in jail pending trial, or serving a sentence for amisdemeanor or a non-disfranchising felony. The campaign seeks to broaden discussion of the issue and promote re-enfranchisement nationwide, through its support of work in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi,New York, Rhode Island, Texas and across the country. The coalition’s partners in this work include the AlabamaAlliance to Restore the Vote, Democracy Works, Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, Maryland Voting RightsRestoration Coalition, Mississippi Voter Empowerment Coalition, New York Unlock the Block Campaign, Rhode IslandRight to Vote Campaign and Texas Unlock Your Vote Campaign. For further information, please visit: http://www.right-tovote.org/ www.righttovote.org.

National Office125 Broad Street, 18th Fl.New York, NY 10004-2400(212) 549-2500www.aclu.org

OFFICERS AND DIRECTORSNadine Strossen, PresidentAnthony D. Romero, Executive DirectorRichard Zacks, Treasurer

161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Fl.New York, NY 10013www.righttovote.org

Table Of ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Important Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

What’s the Difference between Jail and Prison? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Issues to Address with Your Local Election Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Issues to Address with Your Local Jail Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

VWI Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Voter Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Voting from Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Strategies for Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Profiles: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Baltimore, Md. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Cleveland, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Los Angeles, Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

New Orleans, La. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Philadelphia, Penn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Pike County, Miss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Resources: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

The Help American Vote Act (HAVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

The Law in Your State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Voter Registration Contacts by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Chief State Elections Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

State Voter Registration Deadlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Jail Census Data by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Article: Pretrial Detainees’ Law Suit in Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

VWI Model Materials: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

From Cleveland, Ohio: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Fact Sheet for Advocates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Ohio Statute Flyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Talking Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

From the NAACP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Your Vote Does Count! Flyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

From Los Angeles, California: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Guide to Inmate Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

From Philadelphia, Penn.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Jail-Based Voter Registration and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Program Brochure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

From Washington, D.C.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

The FAIR Way to Vote in Jail Flyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62


An AC LU/Right to Vo te Report

PREFACE

Voting has a special place in our democracy, and if an individual is eligible to vote, whetherconfined in a jail or not, that right must be honored. As the Supreme Court noted in the 1964

case, Reynolds v. Sims:

Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democrat-ic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unim-paired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any allegedinfringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulouslyscrutinized....

There is, however, a misconception on the part of some jail officials and local election authoritiesthat people detained in jail cannot vote, and there are few programs that make it possible fordetainees to exercise their right to do so. Detainees themselves often do not realize they can vote,and the logistical considerations of registering and/or voting from jail can make it extremely dif-ficult.

Some states and cities are making attempts to rectify this matter. The Illinois legislature justapproved a law stating that confinement and detention in a jail pending trial was not a disqualifi-cation from voting. And San Francisco's Department of Elections is taking steps to inform peoplein jail that they are eligible to vote as a way to increase voter registration while honoring inmates'right to vote. The public education campaign will include providing registration cards and absen-tee ballots to people in local jails.

As someone who has been integrally involved in the elections process in Pike County, Mississippifor nine years, I encourage advocates to work with corrections and elections officials to make vot-ing possible for those eligible but confined. We disfranchise nearly 5 million people for felonyconvictions, but there are, at any given time, over 750,000 people who though detained in ournation's jails are eligible to vote. Most are being held pretrial or serving sentences for misde-meanors or non-disfranchising felonies.

Voting also allows people to remain connected to their community while they are detained in jail.In the opinion of the American Correctional Association, voting is also a way to facilitate effec-tive re-entry. As Wilfredo Rojas of the Philadelphia jail system puts it: "In corrections, we're inthe business of public safety, and in the interest of public safety, we want to strengthen the tiesbetween detained people and their communities. One of the best tools for this is the ballot box."

— Lexie Elmore

LEXIE ELMORE was elected to the Pike County Board of Supervisors in 1992 and is the firstAfrican American and woman to hold the position. She is responsible for enacting policies and set-ting the budget for Pike County, Miss. She represents District 2 and is now serving her fourth term.

i

Disfranchise: To deprive a person of the rights ofcitizenship, especially the right to vote.

Felony: Every state has its own statutory definitionof a felony, but most are consistent with the federaldefinition of a felony as a crime that carries a sen-tence of imprisonment for more than one year.

Felony Disfranchisement: The loss of the right tovote because of a felony conviction.

Get-out-the-vote: Activity that consists of contact-ing registered voters by telephone, in person, or byother individualized means, to assist them in engag-ing in the act of voting.1

Formerly Incarcerated Person/Person with aFelony Conviction: Acceptable alternatives for theterms “ex-offender” and “ex-felon,” used to conveythat someone whose life has been impacted by thecriminal justice system is first and foremost a person.

Jail: A place under the jurisdiction of a local gov-ernment for the confinement of people awaitingtrial, or those convicted of minor crimes for whichthey are serving short sentences.2 Most people injail are eligible to vote.

Local Election Agency: The agency that adminis-ters elections at the local level. It may be called aBoard of Elections, a Board of Registrars, anElection Commission, or another name, dependingon the state.

Locality: The locality covered by a Local ElectionAgency is often a county, but it may be a parish, a town,or other geographic region, depending on the state.

Parole: The release of a person under certain ongo-ing conditions after serving a prison sentence.

Prison: A place of confinement for people convict-ed of felonies.3 People in prison have been tried andconvicted of a crime. People in prison generally areineligible to vote, except those incarcerated inMaine and Vermont.

Probation: Probation is a sentence ordered by ajudge. Probation is usually an alternative to servingtime in prison. It allows a convicted person toremain in the community, often under the supervi-sion of a probation officer.

In-Person Absentee Voting: This generally refersto the process of a detained person requesting anabsentee ballot, and local election agency staff orvolunteers visiting the jail to deliver and/or help thedetainee complete the ballot.


Fast Facts on the U.S. Jail Population

• One third of the incarcerated population in the U.S.is held in local jails.

• On June 30, 2004, there were 713,990 people in U.S.jails.

• There are approximately 3,365 local jails in the U.S.

• The number of people in jail rose by 22,689 (3.9%)between June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2004.

• 6 of 10 people in local jails are members of racial orethnic minorities.

• African Americans are 5 times more likely thanwhites, and almost twice as likely as Latinos, to be injail.

• Nearly 9 of 10 people detained in jail are adult men.

• The nation’s 50 largest jail jurisdictions house 1/3 ofall people detained in jail.

• The states with the largest jail populations are:California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania,and Tennessee.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin, Prison andJail Inmates at Midyear 2004 (April 2005).

Important Terms and Definitions

1 Federal Elections Commission definition.2 Merriam-Webster Online, www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?jail3 Merriam-Webster Online, www.meriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?prison

ii


Many people confuse jails and prisons, but they are not thesame:

A jail is a place under the jurisdiction of a local govern-ment for the confinement of people awaiting trial or thoseconvicted of minor crimes, usually serving sentences ofone year or less.

A prison is the term used to describe federal or state insti-tutions housing primarily convicted felons, serving sen-tences of more than one year.

People in prison generally are not able to vote, unlessthey are incarcerated in Maine or Vermont. People in jailwho are awaiting trial or serving time for misdemeanorsor non-disfranchising felonies are able to vote in everystate. (The exceptions are if (1) they have a prior felonyconviction in a state that permanently disfranchises peo-ple convicted of felonies, and (2) they are on probation orparole for a felony conviction in a state that does notreinstate the right to vote until probation and parole arecompleted.)

What’s the Difference Between Jails and Prisons?

iii

VWI: VOTING WHILE INCARCERATEDA Tool Kit for Voting Rights Advocates

Introduction

WHY FOCUS ON JAILS?At midyear 2004, there were close to 714,000people detained in our nation’s jails. Most werebeing held under pretrial detention or servingtime for misdemeanors or for non-disfranchis-ing felonies, and the majority were eligible toregister and vote.

Most states disfranchise people with felonyconvictions for at least some period of time—while they are serving their sentence in prison(in all states except Maine and Vermont), andoften while they are on probation or parole aswell. Several states indefinitely disfranchisepeople with felony convictions, but Alabamaand Mississippi permit some felons to vote.(See “The Law in Your State,” page 34.)

However, people detained in jail who are await-ing trial or are serving time for a misdemeanoror a non-disfranchising felony have the right tovote in every state. This is at least theoreticallytrue. And this is where advocacy efforts come in.

According to the U.S. Bureau of JusticeStatistics, more than half the people in jail in2004 were racial or ethnic minorities. African

Americans were five times more likely thanwhites and almost three times more likely thanLatinos to be in jail.

The United States has a long history of deliber-ately denying people of color the right to partici-pate in the democratic process by voting. Evenafter the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in1870 guaranteeing all (male) citizens the right tovote regardless of race or nationality, many statescontinued to create obstacles such as literacytests and poll taxes to deter African Americansand other people of color from voting.

Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 madethese practices illegal, most states employfelony disfranchisement laws that effectivelysilence large numbers of voters of color, espe-cially African-American men, according to TheSentencing Project. These figures are estimatesas of August 2005:

But there is a hidden population of over700,000 people in our jails who are dispropor-tionately poor and of color who are eligible tovote now. Pretrial detainees in jail are usually

1


FelonsDisfranchised

Ex-felonsDisfranchised*

African AmericansDisfranchised

VeteransDisfranchised

WomenDisfranchised

4.7 million 1.7 million 1.4 million 585,355 676,730

* Those who have fully completed their felony sentences.

there only because they cannot afford bail.People with financial resources are able to postbail and are therefore able to vote freely out-side the jailhouse walls that contain the poor. Another reason to focus on jail systems is thatwhile state elected officials determine who isand isn't eligible to vote in each state, with theauthority to enact or repeal felony disfranchise-ment laws, local officials (often county execu-tives or mayors and their appointed administra-tors) control jail systems. Local elected offi-cials have influence over local election boards.Where state officials refuse to take action, localcorrections and elections officials may be inter-ested in ensuring that all eligible residents intheir jurisdiction, including people in jail, areregistered and provided the opportunity to casta ballot. The San Francisco Department ofElections, for example, is taking steps toinform people in jail (and those who havecompleted their sentences) that they are eligi-ble to vote under California law. The directorhas implemented the plan as a way to increasevoter registration while honoring inmates' rightto vote. The department's informational cam-paign includes a useful Web page on “InmateVoting”: see http://www.sfgov.org/site/elec-tion_index.asp?id=33704.

Local elected officials may also control othercorrections agencies, including probationoffices. Many of the recommendations in thistool kit with respect to the institutionalizationof jail-based voter education and registrationalso apply to probation and other correctionsagencies.

HOW THIS TOOL KIT CAN HELPThis tool kit outlines the steps you can take toimplement a two-part process inside your localjails to (1) register voters, and (2) ensure that

eligible people can vote from jail. The act ofregistration is important in and of itself, butthere must be follow-up to ensure that peoplealso have the opportunity to exercise the rightto vote.

There are many ways to approach this work,and the method you choose should be basedon the unique set of circumstances that pre-vail in your community. We have includedmodels with step-by-step instructions andsample materials you can use to create educa-tional flyers and other relevant items. To givethese models some context, we offer profilesof jail-based voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts in seven localities across thecountry.

We encourage you to try to institutionalizeyour efforts to the extent possible by serving asa bridge between jail officials and local elec-tion agencies, and by remaining involved tomonitor the process, rather than expendingyour valuable time and resources to do all thework yourselves. Institutionalizing programswill also ensure that the rights of people injail to register and vote are not contingent onone or two local officials. It is entirely pos-sible that you could have an excellent rela-tionship with one warden, only to be out ofluck and have the program shut down if thewarden is succeeded by a less cooperativeindividual.

Where possible, voter activities in jails shouldbe led by, or at least have meaningful partici-pation of, formerly incarcerated people.Disfranchised people must play an integral partin changing the system. There is no one betterable to mobilize others than someone who hasbeen there.

2


Getting Started

What is my local election agency?This is the agency that administers elections atthe local level. It may be called a Board ofElections, a Board of Registrars, an ElectionCommission, or another name, depending onthe state.

How do I find it?You will find a list of each state’s voter-regis-tration contact numbers and a list of eachstate’s chief elections officers in the resourcessection of this tool kit.

How do I approach my local electionagency?Read the profiles we have provided and devel-op a strategy for enlisting that agency’s assis-tance. Always be respectful, and realize thatyou might have to educate agency officialsabout detainees’ right to vote. [See “Strategiesfor Success.”]

Important QuestionsIt is important to try to anticipate potentialproblems and to thoroughly address all of thevariables with your local election agency(LEA) before you begin your work. The fol-lowing are examples of the kinds of questionsyou should ask:*

1. What constitutes acceptable proof of identity?

2. Whom does your state consider “first-timevoters”?

3. Under what circumstances does your statecharacterize registration forms as sent “bymail”?

4. Must first-time voters register at the localelection agency?

5. What are the consequences of an omissionon the voter registration card?

6. How will the LEA deal with an incarcerat-ed person who cannot produce acceptableidentification?

7. What color ink may be used on the forms?

8. Does your state permit detainees to vote byabsentee ballot? If not, you will have to getthis changed because it likely violates the lawby denying otherwise eligible voters theirright to vote.

9. Can detainees vote by absentee ballot ifdetained within their county of residence?

10. If people fill out requests for absentee bal-lots at the same time as they register, will theyneed to hold the absentee ballot requests untiltheir registrations are processed and they are onthe voter rolls? If so, how long should thattake?

11. Will the LEA deliver absentee ballots to thejail? When? Can they be delivered sooner?

12. Is there a directory of other LEAs in thestate, to which forms can be mailed directly?

13. What does the absentee ballot packet con-tain? Is there a punch-card ballot, or one thatcan be filled out with a pen? If it is a punchcard, is a stylus provided?

14. What should people do if they get out of jailbefore their absentee ballots arrive, throughprobation or because they have completed theirsentences?

3


ISSUES TO ADDRESS WITH YOUR LOCAL ELECTION AGENCY

15. Are people in this state disfranchised afterconviction, or after sentencing? Are people dis-franchised if they are convicted and sentencedto probation, but waiting (in jail) for a drugtreatment bed to open up?

16. What address should homeless people use?(Visit:http://www.nationalhomeless.org/vote2004 /state.html for additional information on

homeless voting registration.)

* Should you encounter barriers to registeringotherwise eligible people in jail, please contactthe ACLU or the Brennan Center for Justice atNew York University. (See article, page 52, ona Hawaii detainee’s success in suing the statewhen he was denied his right to vote.) See also“A Brief Explanation of HAVA,” page 33.

4


5


ISSUES TO ADDRESS WITH YOUR LOCAL JAIL OFFICIALSGetting Started

Who are my local jail officials?Your local jail is under the jurisdiction of yourlocal government. Jail officials include sher-iffs, directors of corrections, and other jailadministrators. You could also enlist the helpof jail funding authorities, such as your coun-ty commissioners, municipal councils, andtribal governments. These are the bodies thatallocate resources to operate the jail.

How do I approach my local jail officials?Always be respectful and professional andtake their security concerns seriously. Realizethat you might have to educate them aboutthe voting rights of people detained in jail. Ifyou or your colleagues already have a rela-tionship with an official, use that relationshipto open the dialogue. [See “Strategies forSuccess.]

Important QuestionsHere are examples of the kinds of questionsyou might ask:

1. Can we come into the jail ourselves, as vol-unteers? Can we come as volunteers of thelocal election agency (LEA)?

a. If not, can we work through other educa-tion, health, or mental health serviceproviders?

b. As a last resort, could we have jail staffdistribute the forms and information?

2. Are pens allowed in the jail? Must they be ofany particular kind?

3. Can we provide stamps and envelopes to peo-ple who want to mail materials in themselves?

4. Can we accompany LEA staff if they bring theabsentee ballots to people detained in your jail?

5. Is any part of the absentee ballot packet ille-gal in the jail (for example, a stylus)? How canwe work with you to create allowances or alter-natives?

The following arepossible models foruse in your jail-basedvoter work. The idealmodel, in both regis-tration and in votingfrom jail, is one thatis the most institu-tionalized, but it alsomust be transparent(in that advocates areallowed access, andcan genuinely moni-

tor the process). The models in each section arepresented in descending order of desirability.See the foregoing sections on “Issues toAddress with Your Local Election Agency” and“Issues to Address with Your Local JailOfficials” for important questions to raise asyou develop your plan. Also see “Strategies forSuccess” on how to make these models workfor you.

VOTER REGISTRATION

I. Election Agency Registration, AdvocateMonitoringYour local election agency enters the jail toconduct the voter registration drive and youmonitor the process to make sure detained peo-ple have access to the information and materi-als they need. (You might be able to have theagency bring registration and absentee ballotrequest forms at the same time, so thatdetainees don’t have to wait for these to be sentto them.)

PROS:• This model is a good example of an institu-

tionalized process in which the electionagency itself takes responsibility for ensur-ing the right to vote of those eligible.

• If you are there only to monitor and not to doall of the work yourselves, you save valuabletime and resources for other advocacyefforts.

• Once the local election agency has beenadmitted to the jail to conduct voter regis-tration drives, it will likely be able to do soagain and again. If you get in once as anadvocate, and the jail leadership changes,you may have more difficulty getting inagain.

CONS:• None, provided your access is not restrict-

ed and you are truly able to monitor theprocess.

II. Advocate Registration, Assistance fromElection Agency and Sheriff’s OfficeYour coalition works along with staff fromthe local election agency and the local sher-iff’s office. Coalition representatives go in toconduct the voter registration drive withdetained people, with support from the LEA,and representatives of the sheriff’s office arethere in person to assist with any issues thatarise. See if you can bring voter registrationmaterials and absentee ballot request forms atthe same time.

PROS:• You are able to have direct contact with

detained people to answer their questionsand make sure they have the requisite infor-mation, materials, and are there to assistwith filling out registration forms andabsentee ballots request forms.

• Having a connection to both the sheriff’soffice and the registrar’s office enhancesadvocates’ credibility.

6


VWI MODELSIt is important wherepossible to encourage atwo-step process thatinvolves both:

1) Registration and2) Voting.

Voter registration ofpeople detained in jailisn't of much use ifpeople aren't able toexercise their right tovote!

• Making alliances with these governmententities can help institutionalize the practiceof jail/prison voter registration, and providesopportunities to expand voter education andthe distribution of voter material.

CONS:• Your coalition is doing the work, as opposed

to having the local election agency interactand participate directly with detainees.

III. Advocate Registration, Election AgencyAssistanceYou and your volunteers go in to conduct thevoter registration drive with detained people,and staff from your local election agency ispresent to assist with any issues that arise. (Askthe agency if you can bring registration andabsentee ballot request forms at the same time.)


detained people to answer their ques-tions and make sure they have the infor-mation and materials they need, and youhave officials on hand should problemsarise.

• Having your local election agency involvedin a direct and visible way lends credibilityto your effort.

CONS:• This is still a good model, though not as likely

as the first model to become institutionalized.

IV. Detainee Registration, Advocate/Election Agency AssistanceYou train detained people to register other peo-ple and you and/or your local election officialsare there to answer questions.

PROS:• Detained people will likely be able to con-

nect with others in a way you are not able

to, unless you have experienced detentionor incarceration, especially in the facility inwhich you are working. By trainingdetained people, you are also increasingtheir investment in the electoral process forthe future.

• You and/or local election officials are stillable to assist with the process as needed. (Itis best to have local election officials therewith you if possible to answer questions onsite and to avoid potential problems afterthe fact.)

CONS:• None, unless you are not allowed access to

monitor the process and/or answer ques-tions for detained people and ensure thatthey have the resources and materials theyneed.

V. Advocate Registration You and your volunteers go in to do the voterregistration drive with detained people withoutdirect participation from your local electionagency.

PROS:• You still have access to the detained people

and are allowed to register them andanswer their questions.

CONS:• You are doing the work yourselves, as

opposed to having your local electionagency or jail officials do it.

• You may not have as much credibility withjail officials as you would with greaterparticipation from your local electionagency.

• The likelihood of institutionalizing yourefforts decreases absent LEA and jail offi-cials’ involvement.

7


VI. Jail Official/Detainee RegistrationNeither you nor your local election agency areallowed inside to register detained people your-selves, but you are able to convince jail offi-cials to have guards and/or inmate councils orblock reps do the registration if you give themthe materials.

PROS:• Detained people will at least have some

access to the voter registration process.

CONS:• You cannot be sure that the process is

being carried out in a fair way, and peoplemay not participate if they do not haveaccess through you or your local electionofficials to the information and materialsthey need.

VOTING FROM JAIL

I. The Jail Is a Designated Polling PlaceThis is the way it is often done in nursinghomes, when the site is designated by thelocal election agency as an official pollingplace. Election officials must be there, andyou should try to be there as well to monitorthe process.


tionalized process in which the electionagency itself takes responsibility for ensur-ing eligible people’s right to vote.

• If you are there only to monitor and not todo all of the work, you conserve valuabletime and resources for other advocacyefforts.

• Once the local election agency designatesthe jail as an official polling place, it is like-ly that the LEA will be able to do so again.

CONS:• None, provided your access is unrestricted

and you are truly able to monitor theprocess.

II. In-Person Absentee VotingYou and/or your local election agency deliverabsentee ballots to inmates and you are there tomonitor the process to make sure detaineeshave the information and materials they need tocorrectly complete the ballots.


tionalized process in which the electionagency itself takes responsibility for ensur-ing eligible people’s right to vote.

• If you are there only to monitor the processand not to do all of the work yourselves,you save your valuable time and resourcesfor other advocacy efforts.

• Once the local election agency is admittedto conduct in-person absentee voting, it islikely that the agency will be able to do soagain and again. Even if you get in once asan advocate, jail leadership could changeand you may have more trouble gettingaccess again.

CONS:• None, provided your access is unrestricted

and you are truly able to monitor the process.

III. Mail-In Absentee Voting #1You and/or your local election agency offi-cials are at the jail when the absentee ballotsarrive at the jail to make sure that detainedpeople have the information and materialsthey need to correctly complete the ballots, aswell as the stamps and envelopes needed tomail them in.

8



inmates to answer their questions and makesure they have the information and materi-als they need, and you have officials onhand should problems arise.

• It lends credibility to your effort if yourlocal election agency is also there and isinvolved in a direct and visible way.

CONS:• Many detained people do not trust the jail

mail system.

IV. Mail-In Absentee Voting #2Neither you nor elections officials are allowedin, but you are able to do some kind of training

with either detained people or jail officials sothey can distribute the ballots when they arriveand help people complete them.

PROS:• Detained people will at least have some

access to the voter registration process.

CONS:• You cannot be sure that the process is

being carried out in a fair way, andinmates may not participate if they do nothave access through you or your localelection officials to the information andmaterials they need.

• Many detained people do not trust the jailmail system.

9


Know the Law, Educate Officials:Always arm yourself with information becauseyou may have to educate officials to convincethem that people detained in jail have the rightto vote.

Educate Detainees:See if you can have information on detainees’voting rights posted in any part of the jail orotherwise made available to them.

Include Formerly Incarcerated People:If you are not a formerly incarcerated personyourself, it is important to include peopleimpacted by the criminal justice system in yourprocess. Don’t underestimate the trust andcredibility factor with detained people or blockreps. When possible, work with detained peo-ple through inmate councils. Detained and for-merly incarcerated people must be an integralpart of changing the system; there is nobody

better than someone who has “been there” tomobilize others.

Detained and formerly incarcerated people willknow which issues will resonate most, and canencourage skeptics to become involved in theelectoral process.

Build Alliances:Contact your local League of Women Votersfor help; LWVs often have good relationshipsand credibility with local election agencies.

Ask church groups or other voting-rights orcriminal-justice reform advocates to supportyour goal of voter programs within jails. Themore people there are on board, the morepower you will have.

It is also helpful to seek natural allies, such asAfrican-American mayors, sympathetic citycouncil members, county commissioners, andsheriffs, for support. Find the officials who aresupportive of get-out-the-vote efforts to helpyou.

Be a Bridge:Bring your local election agency and your localjail officials together to facilitate planning thevoter program.

Have your information and agenda ready,and try to anticipate problems that may arise.Use the “Issues to Address with Your LocalElection Agency” and “Issues to Addresswith Your Local Jail Officials” included inthis tool kit to make sure you address all thevariables.

If you are able to have the local election agencyand the jail officials do the actual work and you

10


STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS

Molly Wieser, formerly of the Cleveland-basedRacial Fairness Project, printed up flyers contain-ing Ohio's felony disfranchisement statute, andalways had them handy.

In Philadelphia, John Lieb of Jewish Employmentand Vocational Services (JEVS) partnered with theEx-Offenders' Association of Pennsylvania, to haveformerly incarcerated people come to his classesto talk about the importance of voting.

Dorsey Nunn, a formerly incarcerated person withAll of Us or None in California, says that any goodstrategy for registering people in a county jail mustshow detained people why it is in their best interestto vote.

Derrick Johnson of the Mississippi NAACP identi-fied friendly African-American sheriffs to work withhim, enabling his group to pilot a program in thePike County jail in 2002 in which almost every eligi-ble detainee voted from jail.

can monitor the processes, you save your valu-able time and resources to help institutionalizeprograms that will not be contingent on yourvolunteer resources or the goodwill of a singlejail official.

In some cases the best you might be able to dois get jail officials to let you in to do the workyourselves. Maintain good relationships andtry to institutionalize the work as much as pos-sible in the future.

You can also try to go in as extensions of yourlocal election agency instead of as prisonreform or get-out-the-vote advocates:

Use the Media:Use the media to draw attention to your cause.If you are having trouble getting in, ask themedia for help in telling your story. If you aresuccessful, ask the media to praise the officialswho are making it happen and give them theirdue credit.

Track Your Success:To the greatest extent possible, track how manyvoters are registered, and how many of thesepeople actually vote, to measure your successand obtain hard numbers for base-line compar-isons in the future. Demonstrating that detainedpeople want to vote if given the opportunity isimportant for sustaining and winning supportfor your work.

11


In Washington D.C., Charlie Sullivan and his CUREvolunteers are trained by the local election agencyand then go in as election agency volunteers. Theydo not generally contact the jail officials them-selves because they have found that having a lettercome from the very top of the election agency(from a person friendly to their cause) to the topjail official is the most effective way to gainaccess to the jail.

THE LAWThe State of Maryland prohibits people cur-rently on probation, in prison, or on parole fora felony conviction from voting. In addition,any former felon with two or more violentfelony convictions will be prohibited from vot-ing. First- and second-time non-violent felonswill have the right to vote automaticallyrestored at the end of a three-year waiting peri-od that begins at the completion of sentence.For those with two or more violent felony con-victions, the only recourse is to apply for a par-don from the Governor.

COLLABORATIONThe program to register detainees at theBaltimore City Pre-Trial Detention Center wasspearheaded by the legal committee of theMaryland Voting Rights Restoration Coalition(MVRRC) in collaboration with the ACLU ofMaryland, the Job Opportunity Task Force(JOTF), the local League of Women Voters(LWVMD), Maryland Regional Practitioners’Network for Fathers and Families, Inc. (MRP-NFF) and clinical law students from the Re-Entry of Ex-Offenders Clinic at the Universityof Maryland Law School. The volunteers werea racially mixed group of men and women. Allvolunteers and participants were certified asVoter Registration Volunteers, required by theState of Maryland. (Any individual or group inMaryland wishing to distribute statewide voterregistration applications and/or assist others incompleting these forms must be so certified.Apply at your County Board of Elections<http://www.elections.state.md.us/citizens/county_boards.html> or the State Board ofElections for Voter Registration VolunteerTraining.)

Contacting the Warden’s office at theBaltimore City Department of CorrectionFacility was the first step in initiating a part-nership with local jail officials. The groupfirst wrote a detailed letter advising the war-den of the felony disfranchisement law inMaryland, and specifically of the eligibility ofthose detained for misdemeanors or awaitingtrial; this letter explained what the volunteerssought to do. Because the large majority ofdetainees were there because they could notmake bail, it also made clear that denying eli-gible detainees the right to vote would presentan unconstitutional barrier to voting based onpoverty, and that the Supreme Court long ago

12


Baltimore, Md.Maryland Voting Rights Restoration Coalition

PARTICIPANTS

Maryland Voting Rights Restoration Coalition: Seeksto restore full voting rights to all currently disfran-chised citizens, through legislation, education, andvoter registration. Their goal is to enable ex-felons toregain their right to vote and fully participate in thedemocratic process.

ACLU of Maryland: Works to ensure that all people inthe state are free to think and speak as they chooseand can lead their lives free from discrimination andunwarranted government intrusion.

Job Opportunity Task Force: Develops and advocatespolicies and programs, forges partnerships, andleverages investments that increase the marketableskills, income, and economic opportunities of low-skill, low-income workers and job seekers.

League of Women Voters: Works to encourage theinformed and active participation of citizens in theaffairs of government, and to influence public policythrough education, action and advocacy.

Maryland Regional Practitioners’ Network forFathers and Families: Supports and promotes familysupport services in every community in Marylandsuch that every child has a father or father figurepositively and consistently involved in his or her life.

Re-Entry of Ex-Offenders Clinic: A course that pro-vides students the opportunity to engage in a criti-cal examination of important and complex criminaljustice issues.

upheld the right of pre-trial detainees to vote.The group followed up with phone calls,which were returned by the jail’s public-affairs representative, who agreed to meetwith the group almost immediately, alongwith the warden. These officials were enthusi-astic about the project, which they sought topromote through discussions on a radio talkshow, and to memorialize in photos. The onlycaveat they placed on volunteers was thatwhen inside the jail, volunteers must beescorted by a corrections officer.

‘INSIDE’ CONNECTIONAfter the meeting, and before volunteers wentto the jail to register detainees, they learnedthat a corrections officer at that facility hadbeen registering pre-trial detainees on his ownfor the past few years. He alone had registered350 pre-trial detainees over the course of theprevious two weeks. The partnership with thecorrections officer, which was happily extend-ed into the future, proved to be invaluable tothe process, and served as a great connectionfor volunteers to have on the inside.

REGISTRATION BEGINSOn Tuesday Oct. 12, 2004, the last day forvoter registration in Maryland before the Nov.2 national elections, the group met in the cafe-teria at the jail to discussed in detail its plan ofoperation; this included verification that every-one there was certified to register detainees;and that all had brought both registration aswell as absentee ballot request forms and pen-cils (not pens) for detainees to use, and instruc-tions in folding the completed forms.

The group then prepared to go level by levelwithin the detention center. Volunteers wentfloor by floor into detainee common rooms,which consisted of cubicles with beds, andannounced that they were there to register vot-ers. They explained the law to the detainees --that those who had two violent offenses were

ineligible to register. Furthermore, if detaineeshad one violent felony, there was still a three-year waiting period before they could voteagain. Detainees did a good job of determiningtheir voting status, but most were disqualifiedunder Maryland law because they had beenconvicted of two or more crimes of violence inthe past. The devastating effect of Maryland’sdisfranchisement law on black men was espe-cially clear as only 10 to 20 percent of the(overwhelmingly African-American) men ineach holding area turned out to be eligible toregister under Maryland law.

Those who did qualify sat around two or threetables in each holding area, in groups of four orfive, as a student or volunteer walked themthrough the registration process. Some askedsimple, procedural questions that volunteersanswered, like which boxes must be checked.Following the protocol that the corrections offi-cer had been using, volunteers kept the processvery simple, and within approximately sixhours, they had registered 185 detainees tovote.

The volunteers then took the registration andabsentee ballot request forms to the Board ofElections (BOE). They had previously alertedthe BOE that they would be bringing theseforms so the BOE was expecting them and pro-ceeded to enter the forms into its system. Oncethe BOE's system agreed that the detaineeapplication was that of an eligible individual,the BOE generated an absentee ballot for thatindividual.

ABSENTEE VOTING TURNS INTO ASECURITY RISKIt had previously been decided with the jailofficials that when the absentee ballots for eli-gible detainees arrived at the jail, they wouldbe collected and held for a single correctionsofficer. Then a day was selected when all of theinmates receiving absentee ballots would be

13


called down to a central location to completethem, after which the volunteers would take theballots directly to the State Board of Elections.Things did not work out that way, however.When volunteers returned to the detention cen-ter on the appointed day to have detainees com-plete their absentee ballots, jail officials declinedto let detainees come down and fill them out.They cited security concerns. Volunteers attrib-uted the change of heart to political pressure onthe jail administration, amid Republican suspi-cions that these registrations were a ruse to boostvotes for the Democrats. Unfortunately, becauseof this incident, volunteers do not know theexact number of ballots that were voted orreturned to the BOE.

Through careful planning with respect topencils, delivery systems (as detainees con-sider jail mail unreliable) or other details,volunteers can usually avoid disruption ofthe voting process. But in this case, the mostsignificant problem was the last-minutereversal by jail officials of their promise toallow volunteers to be present whendetainees completed the ballots, and to per-sonally deliver them to the BOE. As a result,volunteers will reconsider the aspects of theprocess that make jail officials politicallynervous. MVRRC still believes that it is pos-sible to institutionalize this process, as thejail administration and BOE seemed eager toput it in place.

14


THE LAWThe State of Ohio prohibits people in prisonfrom voting. Once individuals have completedtheir prison terms, the right to vote is automat-ically restored.

JAIL-BASED VOTER REGISTRATIONBEGINSIn 2000, Molly Wieser, then a staff attorneyfor Community Re-Entry, Inc. was inspired byrequests from several of her clients and by thereputed success of a Chicago-based project ininitiating a jail-based voter registration cam-paign in Cleveland. With Chicago Legal Aidfor Incarcerated Mothers (CLAIM) as hermodel, she formed collaborations with theAmerican Association of University Women(AAUW) and the local League of WomenVoters (LWV).

Wieser conducted three campaigns, one in2000, and two in 2003. In the 2000 campaign,her coalition found the local Board ofElections (BOE) hesitant to become involved;some officials could not be persuaded thatpre-trial detainees would vote. The BOE alsocreated barriers, for example by rejecting reg-istrations that were completed in pencil,although detainees at the time had no accessto pens.

In 2003, Wieser, who was by then associatedwith the Racial Fairness Project, conductedtwo registration drives at county jails, forthe 2003 general election and then for the

March 2004 primary election. For thesecampaigns, she had the assistance of theBOE director and Cuyahoga City WardenMcDonough (with whom Wieser had previ-ously collaborated) and of the League ofWomen Voters; these groups met frequently,in preparation for the jail-based registrationdrives.

COALITION ENHANCES AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDINGPrior to the 2004 primary election, Wieserbegan having regular monthly meetings at theBOE, access she obtained through her mem-bership in the Executive Committee of theGreater Cleveland Voter RegistrationCoalition (GCVRC). With the support of theGCVRC membership, coalition members,Warden McDonough and other CuyahogaCounty jail officials, Wieser was able to planvoter activities, create a larger pool of aware-ness for registrars and potential registrants,and help foster a mutual understanding of howthe registration and election process at the jailwould proceed. With the cooperation of allparties, the BOE finally agreed to the mostimportant aspect of detainee voting: to bringabsentee ballots to detainees along with thepens or styluses needed for voting, to overseevoting, and then to collect the ballots andother materials and bring them back to theBoard of Elections.

15


Cleveland, OhioThe Racial Fairness Project

HOW IT BEGANMolly Wieser implemented a jail-based voter regis-tration campaign in Cleveland's Cuyahoga CountyJail. This project was administered by the Ohio Freethe Vote Coalition, through which multiple partnerorganizations played a part.

HELPFUL TIPWieser advises advocates to encourage ElectionsBoard directors to bring staff from their absenteevoting and registration departments to planningmeetings, and recommends writing a concisememo to everyone involved to confirm agree-ments and commitments and request that they beshared with staff.

VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND TRAININGRFP worked with a small group of experiencedvolunteers comprised of Wieser’s studentsfrom Case Western Reserve University LawSchool, and from Case’s graduate social workand other local academic programs, as well asfrom black fraternities and sororities, and alocal church. The coalition circulated informa-tion about its planned voter drive and trainingopportunities on local activist List-Servs and ina hipster online arts and entertainmentnewsweekly.

Ten to 12 weeks before the voter registrationdeadline, training dates and slots were postedand sign-ups began. Six to eight weeks beforethe voter registration deadline, two-hour train-ings were held for interested volunteers.These were conducted in a training roominside the jail, where groups of up to 30prospective volunteers learned where theywould be meeting and working on official reg-istration days.

Volunteers were instructed in: how to conductthemselves in the jail, what to bring, where topark, the importance of being on time so that aguard could escort the entire group at one time,and how to fill out voter-registration and absen-tee-ballot request forms. They were also fullybriefed on people’s voting rights (in theory andin practice) and on the logistics of disfran-chisement and re-enfranchisement in jail.

DETAINEES AND EX-FELONS PARTICIPATE For the 2003 General Election, Wieser was ableto hire a formerly incarcerated person as an out-reach worker to register people at the jail and toconduct community-based education. Countyjail detainees were occasionally permitted (bythe jail administration) to volunteer alongsideothers who were registering inmates. Formerlyincarcerated people staffed tables at communityfairs, and assisted in interviewing other former-ly incarcerated people about their voting-rightsknowledge and voting histories. Formerly incar-cerated people also participated on the GCVRCsteering committee, and engaged in re-enfran-chisement work. RFP provided thousands ofpieces of re-enfranchisement literature for com-munity use in voter education, and formerlyincarcerated people were consistently among themost interested in distributing it.

PROCESS AND TIMELINEThe volunteers would enter the jail as a groupescorted by correctional officers. Each group oftwo to four registrars had a binder of informa-tion, including the relevant statutes, addressesfor the use of homeless people, forms, FAQ’sfrom the Board of Elections and secretary ofstate, and copies of a zip-code directory from thephone book (for people who could not remem-ber their zip codes). The most experienced per-son from each group, usually a staff person orseasoned volunteer, entered a living unit ofabout 50 people and announced an invitation toregister, which often led to a dialogue aboutfelony disfranchisement and voting rights.

16


PARTNERS

Racial Fairness Project: Pursues racial and ethnicjustice through education, advocacy, and theempowerment of communities and institutions.

Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition:Aims to register as many new voters as possible inthe Greater Cleveland area, to make them aware ofissues and candidates on the ballot in each election,and to mobilize them to actually vote on electionday. GCVRC focuses on involving historically under-represented population groups in the electoralprocess.

The League of Women Voters, Cleveland: In its pro-gram and voter services, the LWV works to promoteresponsibility through informed and active citizenparticipation in government and to advocate on pub-lic policy. The LWV also helped the Cleveland coali-tion by participating in key meetings and providingthousands of Candidates Guides that people in thejail were able to study carefully before voting.League members had a long history of interactionand influence with the Board of Elections, contribut-ing to the coalition's credibility.

Forms were given to everyone in the livingunit; each received a voter registration form,absentee-ballot request form, and a postcardreiterating information about the votingrights of formerly incarcerated people andpre-trial detainees. Interested people wereinvited to join the volunteers in an adjacentroom so that questions could be answered andpens could be used to register. (All pens,except special flexible pens purchased fromthe jail, are contraband.)

Cuyahoga County Jail had 1,700 to 1,900detainees, and it took volunteers four to sixweeks to register interested voters, workingabout three two-hour shifts, six days per week.Registration would begin six weeks before thedeadline. Each day was divided into three two-hour time slots because the jail had to stopactivities at designated intervals to count thepopulation and serve meals. Each team had aleader, whose responsibility it was to addressthe detainees about voting rights and invitethem to register.

Registration forms were turned in to the BOEon a nearly daily basis, after being copied orscanned so that the Racial Fairness Projectcould track its work. Forms were quicklychecked after people completed them, and thenchecked again during slower times, before vol-unteers left the jail, so that problems could beaddressed. They were checked yet again beforethey were copied at the office. There werealways problems, and volunteers were pre-pared to go back to the jail with the requisiteforms as soon as possible to locate those indi-viduals to correctly complete them.

RESPONSE IN THE JAILAbout a quarter of all detained people regis-tered during the general election. They regis-tered for various reasons: because they werepleased to learn that they could vote and moti-vated by the opportunity to do so or, in some

cases, just because it was something to do.Wieser believed that some detainees who did-n’t register were not persuaded by the discus-sion or didn’t think their votes mattered. Otherscouldn’t register because they’d already beenconvicted, or because they weren’t in the livingunit when the volunteers were there.

Although not everyone wanted to register,everyone got the forms along with some edu-cational literature about re-enfranchisement incase they changed their minds. Most peoplewho wanted to register did so with the help ofvolunteers, rather than on their own, becausethey didn’t have pens or stamps to mail formsin with, didn’t trust jail mail, or needed clarifi-cation about voting rights or absentee ballotvoting. Volunteers, who offered to return to col-lect the forms, left additional ones with thejail’s social work staff.

Jail officials also permitted posters or flyersabout voting rights to be posted in each livingunit of the jail. This made a significant differ-ence in the level of knowledge in the jail aboutvoting rights. Obstacles to registering and vot-ing, such as lack of access to pens andenvelopes, had to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

NOTABLE PROBLEMSIn 2000, a major issue was that ballots weremailed and directly delivered to detainees withthe illegal metal styluses in the envelopes --nei-ther the jail administration nor Wieser knewthey were there. Although people voted, it wasnot long afterwards that jail administrationrealized that there were styluses in the jail, andthey conducted an invasive shakedown.

SOLUTIONSIn 2003, RFP prevented a recurrence of thisproblem by personally delivering ballots todetainees after they arrived at the jail, and col-lecting the styluses after they voted. However,

17


the BOE eventually objected, citing the poten-tial for election fraud. In the 2004 primary, as aresult of negotiations between Wieser andBoard officials, the BOE personally deliveredthe ballots to the detainees, treating the jail as apolling place (as is commonly done in nursinghomes), sending both Democrats and Repub-licans to officiate and observe at the site. Italso helped that one of the board officials andthe warden were good friends, and were ableto amicably work out the logistics.

When the BOE delivered absentee ballots tothe jail before the election, detained peoplemarked their absentee ballot-request forms toindicate that they wanted assistance with vot-ing because they didn’t have the pens and

stamps needed to use the ballot or becausethe ballots would come with a metal stylus,which would constitute contraband. For thenext election (general 2004), RFP volunteersplanned to accompany the BOE officialsdelivering the ballots to monitor that the bestefforts were being made to deliver them andthat people were getting the help they need-ed to use them. They also hoped to encour-age the board to deliver the absentee ballotsas soon as possible after receiving therequests rather than waiting until the daybefore the election. It would have been moreefficient from the board’s point of view towait, but people awaiting trial are continual-ly disfranchised, due to conviction, duringsuch waiting periods.

18


TOTAL REGISTERED IN CLEVELAND

Primary, 2004:200+: This was a less intensive effort, relying primarily on an intern at Wieser’s office, with volunteer assistance.One purpose of the drive was to give the BOE a first try at delivering absentee ballots, before the 2004 generalelection.

General, 2003:500+: An intensive effort.

General, 2000:200+: For this effort, volunteers did not enter the jail at all, and detainees only received voting-rights educationfrom the handouts distributed with the forms. (Dialogues and personal contact are better!)

THE LAWThe State of California prohibits people withfelony convictions currently in prison or onparole from voting. Once an individual hascompleted his or her felony sentence, the rightto vote is automatically restored. Felony proba-tioners may vote in California.

BACKGROUNDIn June of 2004, Unlock the Vote, a coalition ofsix groups convened by the ACLU of SouthernCalifornia, began brainstorming about the vot-ing rights of the 18,000 detainees in the LosAngeles county jails. The coalition was deter-mined to find a way to help eligible detaineesbecome educated about, and to exercise, theright to vote. The group included the Los

Angeles Coalition to End Hunger andHomelessness (LACEHH), League of WomenVoters (LWVLA), Friends Outside, the CountySheriff’s Office, the Registrar’s Office, and theHacienda La Puente Unified School District.

After a series of long, grueling meetings, thecoalition came up with goals and objectivesfor the project, and arranged to meet with rep-resentatives from the Los Angeles CountySheriff’s Department’s Inmate ServicesDivision. Working with the Registrar’s Office,the coalition ultimately produced a Guide toInmate Voting. The pamphlet, published bythe Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerks’ Office and approved by thesecretary of state, provides an easy-to-readexplanation of eligibility requirements and thespecific process for registering and votingfrom Los Angeles County jails. Unlock theVote agreed that by first distributing thismaterial to detainees, it would educate andmotivate them about their voting rights, facil-itate the registration process, and begin theprocess of re-enfranchising SouthernCalifornia’s detainees.

NO TO STAPLES, YES TO CANTEENSBecause security is so tight at many of the jails,even something that may seem as simple as sta-ples on a pamphlet can create a problem whenit comes to disseminating information todetainees. This very dilemma required thecoalition to repeat the pamphlet process fromscratch. Volunteers found that folding the pam-phlet into thirds eliminated the need for staples.Once this was worked out, they turned theirefforts to the next obstacle: to find a way todeliver the pamphlets to the detainees. Most ofthe coalition’s initial ideas for educatingdetainees about issues on the ballot, and

19


Los Angeles, Calif.Unlock the Vote

COALITION MEMBERS

Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger andHomelessness: Works collectively to end hungerand homelessness through public education, tech-nical assistance, public policy analysis, organizing,and community action.

League of Women Voters: Provides nonpartisanvoter-registration services at large public gather-ings, or on request, at events or businesses forthe benefit of participants or employees. It iscommitted to designing ways to increase voterparticipation in diverse communities while work-ing closely with the County Registrar on voteroutreach projects.

Friends Outside: Provides support and assistancefor inmate families, offenders and ex-offenders. Italso offers diversion, intervention and preventionprograms.

Hacienda La Puente: HLP Adult Education pro-vides innovative student-centered learning oppor-tunities and support services to a diverse popula-tion, enabling individuals to achieve their goals aslifelong learners, productive workers and effectivecommunicators.

instructing them in how to fill out registrationforms, were rejected due to security meas-ures. For example, because the county jailsrequire government approval for materialsgoing in and out of prison facilities, instruc-

tions for registration were banned. Despitelimited options, the Sheriff’s Departmentcame up with the idea of distributing thepamphlets through detainee canteens. So, inthe first week of September, 15,000 pam-phlets were distributed to detainees that way.Since pamphlets were only sent to the jailsthrough canteens once, they were also madeavailable to detainees in classrooms and uponrequest. The coalition decided that it was alsoimportant to educate detainees’ familiesabout the voting rights of those in jail. The

group went to the visiting lines in each of themajor Los Angeles County jail facilities forseveral hours each weekend in September andspoke to people waiting to enter about theirdetained relatives’ or friends’ voting rights,provided them with educational materials --and also registered them. One aspect thatcaught many families’ attention was the

three-strikes initiative on the ballot. Althoughthis strategy worked, another problem arose:Materials ran out.

MATERIALS RUN OUTIn some jails, the materials ran out. One reasonfor this was the lack of direct contact betweenthe Registrar’s Office (the source of materials)and individual facilities. Jody Kent of theACLU, who, through her work monitoring jailconditions had a connection to the Sheriff’sDepartment, was able to obtain access to mon-itor the supply of materials in the jails. Because

the materials kept running out, Jody would fre-quently contact the Registrar’s Office and askthat they be replenished. The coalition alsomade a presentation to the jail deputies toexplain what needed to be available to thedetainees, which detainees could vote, and howdetainees could obtain materials. In certainfacilities, such as the Twin Towers, registrationforms and absentee ballots were placed inboxes which were also used for the distributionof complaint forms, which detainees had topass on their way to courts and when beingtransferred between facilities. (At Central Jail,materials were provided upon request only,because detainees were locked down most ofthe time.) The coalition’s presentation empha-sized that replenishing the information was theresponsibility of the Registrar’s Office, andneeded to be a priority.

20


CANTEEN: A location where prisoners canplace orders for provisions they cannot get in jailsuch as some food items or phone cards.

IDEAS REJECTED

Classroom setting:Teaching inmates about voting in a classroom setting.Prison officials were afraid that instruction wouldnot be non-partisan.

Unauthorized material:Deputies refused to allow information that had notbeen cleared by the government.

THREE STRIKES INITIATIVEThe three strikes provision sought to ensurelonger prison sentences and greater punishmentfor those who commit a felony after a previousconviction for a serious or violent felony offense.

INTERVENTIONTo help bring jail deputies up to speed, the coalitiongave a presentation on the voting process.

KEY COMPONENTJody Kent, who worked with the Sheriff'sDepartment to monitor jail conditions, hadaccess to county jails. This connection and herprior experience with detainees were key to gain-ing the access needed to monitor the supply ofvoter-registration materials.

FINALLY, REGISTRATION!In the last week before the voter registrationdeadline, Jody Kent went with several ACLUvolunteers to the jails where low-securitydetainees were housed, anticipating that moredetainees in those jails would be eligible tovote. The volunteers announced that they hadvoter registration forms with them, andexplained to the detainees how to fill them out.That week, the volunteers registered between50 and 70 detainees. The advocates reportedthat it was imperative to have interacted withdetainees and to have had volunteers on hand tohelp detainees complete the forms becausethese forms could be rejected if any mistakeswere made. This rate of registration was a realsuccess in contrast to the previous four years inwhich, according to representatives from theoffice of the Los Angeles County Registrar,only 45 detainees registered to vote, and onlyone actually voted.

TOTAL REGISTERED AND VOTED IN L.A. The final registration count was 121, with 30absentee ballots issued to detainees. Of thisnumber, 18 actually voted. Of the 18, two werechallenged. The final count of those who votedsuccessfully in the Nov. 2, 2004 GeneralElection was 16. This represented the highestreturn since the program began in the firstquarter of 2000.

GOALS TOWARDS A MOREINSTITUTIONALIZED PRACTICEUnlock the Vote plans to continue workingwith the Registrar’s Office and Sheriff’sDepartment to increase awareness of, andaccessibility to. voter-registration-relatedmaterials. It intends to continue to providematerials for the Los Angeles County jails,and possibly also to expand its efforts toencompass city elections. This could be quitechallenging however, because there are 88towns, instead of counties, each with differ-ent issues on their bal-lots. It will seek to dis-tribute educational mate-rials through canteens onmore than just a singleoccasion, to supplydetainees with newspa-pers during the next voter-registration drive,and to help detainees complete registrationand absentee-ballot request forms. The coali-tion further hopes to institute a program ofongoing registration through monthly civicsclasses, which would be offered by represen-tatives of the Registrar’s Office. TheHacienda La Puente Unified School Districtalso would like to stay involved, and is look-ing into incorporating voter registration intothe programs it offers detainees on an ongo-ing basis.

21


LANGUAGEBREAKDOWNEnglish: 81Korean: 17Japanese: 13Spanish: 5Tagalog: 5

THE LAWThe State of Louisiana prohibits people withfelony convictions currently on probation, inprison or on parole from voting. Once an indi-vidual has completed his or her sentence, theright to vote is automatically restored.

IN THE BEGINNINGEfforts to promote jail-based voter registrationin Louisiana began in 1987 with the AngolaSpecial Civics Project, at the Louisiana StatePenitentiary at Angola, run by a group ofdetainees who discovered that prisoners whowere not on probation, parole or serving timefor a felony conviction could vote. They beganto lobby their legislators to have the right tovote extended to parolees and probationers, andencouraged their families and friends to vote.In 2003, several of these detainees werereleased, and created Voice of the Ex-Offender(VOTE), dedicated to registering pre-trialdetainees and those convicted of misdemeanorsin the state of Louisiana.

Staffed primarily by people with felony con-victions who could not vote themselves, VOTEimmediately took on the task of making it pos-sible for those who were eligible to vote innational, state, and local elections. Theyrequested a meeting with Interim SheriffWilliam Hunter, seeking permission to enterthe multi-facility Orleans Parish Prison com-plex, the eighth largest jail in the country. (In

Louisiana, notes Renee Lapeyrolerie, directorof public affairs at the Jefferson ParishSheriff’s Office, the county jails are calledparish “prisons.” Because some state peni-tentiaries are at capacity, she says, some peo-ple with felony convictions may also be serv-ing sentences at parish “prisons.”)

Sheriff Hunter thoughtthis was a great idea,and not only grantedtheir request, but hand-ed the advocates an up-to-date list of 2,000qualified detainees.This list had been gen-erated in response to alawsuit brought againstHunter’s predecessor,Sheriff Charles Foti, bya qualified inmate who had been prevented fromvoting.

VOTE MOVES INTO THE JAILSSheriff Hunter assigned the warden of eachfacility to personally escort VOTE volunteersthrough the facility to find each of the peoplenamed on the pre-trial detainee and misde-meanant list, and also made sure that the facil-ity was set up to accommodate the registrationprocess. According to VOTE, Sheriff Hunterwas extremely helpful throughout the day, aswere the Orleans Parish Prison guards, whohelped carry folding tables and chairs, and setup clipboards for inmates to use while fillingout their registrations. VOTE moved withoutincident from wing to wing, greeting 20 to 30men at a time in the lounge area, which was setup in such a way that volunteers could workone-on-one with incarcerated people. As theyexplained the voting process and answered

22


New Orleans, La.Voice Of The Ex-Offender

PARTICIPANTS:

Voice of the Ex-offender: Founded in 2003, VOTE hasprovided opportunities for eligible pre-trial detaineesand misdemeanants to vote, and participate in nation-al, state, and local elections.

The Jeremiah Group: A community-based group ofchurches and synagogues.

KEY COMPONENT:Members and volunteersof VOTE are almost allex-offenders. This uniquecharacteristic enablesthem to gain the trust ofdetainees, and relate tothem very effectively.Detainees know and trustVOTE as a whole, andbond with them as theregistration process iscarried out.

detainees’ questions, VOTE volunteers felttheir status as formerly incarcerated peoplehelped to put prisoners at ease. The perceivedbond made for a relaxed atmosphere and asense of familiarity. VOTE volunteers walkedaway with 701 registration cards from OrleansParish Prison. With help from the JeremiahGroup, a community-based group of churchesand synagogues, and defense attorneys PhyllisMann and Gary Proctor, VOTE also obtained300 registrations from Jefferson Parish Prison,and 300 from Rapides Parish Prison.

PROBLEMS AT THE VOTER REGISTRATIONOFFICEVOTE then took the completed registrationcards to the Registrar’s Office. This is wherethey encountered two problems. The VoterRegistration Office (VRO) refused to acceptthe registration cards on the grounds that first-time voters needed to register at the VRO.Because most of the detainees were first-timevoters, the VRO would not generate absenteeballots for most of the completed registrationforms. At Sheriff Hunter’s suggestion, VOTEresponded that it had previously notified theVRO of its activities, and had been cleared toregister these voters in the jails. Because pre-trial detainees and misdemeanants could notleave their facilities, VOTE had been givenconsent to treat pre-trial detainee registration asthe equivalent of an on-site registration. Butwhile VOTE considered what to do next, anadditional crisis emerged the day before theclose of registration. The VRO refused to issueabsentee-ballot applications without the sher-iff’s certification that none of the applicantswas incarcerated for a felony conviction. TheVRO claimed that the state attorney generalrequired this certification (a letter explainingthat each of the detainees was eligible to vote).

But Sheriff Hunter said his initial instructionsfrom the VRO had described a less cumber-some process: that detainees who chose thenumber “11” on their voter-registration forms(indicating that they were not convicted felons,and were therefore eligible to vote) would onlyhave to request restoration of their eligibility.He was concerned that he did not have thecapacity to certify that many applicationsbefore the close of registration.

LEGAL ASSISTANCE NEEDEDBecause the VRO was unpersuaded in both cir-cumstances, two attorneys from the NAACPLegal Defense Fund (LDF) intervened atVOTE’s request, and began a series of lengthytelephone conference calls with the OrleansParish Registrar of Voters, Louis Keller, andSheriff Hunter. LDF wanted to resolve theimpasse and at the same time ensure compli-ance with Louisiana’s voting laws that grantvoting rights to eligible pretrial detainees andinmates. Because negotiations continued forapproximately three weeks, detainees wereunable to participate in the primary election.But, when Sheriff Hunter agreed to conduct thecertification process, the VRO finally issuedabsentee ballots for the disputed detainees, andin a major voting-rights victory, 125 detaineesin Orleans Parish Prison were certified by theSheriff’s Department as eligible to vote byabsentee ballot in the Nov. 2, 2004 GeneralElection.

However, by the time VOTE got back toOrleans Parish Prison with the absentee ballots,many pre-trial detainees had been released orconvicted. Ultimately, out of the 701 registra-

23


DETAINEE REGISTRATIONS:Orleans Parish Prison: 701Jefferson Parish Prison: 300Rapides Parish Prison: 300

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDNAACP LDF is America's premier civil-rights laworganization. Its mission is to transform the prom-ise of equality into reality for African Americansand, ultimately, for all individuals in the areas ofeducation, political participation, economic justiceand criminal justice.

tions completed, 250 absentee ballots werecast. In the time it took to sort out the difficul-ties with the VRO, VOTE lost about 300 voters.

ON REFLECTIONAfter the election, VOTE reflected on its expe-rience and resolved that in future efforts, VOTEmust avoid delays to avoid missing votingdeadlines. One suggestion VOTE is consider-ing is to go into the jails with registration cardsand absentee ballots simultaneously. Anotherproposal that VOTE feels may help the regis-tration process along is to be accompanied by aVRO representative to each jail site as volun-teers register detainees. This would essentiallymean that first-time pre-trial detainee and mis-demeanant voters would be making an on-siteregistration. Although VOTE volunteersenjoyed bonding with detainees in their twoseparate visits, they decided, based on theirsubsequent experience with the VRO, that theturn-around time needed to certify detaineeswas too long, and could defeat their purpose.VOTE is further considering conducting pre-trial and misdemeanant detainee registrationevery 90 days in the various New Orleans jails.

It would also like to create registration optionsoutside the jails and is attempting to implementvoter-registration as people are arrested, as partof the booking process.

VOTE CONTINUESVOTE will concentrate not only on re-enfran-chisement, but on re-entry as well. It plans tocontinue to work with probation and paroleofficers, with the current sheriff and jail staffand, most importantly, pre-trial detainees andmisdemeanants. All are working hard to informand engage not only those who are incarcerat-ed, but the community at large. They will seekto make people more aware of VOTE – what itis, who runs it, and how it can help detainedpeople to regain a place in society and the rightto vote.

24


PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE REGISTRATIONS:1. Bring registration cards and absentee ballot

applications into jails at the same time.2. Bring a VRO representative to the jail, to create an

on-site registration for first-time voters.3. Conduct registrations every 90 days.4. Conduct registrations at the time of an arrest.

THE LAWThe State of Pennsylvania prohibits people inprison from voting. Once an individual hascompleted his or her prison term, the right tovote is automatically restored.

THE PARTNERS AND THEIR ROLESThe Philadelphia jail system is one of thenation’s ten largest jail jurisdictions. A uniquepartnership of organizations engages in thevoter registration work there: The Office ofCommunity Justice, Responsibility andOutreach for the Philadelphia jail system(OCJO); the Jewish Employment andVocational Services Prison Program (JEVS);the Ex-Offenders’ Association ofPennsylvania (EOAP) and Mayor JohnStreet’s Ex-Offender Reintegration and

Reentry Task Force (EOTF). Philadelphia’ssystem is both a city and county jail with sixfacilities, each with its own warden.

VOCATIONAL TRAININGJohn Lieb, Director of the Jewish Employmentand Vocational Services Prison Program(JEVS), has been doing vocational training forsix years in the Philadelphia jail systemthrough a contract with the city ofPhiladelphia. He began including voter-regis-tration and absentee ballot requests in a Civics101 class for detained people referred to hisprogram by jail social workers. He had the fullsupport of the wardens because he already hada relationship with them and they knew of andrespected his work. About 100 people a monthregister to vote through his classes. John worksto bring in formerly incarcerated people tospeak during the programs.

OUTREACHWilfredo Rojas, head of the Office ofCommunity Justice, Responsibility andOutreach (OCJO), and Rosa W. Goldberg, anexperienced and dedicated volunteer, regularlyregister and educate the general population injail. Goldberg meets with detained people onindividual housing blocs in the county jails totalk with them about their voting rights andtheir skepticism regarding voter registrationand the absentee voting process. Interestedbloc reps and other detained people areinformed of the opportunity to register and areencouraged to participate. Many assistGoldberg as liaisons to the detained popula-tion by getting the word out that people in jail

25


Philadelphia, Pa.Jewish Employment and Vocational Services; The Philadelphia Jail

System’s Office of Community Justice, Responsibility and Outreach; andthe Ex-Offenders’ Association of Pennsylvania

ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED

Jewish Employment and Vocational Services: Asocial service agency that benefits the community byenhancing the employability and self-sufficiency ofthe people it serves through a broad range of educa-tion, training, health and rehabilitation programs.

Office of Community Justice, Responsibility andOutreach: Communicates goals, objectives, andaccomplishments of the Philadelphia prison systemand receives input and suggestions concerningprison operations and programs on a strategic,scheduled basis from community representatives,government agencies, officials, and the public.

Ex-Offenders' Association of Pennsylvania (EOAP):Looks at every aspect of the efforts of ex-offenderstrying to turn their lives around after release, and atthe obstacles that stand in their way.

Philadelphia Mayor's Ex-Offender Reintegrationand Reentry Task Force: Helps individuals leavingprisons as well as the communities they rejoin.

serving time for misdemeanors, probation, orparole violations do have the right to vote inPennsylvania. This work counters the commonmisinformation and misconceptions that havekept historically disfranchised populationsfrom exercising their right to participate in theelectoral process. Goldberg says that manypeople believe that because they are servingtime, they have lost the right to vote.

Goldberg registered detainees all day, everyday, for six weeks in the summer of 2000, andplanned to follow upby making sure thatall the people whoapplied for absenteeballots got them andturned them in at theend of October. Afterthat, she planned to get-out-the-vote by con-tacting everyone who had been released toremind them to vote at their home pollingplaces.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002was passed to make sure that every citizencould vote, and Rojas says his office is com-mitted to making sure HAVA is correctlyimplemented. The level of support is so highthat he has even arranged for PennsylvaniaSecretary of State, Pedro Cortez, to talk direct-ly with Philadelphia jail officials about HAVAand to advise them, as the state’s chief electionofficer, that pretrial detainees are eligible tovote.

Rojas’ office is currently working with otherson the design of a systemwide comprehensiveintake procedure, which will include voterregistration. “We believe that in order toincrease the number of people who participatein the American democratic process of voting,it is important to develop a culture of votingby institutionalizing voter registration,” saidRojas.

EX-OFFENDERSMalik Aziz is the executive director of the Ex-Offenders’ Association of Pennsylvania(EOAP), and also serves as the chairman of thePhiladelphia Mayor’s Ex-OffenderReintegration and Reentry Task Force (EOTF).He works on get-out-the-vote efforts withPhiladelphia’s jail population once they arereleased, and his group is also working todevelop a more systematic way of assistingpeople in jail at election time with absenteeballots. That piece is fairly new for this group

and it is working thekinks out. Gus Baxterfrom the CityCommissioners’ Office,a formerly incarceratedperson, also providesconsultation, forms and

absentee ballots for detained people throughthe JEVS program. He serves as a trou-bleshooter from the City’s Office ofElections.

REGISTRATION: AN ONGOING PROCESSLieb says the goal is to build a cadre of regis-tered voters inside, and then to work with re-entry groups to get-out-the-vote by alertingpeople who have been released that it’s notenough to just register; they must also vote.He feels strongly that you have to make voterregistration a continuing process in a jail aslarge as Philadelphia’s because there is somuch turnover and people are continuallyreleased. He advises people in large jail juris-dictions not to focus too much on the absen-tee-ballot process within the jail, becausethere are more people getting out and goingback to their communities.

He believes that because they do registrationon an ongoing basis, and not just right beforean election, jail and other officials do notview them as being overtly political. Liebsays, “This is the only jail in the country

26


COMMUNITY TIES“In corrections, we're in the business of public safe-ty, and in the interest of public safety, we want tostrengthen the ties between detained people andtheir communities,” said Rojas. “One of the besttools for this is the ballot box.”

doing voter registration on an institutionalscale, and it is all done under the rubric ofrehabilitation.”

CHOOSE TO CHOOSELieb and Rojas produced a film called“Choose to Choose,” which documents advo-cates’ interactions with the general jail popu-lation and is shown in every JEVS class. Itshows detained people going through theprocess of registering to vote. Aziz and theother formerly incarcerated advocates fea-tured in the film teach that voting is powerand that detained people can have a voice by

filling out the forms and letting officialsknow that they want to vote.

Baxter notes: “If they don’t think you careenough about yourself to get involved in theprocess, they won’t pay attention to you.”Detained people in the film demonstrate thatonce they learn more about the ramifications ofvoting, they do become interested. One man inthe film says: “Our communities are the last tohave anything done for them and voting affectsevery service in the community.” Another adds,“Just because we’re locked up doesn’t mean wedon’t care about our families out there.”

27


THE LAWThe State of Mississippi prohibits felons con-victed of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson,obtaining money or goods under false pretense,perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy, whoare currently on probation, in prison, or onparole, from voting. In addition, these felonsremain disfranchised permanently after the com-pletion of their sentences. Any former felonseeking to regain the right to vote may apply fora pardon, seek the restoration of civil rights fromthe Governor, or obtain an affirmative vote fromtwo-thirds of the state legislature.

VOTER REGISTRATION PROGRAM BEGINSIn anticipation of the 2002 Congressional Race,the Pike County National Association for theAdvancement of Colored People (NAACP)began a voter-registration program for thoseconvicted of non-disfranchising felonies as wellas misdemeanants and pre-trial detainees.Working alongside Sheriff Fred Johnson, whowas also an active member of the Pike CountyNAACP, the organization first researched whichof the individuals incarcerated in Pike CountyJail were (a) Pike County residents and (b) eligi-ble to vote. They came up with 68 people.

PERMISSION FOR JAIL ENTRY GRANTEDNAACP members and volunteers began goingto the local courthouse as people were beingarraigned, and registered those who were beingcharged, as well as their family members. Thegroups then asked Sheriff Johnson if they couldgo into the jail and register those detainees whowere eligible under Mississippi law to vote -- the68 people on their list. Sheriff Johnson grantedtheir request, and the local NAACP branch offi-cials and volunteers immediately did a walk-through with registration packets and registeredall 68 detainees. This took them one full day.

ABSENTEE BALLOT STIPULATIONSOn Election Day, the NAACP received a callfrom the Circuit Clerk, the county's electionsofficer, who informed them that pre-trialdetainees could not vote by absentee ballotbecause they were incarcerated. The CircuitClerk notified the NAACP that the circum-stances for receiving an absentee ballot did notinclude being incarcerated. One can only voteby absentee ballot if certain specified conditionsprevail; incarceration was not one of those con-ditions. Another obstacle was that thesedetainees were incarcerated within their countyof residence. Had they been incarcerated out-side, rather than within their county of resi-dence, they could have voted by absentee ballot.

CIRCUIT CLERK REQUIRED TO GO THEEXTRA MILEThe NAACP called the Secretary of State'soffice and told them of this turn-of-events.This office in turn called the Pike CountyCircuit Clerk’s Office, and said that immedi-ate permission must be given to the detaineesto vote. Because voting by absentee ballot wasnot an option, the circuit clerk went personal-ly to the jail, and took all 68 votes himself andthen submitted the votes to be counted.Throughout this process, inmates respondedpositively, and were happy to participate inthe election process.

EXPANDING VOTER REGISTRATIONPROGRAM IN MISSISSIPPIThe Mississippi State Conference NAACP isvery enthusiastic about continuing this processin different parts of Mississippi, and has comeup with a list of 16 counties where the organi-zation believes the local sheriff will cooperatewith them and their efforts will have an impact.Derrick Johnson, President of the Mississippi

28


Pike County, Miss. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

State Conference NAACP, emphasizes thatworking alongside a friendly sheriff who willnot suppress inmates' votes or coerce them tovote a certain way makes the voter-registrationprocess much simpler; without the sheriff’scooperation, the prospects are problematicbecause inmates are dependent upon sheriffsfor food, shelter and safety. Such problemshave hindered the NAACP from working on awider scale, but Johnson said it looks forwardto partnerships with any groups or coalitions

that can help to further the endeavor. He says itis the goal of the NAACP to institute a notifi-cation process, so that inmates are informed oftheir right to vote, and are assisted in exercisingthis right.

29


KEY COMPONENTHaving a friendly sheriff who cooperates with thevolunteer registrants helps to not only gain accessto eligible voters, but also ensures a positive andsafe atmosphere.

THE LAWThe District of Columbia prohibits people inprison from voting. Once individuals havecompleted their prison terms, the right to voteis automatically restored.

CURE ON A MISSIONCitizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants(CURE) is a national prison reform organiza-tion based in Washington, D.C. CharlieSullivan, the Executive Director of CURE, andhis volunteers have gone into the D.C. jails toregister voters periodically for several years.They have only recently been allowed to goback into the jail several weeks after a registra-tion drive to hand-deliver absentee ballots andassist detainees with what is called “in-personabsentee voting.”

BACKGROUNDIn 2003, Sullivan began testifying before theDC Board of Elections and Ethics that eligiblevoters were being neglected in the D.C. jails.He pointed out that pre-trial detainees andthose serving time for misdemeanors werelegally empowered to register, request anabsentee ballot, and vote. Although Sullivanknew it would be almost impossible to get intothe jail without assistance from the Board ofElections (BOE), Sullivan and CURE volun-teers were determined to make it happen.

CURE first volunteered to work through thelocal election agency in 2000. But CURE hadnot figured out how to accomplish the vital,follow-up step of confirming that the detaineesit registered were actually able to vote fromjail.

As persistent pressure and trust in Sullivan’s workbuilt up, BOE gradually became more supportive.

In 2004, BOE even suggested that CURE couldhelp BOE facilitate in-person absentee voting.

CURE PERSUADES BOE TO PROVIDETRAINED VOLUNTEERSSince the 2000 registration drives, CURE hadbeen requesting that the directors of BOE andthe Department of Corrections discuss how tocommence volunteer training. Sullivan feltstrongly that training should be initiated by theheads of one of those agencies rather than bythe advocates. Under pressure from CURE,both agencies agreed, and in a great victory forCURE and D.C. detainees, BOE agreed to trainvolunteers. Volunteers would be taught to: (1)register voters and help detainees fill out absen-tee ballot requests, and then (2) facilitate in-person absentee voting. Sullivan reiterated thatbuilding a relationship with the election agencywas vital. “The more we can use the clout ofthe election agency, the more the doors aregoing to open,” he said. If there are problemsgetting into the prisons even with the assistanceof the board, he suggested that advocates stepin by going to the media, calling on supportfrom allied city officials, or having the localACLU put pressure on jail officials to honordetainees’ right to vote.

VOLUNTEERS, BOE STAFF ENTER THEPRISONSCURE used both “inside” and “outside” volun-teers. It recruited members of the communityto become certified registrars, and paired themwith volunteers from the jail chaplain's staff.And it made sure that there was always an"inside" volunteer already known by cellblockstaff to help pave the way for a successfuldrive. Although most of those detained in theD.C. jail were African-American, many CURE

30


Washington, D.C.Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants

volunteers were white. When possible, CUREtried to pair a white volunteer and a volunteerof color. CURE usually had five to 10 volun-teers on each visit.

Two staff people from the D.C. Board ofElections and Ethics accompanied the volun-teers for both the voter-registration drive inDecember and for the in-person absentee vot-ing process in January. Sullivan said this wasextremely beneficial because there were manytechnicalities of the in-person absentee votingprocess for which CURE volunteers had notbeen fully prepared. However, when they wentback for the August registration drive, theywere experienced and did not need Board staffto accompany them.

MATERIALS VOLUNTEERS SHOULD BRINGCURE developed a fact sheet called for the useof all advocates, “The FAIR Way to Vote inJail,” that outlined the following requirements:(1) Only those presently serving a sentence fora felony cannot vote, (2) Age: You have to be18 years old by the date of the election, (3)Competence: You can vote only if you have notbeen judged mentally incompetent by a court,and (4) Residence: You can vote if you havemaintained your residence in Washington 30days before an election. The jail can be count-ed as a residence if you have no other.

During voter registration drives, volunteersalso bring registration forms and absentee-bal-lot request forms for people who will still be injail at the time of the election. In D.C., anabsentee-ballot request may not be submitteduntil the person’s voter-registration form hasbeen processed and he is officially on the voter

rolls, which usually takes 19 days. However, inD.C., the CURE volunteers did not have towithhold the absentee-ballot requests becausethey had a good working relationship with theboard, which promised to process them in cor-rect order.

For in-person absentee voting: The volunteerspicked up the ballots from the board on theirway to the jail and hand-delivered them to thedetained people.

HAND-DELIVERY INSTEAD OF MAILCURE volunteers never used the penitentiarymail system, because the majority of detaineesdo not trust jail mail. They promised detaineeswho registered that they would bring their bal-lots to them and would then bring them direct-ly to the BOE. Sullivan convinced officials tolet them hand-deliver the ballots so that volun-teers could be available to answer questionsand to assist people with disabilities and litera-cy problems.

REGISTRATION DRIVE IN A PRIVATELYRUN JAILThe Corrections Corporation of America(CCA) runs the Central Treatment Facility(CTF), D.C.’s privately run jail. When CUREvolunteers first sought permission to enter CTF

31


If detainees answer "yes" to any oneof these questions, they can vote:1. Are you here on a parole revocation hearing?2. Are you here serving time for a misdemeanor?3. Are you here awaiting trial for a felony?

2003RReeggiisstteerreedd:: 350 eligible out of 2,300TTiimmee:: 3 hours, 2 volunteers per 2-3 cell blocksUUnnaabbllee ttoo rreecceeiivvee aabbsseenntteeee bbaalllloott:: 228 (due toerrors in registration form or release beforeelection)OOffffiicciiaall RReeggiissttrraattiioonnss:: 122

2004RReeggiisstteerreedd:: 188RReeqquueessttss ffoorr aabbsseenntteeee bbaalllloottss:: 179

CTF Private Jail:RReeggiisstteerreedd:: 186 RReeqquueessttss ffoorr aabbsseenntteeee bbaalllloottss:: 148

to conduct voter registration, the wardenemphatically denied their request. Sullivanthen made a call to Michael Quinlan, an officialhigh up the CCA chain of command, whom hehad known in Quinlan’s previous capacity asthe Director of the Bureau of Prisons. This rela-tionship opened the door for the CURE volun-teers and they were allowed access.

Volunteers found that the design of this privatejail was more conducive to registering prison-ers than that of the D.C. Jail. CTF is a directsupervision jail, which meant that there wereabout 50 prisoners to a pod. The volunteers ini-tially tried to elicit detainees’ interest in regis-tering when they were in their cells, but thedoors were locked and they had to shout to beheard. People were not interested until volun-teers asked officials to allow them to come outof their cells and mingle. Then many of themregistered. Sullivan says that the longer the vol-unteers were there, the more detainees warmedup and registered. When people saw their bud-dies asking about registration, they began tothink about doing it too.

Before CURE went into CTF, it asked the asso-ciate warden for programs (who had been des-ignated by the CTF Warden to work with them)to place notices on the bulletin boards of eachpod. She did, and that seemed to help preparepeople for the registration drive.

Volunteers spent more time talking to peoplethan they had the previous week at the D.C.jail, primarily because there were more places

that they could sit down and explain the regis-tration process. They were able to get almostthe same number of registrations, though CTFhad only about 1,200 prisoners while the D.C.jail has 2,300.

MOVING TOWARD MORE INSTITUTIONAL-IZED PRACTICESSullivan and CURE volunteers would like tosee an ongoing registration process institution-alized in the D.C. jails that could reach everydetainee either through intake or release proce-dures. He planned to testify before theElections Board to request that votingmachines be brought into the jails. Thesemachines are small enough that they could becarried to each cellblock. Sullivan said they areprogrammed so that any person voting wouldhave his or her specific ballot, and anyone onthe voter rolls would then be able to vote fromjail. People would not have to go through theabsentee-ballot request process, and theywould be able to experience voting and seetheir votes count. They would even receive apaper receipt from the machine signifying thatthey voted. Sullivan believes this would sub-stantially increase interest in voting among thejail population.

However, he recognized that in spite of itsearly success, CURE still seemed to be a longway from having the local BOE and jail offi-cials do voter work on their own without pres-sure from advocates. He warned, “Justbecause you get in once doesn’t mean you’llget in again.”

32


The federal "Help America Vote Act of 2002" (HAVA) has impacted every part of the votingprocess, from voting machines to provisional ballots, from voter registration to poll worker train-ing. Advocates in each state need to ensure that state legislators and state and local election offi-cials implement HAVA properly.

Under HAVA, states must meet many new federal requirements. States met many of these provi-sions before the 2004 election, including issuing provisional ballots to voters not on the voter list,and setting new identification requirements for first-time voters who register by mail. Otheraspects of HAVA, including the creation of statewide computerized voter lists and increasingaccess for disabled voters, are mandated to be in place by January 1st, 2006. States have finallyreceived some of the federal funds for each of these purposes, and will receive general funds "toimprove the administration of elections" in the future.

HAVA also provides opportunities to educate, and lower barriers faced by, would-be voters whohave interacted with the criminal justice system. HAVA's public education funds can be used toensure that the often-confusing eligibility laws are clearly publicized to voters, elections and cor-rections officials alike. The mandated statewide voter-registration database can ensure that votereligibility is immediately updated, and improve the accuracy of purges. Modifications to voterregistration forms can include clarifying language regarding eligibility of people with felony con-victions right on the voter registration itself.

Along with several explicit requirements, some of the looser language in HAVA has been inter-preted by state legislatures in ways that will limit, not expand, voting rights. For example, somestates have implemented HAVA’s provisional voting requirement in ways that will not count legit-imate voters' provisional ballots if they appear at the wrong polling place, or even the incorrectprecinct. Other states have made HAVA's identification requirements narrower; for example,Georgia now requires photo ID for all voters. State and national advocates have opposed theseinterpretations because of their disfranchising impacts.

33


A Brief Explanation of HAVASubmitted by Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action

www.demos-usa.org/page14.cfm

* See “Issues to Address with Your Local Election Agency” on page 3 for questions related to HAVA implementation that mayaffect your work.

People in jails may vote in every state (includ-ing Louisiana, where the jails in which peopleconvicted of lesser crimes are incarcerated arecalled prisons, and Delaware, where peopleawaiting trial or serving misdemeanor sen-tences are housed in state prisons). People inprisons are banned from voting in all but twostates (Maine and Vermont), and Alabama andMississippi allow some felons to vote. Yet bar-riers to voting exist in both types of facilities,and few actively encourage voting by inmates.

Such barriers are under scrutiny in many states,and some are taking steps to eliminate them.Illinois recently (Aug. 22, 2005) amended itsElection Code to specify, "confinement ordetention in a jail pending acquittal or convic-tion of a crime is not a disqualification for vot-

ing" and constitutes "a specified reason forabsentee voting." The amendment provides for“certification on the back of the ballot." AndSan Franciso's Department of Elections is tak-ing the affirmative step of informing people injail and those who have completed their sen-tences that they are eligible to vote underCalifornia law.

Should you encounter barriers to registeringotherwise eligible people in jail (relating to res-idency, for example, or absentee-ballot require-ments), please contact the ACLU or theBrennan Center for Justice at New YorkUniversity. The authors will deal with legalbarriers to voting by eligible detainees andother barriers brought to their attention, andsuggest ways to resolve them, on a state-by-state basis in a future publication.

The laws summarized in this section apply onlyto felony disfranchisement

AlabamaThe State of Alabama prohibits most peoplewith felony convictions, and currently on pro-bation, in prison, or on parole, from voting. Inaddition, any person who has been convicted ofmurder or certain sexual crimes will remaindisfranchised after the completion of his or hersentence. Those who have completed their sen-tences, have no pending charges, do not oweany outstanding fines and have not been con-victed of murder or certain sexual offenses canapply for a certificate of eligibility from thestate parole board affirming their restored rightto vote.

In 2003, Alabama enacted a law permittingmany persons convicted of a felony to apply for

34


PPrriissoonneerrss ppeerrmmiitttteedd ttoo vvoottee:: ME, VT

VVoottiinngg rreessttoorreedd aafftteerr rreelleeaassee ffrroomm pprriissoonn:: DC, HI,IL, IN, MA, MI, MT, NH, ND, OH, OR, PA, UT

VVoottiinngg rreessttoorreedd aafftteerr rreelleeaassee ffrroomm pprriissoonn aannddccoommpplleettiioonn ooff ppaarroollee((pprroobbaattiioonneerrss mmaayy vvoottee)):: CA,CO, CT, NY, SD

VVoottiinngg rreessttoorreedd aafftteerr ccoommpplleettiioonn ooff pprriissoonn,, ppaarroolleeaanndd pprroobbaattiioonn:: AK, AR, GA, IA*, ID, KS, LA, MN,MO, NJ, NM, NC, NE**, OK, RI, SC, TX, WV, WI

PPeerrmmaanneenntt ddiissffrraanncchhiisseemmeenntt ffoorr ssoommee//mmuullttiipplleeffeelloonnyy ccoonnvviiccttiioonnss,, uunnlleessss ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt aapppprroovveessiinnddiivviidduuaall rriigghhttss rreessttoorraattiioonn:: AL, AZ, DE, MD, MS,NV, TN, WA, WY

AAllll ccoonnvviicctteedd ooff ffeelloonniieess ppeerrmmaanneennttllyy ddiissffrraann--cchhiisseedd:: FL, KY, VA

* See detailed description of Iowa law herein for a fullerdescription of the status of the Iowa law.

** Voting rights restored 2 years after completion ofsentence.

The Law in Your StateSubmitted by The Sentencing Project

www.sentencingproject.org

a certificate of eligibility to register to voteafter the completion of their sentences.

AlaskaThe State of Alaska prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on proba-tion, in prison, or on parole, from voting.Once individuals have completed their sen-tences, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

ArizonaThe State of Arizona prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addition,persons who have committed more than oneoffense are also prohibited from voting afterthe completion of sentence. A first-time offend-er in Arizona has the right to vote restoredautomatically upon completion of sentence, aslong as no outstanding financial obligations tothe state remain. People who have been con-victed of two or more felonies may only havetheir rights restored through a court process orby seeking a pardon.

ArkansasThe State of Arkansas prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

CaliforniaThe State of California prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison or onparole from voting. Once an individual hascompleted his or her sentence, the right to voteis automatically restored.

ColoradoThe State of Colorado prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison or onparole from voting. In addition, state officialshave interpreted this prohibition to include per-

sons convicted of a misdemeanor who havebeen sentenced to incarceration. Once an indi-vidual has completed his or her sentence, theright to vote is automatically restored.

ConnecticutThe State of Connecticut prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently inprison or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored. In2001, Connecticut enacted a law restoringthe right to vote for people currently on pro-bation for a felony conviction. Connecticutalso exercises a public information require-ment that the Commissioner of Correctionsmust inform the individual upon release fromincarceration about the process of rightsrestoration, and transmit restoration informa-tion to the Secretary of State and localboards of elections.

DelawareThe State of Delaware prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on proba-tion, in prison, or on parole from voting. Inaddition, any person who has been convictedof murder, manslaughter, certain sexualcrimes, or offenses against offices of publicadministration such as bribery will remaindisfranchised after the completion of sen-tence. Those who have completed their sen-tences and have not been convicted of thecharges listed above can either seek a pardonor wait five years from the completion ofsentence for their rights to be restored.Persons who have been convicted of a mis-demeanor for certain election-law violationsare prohibited from voting for 10 years fol-lowing completion of sentence.

Delaware repealed its permanent ban on votingfor persons convicted of a felony in 2000,replacing the lifetime prohibition with the five-year waiting period.

35


District of ColumbiaThe District of Columbia prohibits people whoare incarcerated for felony convictions fromvoting.

FloridaThe State of Florida prohibits people withfelony convictions, and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addition,all persons remain disfranchised permanentlyafter the completion of their sentences. Anyperson seeking to regain the right to vote afterthe completion of sentence may either applyfor a pardon or seek the restoration of his or hercivil rights through the Board of ExecutiveClemency.

GeorgiaThe State of Georgia prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on proba-tion, in prison, or on parole from voting.Once an individual has completed his or hersentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

HawaiiThe State of Hawaii prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison fromvoting. Once an individual has completed hisor her sentence, the right to vote is automati-cally restored.

IdahoThe State of Idaho prohibits people with felonyconvictions and currently in prison or on parolefrom voting. Once an individual has completedhis or her sentence, the right to vote is auto-matically restored.

IllinoisThe State of Illinois prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison fromvoting. Once an individual has completed hisor her sentence, the right to vote is automati-cally restored.

IndianaThe State of Indiana prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison fromvoting. Once an individual has completed hisor her sentence, the right to vote is automati-cally restored.

IowaThe State of Iowa prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole, from voting. In addi-tion, all persons remain disfranchised perma-nently after the completion of sentence. OnJuly 4, 2005, Governor Vilsack issued anExecutive Order that would automaticallyrestore the voting rights of all persons con-victed of a felony who have completed theirsentences. In addition, the governor has com-mitted to continuing this restoration on amonthly basis. Currently, this order is the sub-ject of litigation, but as this report went topress, the order was still in effect. Any personseeking to regain the right to vote after thecompletion of sentence may either apply for apardon or seek the restoration of civil rightsfrom the governor.

KansasThe State of Kansas prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on proba-tion, in prison, or on parole, from voting.Once an individual has completed his or hersentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

KentuckyThe State of Kentucky prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addition,all persons remain disfranchised permanentlyafter the completion of sentence. Any personseeking to regain the right to vote must applyfor a pardon from the governor, and recent leg-islation has been passed in order to ease thisapplication process.

36


Public Education Mandate: In 2001, the legisla-ture passed a bill that requires the Department ofCorrections to inform and aid eligible offendersin completing the civil-rights restoration process.

LouisianaThe State of Louisiana prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

MaineThe State of Maine permits people with felonyconvictions and currently on probation, inprison, or on parole to vote. Individuals whoare currently incarcerated vote by absentee bal-lot in the district in which they lived prior totheir incarceration.

MarylandThe State of Maryland prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addition,any person with two or more violent felonyconvictions will be prohibited from voting.Persons convicted of first- or second-time non-violent offenses will have the right to voteautomatically restored at the end of a three-year waiting period that begins at the comple-tion of sentence; all outstanding fines and/orrestitution must be satisfied prior to restoration.For those with two or more violent felony con-victions, the only recourse is to apply for a par-don from the governor.

Maryland repealed its permanent ban on votingfor persons convicted of first or second offensesin 2002, replacing the lifetime prohibition withthe three-year waiting period discussed above.

MassachusettsThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts prohibitspeople with felony convictions who are current-ly in prison from voting. Once an individual has

completed his or her sentence, the right to voteis automatically restored. The Commonwealthpermitted incarcerated felons to vote until 2000,when Massachusetts voters passed an initiativeto amend their state Constitution to prohibitcurrently incarcerated people from exercisingthe right to vote. There are no current estimatesavailable of the number of individuals disfran-chised in Massachusetts since the law waschanged.

MichiganThe State of Michigan prohibits persons con-victed of a felony or misdemeanor and current-ly in prison from voting. Once an individualhas completed his or her sentence, the right tovote is automatically restored.

MinnesotaThe State of Minnesota prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

MississippiThe State of Mississippi prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation, inprison, or on parole from voting, if convicted ofcertain crimes listed in the MississippiConstitution. These include: murder, rape,bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goodsunder false pretenses, perjury, forgery, embezzle-ment, or bigamy. In addition, all persons remaindisfranchised permanently after the completionof sentence. Any person seeking to regain theright to vote after the completion of sentence mayapply for a pardon, seek the restoration of civilrights from the governor, or obtain an affirmativevote from two-thirds of the state legislature.

MissouriThe State of Missouri prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once an

37


individual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

MontanaThe State of Montana prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison fromvoting. Once an individual has completed hisor her sentence, the right to vote is automati-cally restored.

NebraskaThe State of Nebraska prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Untilrecently, people with felony convictions werepermanently disfranchised unless they appliedfor and were granted pardons by the NebraskaBoard of Pardons. Once they have completedtheir sentences, persons convicted of a felonymust wait two years until their right to vote isautomatically restored.

NevadaThe State of Nevada prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addi-tion, any person with multiple convictions, ora first-time violent felony conviction, will beprohibited from voting beyond the completionof sentence. Persons convicted of first-time,non-violent offenses have their right to voteautomatically restored upon the completion ofsentence.

In 2003, Nevada passed legislation permittingautomatic restoration of voting rights for per-sons convicted of first-time, non-violentoffenses upon the completion of sentence.

New HampshireThe State of New Hampshire prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently in prisonfrom voting. Once an individual has completedhis or her sentence, the right to vote is auto-matically restored.

New JerseyThe State of New Jersey prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

New MexicoThe State of New Mexico prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once indi-viduals have completed their sentences, theymust submit a certificate of release, document-ing that they have done so, to the governor, inorder to have the right to vote restored.

In 2001, the New Mexico Legislature passedlegislation repealing the state’s ban on votingby people who have completed their sentences.

New YorkThe State of New York prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison or onparole from voting. Once an individual hascompleted his or her sentence, the right to voteis automatically restored.

North CarolinaThe State of North Carolina prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently on proba-tion, in prison, or on parole from voting. Oncean individual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

North DakotaThe State of North Dakota prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently inprison from voting. Once an individual hascompleted his or her sentence, the right tovote is automatically restored.

OhioThe State of Ohio prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prisonfrom voting. Once an individual has complet-

38


ed his or her sentence, the right to vote isautomatically restored.

OklahomaThe State of Oklahoma prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

OregonThe State of Oregon prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently in prison fromvoting. Once an individual has completed hisor her sentence, the right to vote is automati-cally restored.

PennsylvaniaThe State of Pennsylvania prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently in prisonfrom voting. Once an individual has completedhis or her sentence, the right to vote is auto-matically restored.

Rhode IslandThe State of Rhode Island prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently on pro-bation, in prison, or on parole from voting.Once an individual has completed his or hersentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

South CarolinaThe State of South Carolina prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently on pro-bation, in prison, or on parole, as well as mis-demeanants currently incarcerated, from vot-ing. Once an individual has completed his orher sentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

South DakotaThe State of South Dakota prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently in prisonor on parole from voting. Once an individual

has completed his or her sentence, the right tovote is automatically restored.

TennesseeThe State of Tennessee prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addition,Tennessee has a complex set of rules definingwhich groups of persons are permitted to voteafter the completion of sentence. Everybody,except those convicted of murder, aggravatedrape, treason, or voter fraud, committed afterJuly 1, 1986, or rape after June 30, 1996, mayapply to the court of the county of their con-viction or current residence to have their votingrights restored after the completion of theirsentences.

People convicted of felony, not including mur-der, aggravated rape, treason or voter fraud,between July 1, 1986 and June 30, 1996, seek-ing to have their right to vote restored mustcontact the board of probation or parole toreceive a certificate declaring that they havecompleted their sentences and are now eligibleto vote.

TexasThe State of Texas prohibits people with felonyconvictions and currently on probation, inprison, or on parole from voting. Once an indi-vidual has completed his or her sentence, theright to vote is automatically restored.

In 1996, Texas repealed its two-year waitingperiod requirement for people wishing toregain voting eligibility after the completion ofsentence.

UtahThe State of Utah prohibits people with felonyconvictions and currently in prison from vot-ing. Once an individual has completed his orher sentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

39


VermontThe State of Vermont permits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole to vote. Individuals whoare currently incarcerated vote by absentee bal-lot in the district in which they lived prior totheir incarceration.

VirginiaThe Commonwealth of Virginia prohibits peo-ple with felony convictions and currently onprobation, in prison, or on parole from voting.In addition, all persons remain disfranchisedpermanently after the completion of their sen-tences. Anybody seeking to regain his or herright to vote may apply for a certificate of“removal of political disabilities” from thegovernor five years after the completion ofsentence for conviction of a violent or drugoffense and three years after completion ofsentence for conviction of a non-violentoffense.

WashingtonThe State of Washington prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently on pro-bation, in prison, or on parole from voting. Inaddition, all persons convicted on or after July1, 1984 have the right to vote automaticallyrestored after the completion of sentence witha “certificate of discharge” issued by the courtof conviction. For people convicted prior toJuly 1, 1984 the restoration process is contin-gent upon the type of release. Those releasedto parole, upon completion of sentence, mayapply for a “certificate of discharge” from theIndeterminate Sentence Review Board. Forpeople who have completed a sentence of pro-bation, the restoration process requires apply-ing to the court of conviction after the com-pletion of sentence in order to restore the rightto vote. In addition, any person in the statemay apply to the Clemency and Pardons boardfor a pardon and to restore his or her votingrights.

West VirginiaThe State of West Virginia prohibits peoplewith felony convictions and currently on pro-bation, in prison, or on parole from voting.Once an individual has completed his or hersentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.

WisconsinThe State of Wisconsin prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. Once anindividual has completed his or her sentence,the right to vote is automatically restored.

WyomingThe State of Wyoming prohibits people withfelony convictions and currently on probation,in prison, or on parole from voting. In addition,any person who is a repeat offender or is a first-time violent offender will remain disfranchisedafter the completion of sentence, and may onlyseek to have the right to vote restored througha pardon from the governor. First-time non-violent offenders are eligible to apply forrestoration of voting rights five years after thecompletion of sentence.

In 2003, Wyoming enacted a law permittingpeople convicted of a first-time, non-violentoffense to regain the right to vote after a five-year waiting period.

40


ALABAMAElections Division, Montgomery, Ala.(334) 242-7210 http://www.sos.state.al.us/

ALASKAElections Services, Juneau, Alaska(907) 465-4611 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/homepage.html

ARIZONAElections Services, Phoenix, Ariz. (602) 542-8683http://www.azsos.gov/election/

ARKANSASElection Department, Little Rock, Ark. (501) 682-3419http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/

CALIFORNIAElections Division, Sacramento, Calif. (916) 657-2166 www.ss.ca.gov

COLORADOElections Center, Denver, Colo. (303) 894-2200http://www.sos.state.co.us/

CONNECTICUTElections Office, Hartford, Conn. (860) 509-6100http://www.sots.state.ct.us/

DELAWAREOffice of State Election Commissioner, Dover, Del.(800) 273-9500http://www.state.de.us/election

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIABoard of Elections and Ethics, Washington, D.C.(202) 727-2525 http://www.dcboee.org

41


Voter Registration Contact NumbersFrom the League of Women Voters’ Website: www.lwv.org

FLORIDADivision of Elections, Tallahassee, Fla. (850) 245-6200 http://dos.state.fl.us

GEORGIAElections Division, Atlanta, Ga.(404) 656-2871 http://www.sos.state.ga.us

HAWAIIOffice of Elections, Honolulu, Hawaii(808) 453-8683 http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/index.html

IDAHOOffice of Secretary of State for Elections, Boise, Idaho(208) 334-2300http://www.idsos.state.id.us

ILLINOISBoard of Elections, Springfield, Ill. (217) 782-4141; (312) 814-6440http://www.elections.state.il.us/

INDIANAElection Division, Indianapolis, lnd.(317) 232-3939 http://www.in.gov/sos

IOWAVoters Elections Center, Des Moines, Iowa(515) 281-5865http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/

KANSASElections and Legislative Matters Division of the SOS, Topeka, Kans.(785) 296-4561http://www.kssos.org/

KENTUCKYState Board of Elections, Frankfort, Ky.(502) 573-7100 http://www.sos.state.ky.us/

42


LOUISIANAElections Division, Baton Rouge, La.(225) 342-4970http://www.sec.state.la.us/

MAINEDivision of Elections, Augusta, Me.(207) 624-7650http://www.state.me.us/sos/

MARYLANDState Board of Elections, Annapolis, Md.(410) 269-2840 http://www.elections.state.md.us

MASSACHUSETTSElections Division, Boston, Mass.(617) 727-2828 http://www.state.ma.us/sec/

MICHIGANBureau of Elections, Lansing Mich. (517) 373-2540 www.michigan.gov/sos

MINNESOTAOffice of Secretary of State, St Paul, Minn.(651) 215-1440 (metro); 1-877-600-8683 (outside metro area)http://www.state.mn.us/ebranch/sos/

MISSISSIPPIElections Division, Jackson, Miss.(601) 359-6353; (800)-829-6786http://www.sos.state.ms.us/

MISSOURIElection Services, Jefferson City, Mo.(573) 751-2301 (800) 669-9683http://www.sos.mo.gov

MONTANAElections and Legislative Bureau, Helena, Mont. (406) 444-4732; (888) 884-8683http://sos.state.mt.us/css/index.asp

43


NEBRASKAOffice of Secretary of State, Election Administration, Lincoln, Neb.(402) 471-2555 http://www.sos.state.ne.us/

NEVADAOffice of Secretary of State Elections Division, Carson City, Nev.(775) 684-5705 http://sos.state.nv.us/

NEW HAMPSHIREElection Division, Concord, N.H. (603) 271-3242 http://www.sos.nh.gov/

NEW JERSEYOffice of Attorney General, Elections Division, Department of Law & Public Safety, Trenton, N.J.(609) 292-3760www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/electionshome.html

NEW MEXICOSecretary of State, Bureau of Elections, Santa Fe, N.M.(505) 827-3600http://www.sos.state.nm.us/elect.htm

NEW YORKState Board of Elections, Albany, N.Y.(518) 474-6220http://www.elections.state.ny.us/

NORTH CAROLINAState Board of Elections, Raleigh, N.C.(919) 733-7173 http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/

NORTH DAKOTA Office of Secretary of State, Elections Division, Bismark, N.D.(701) 328-4146http://www.state.nd.us/ sec

OHIOOffice of Secretary of State, Columbus, Ohio (614) 466-2585 http://www.state.oh.us/sos/elecpage.html

44


OKLAHOMAState Election Board, Oklahoma City, Okla. (405) 521-2391 www.state.ok.us/-elections/index.html

OREGONElections Division, Salem, Ore.(503) 986-1518http://www.sos.state.or.us

PENNSYLVANIAOffice of Commissioner of Elections, Harrisburg, Penn.(717) 787-5280http://www.dos.state.pa.us

RHODE ISLANDElections Division, Providence, R.I.(401) 222-2340www.state.ri.us/

SOUTH CAROLINAState Election Commission, Columbia, S.C.(803) 734-9060 http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/

SOUTH DAKOTAOffice of Supervisor of Election, Pierre, S.D.(605) 773-3537 www.sdsos.gov

TENNESSEEDivision of Elections Office, Nashville, Tenn.(615) 741-7956 http://www.state.tn.us/sos

TEXASElections Division, Austin, Texas(512) 463-5650; 800-252-8683http://www.sos.state.tx.us/

UTAHOffice of Director of Elections, Salt Lake City, Utah(801) 538-1041; (800) 995-8683http://www.elections.utah.gov

45


VERMONTOffice of Secretary of State, Montpelier, Vt.(802) 828-2363 http://www.sec.state.vt.us

VIRGINIAState Board of Elections, Richmond, Va.(804) 786-6551 http://www.sbe.state.va.us/

WASHINGTONOffice of Election Director, Olympia, Wash.(360) 902-4180 http://www.secstate.wa.gov

WEST VIRGINIASecretary of State, Charleston, W. Va.(304) 558-6000www.wvsos.com

WISCONSINState Elections Board, Madison, Wisc.(608) 266-8005www.elections.state.wi.us

WYOMINGDeputy Secretary of State, Cheyenne, Wyo.(307) 777-7640 http://soswy.state.wy.us/

46


47


48


49


50


51


52


BY KEN KOBAYASHI,Advertiser Courts Writer

On the day of the 2000general election, WilliamRemmers Jr. was beingheld at the O`ahuCommunity CorrectionalCenter awaiting trial on afelony drunken drivingcharge. He had signed upto vote, but when he askedfor a ballot, the prisonstaff told him they didn'thave one and to file agrievance.

Remmers did more thanthat. With the encourage-ment of late U.S. Rep.Patsy Mink and with helpof the American CivilLiberties Union of Hawai`i,Remmers filed a lawsuit in2002 alleging violations ofthe constitutional right tovote for him and at least 10other inmates.

Recently, the ACLU andthe state reached an out-of-court settlement thatwould pay up to $5,000 toRemmers and other OCCC

pretrial detainees whowere denied a chance tovote in the 2000 elections.

The maximum amount forany detainee would be$1,000.

"They know the rules andregulations and they gotcaught and it costs taxpay-ers money," Remmers, 47,a Pälolo resident, said yes-terday. "It's kinda ignorantthat with all the rules andregulations they are wellaware of, they don't abideby them."

The settlement also callsfor state prison officials toensure that people in jailawaiting trial will be ableto vote in future elections.The settlement must beapproved by a federal judgeNov. 16, but state officialssay they will be makingsure detainees will be ableto vote by mail in the Sept.18 and Nov. 2 elections.

Under the law, felons serv-ing prison time aren't enti-

tled to vote, but Remmersand the other detaineeswere awaiting trial and hadnot been convicted of thecharges.

Although OCCC held morethan 600 pretrial detaineesin 2000, only a handfulwho expressed a desire tovote and qualified to votewould be entitled to part ofthe $5,000. Ronald Vega,the Honolulu lawyer whofiled the suit in behalf ofRemmers and the ACLU,estimated that only a fewdozen might qualify.

"I think it's fair," Vega saidyesterday. "I think theACLU achieved what theyset out to achieve and inthe future the rights of pre-trial detainees to vote willbe preserved."

John Cregor, state deputyattorney general who esti-mated about 30 detaineesmight qualify, also calledthe settlement "fair." Hesaid a "last-minute

Honolulu Advertiser, The (HI)August 6, 2004

Pretrial inmates settle in vote case

Media Coverage

53


procedural problem devel-oped" that included prisonofficials not getting certifiedpeople to assist in the voting.

"Obviously, somethingwent wrong," he said. "Thebuck stops at the state sowe're standing up to ourresponsibility."

He said the state felt the$5,000 was reasonable.Court cases indicate thedenial of a right to voterequires more than "nomi-nal" compensation andthey suggest it ranges from$100 to $1,000 for eachperson, he said.

Remmers was convictedlater in November 2000 of

the DUI charge, a felonybecause it was his thirdoffense. He spent a year injail and said he won't beable to vote this fallbecause his probationwon't be completed untilnext year. But he intends tovote in 2006.

A heavy equipment opera-tor and a graduate studentin global management atthe University of Phoenixhere, Remmers said he'sbeen sober for five yearsand regrets the drinkingthat landed him in jail. "Itcaused too much pain anddrama," he said.

But he has no regrets abouthis suit. "I just wanted to

show the public theyshould be doing the rightthing," he said.

A legal notice has beenpublished asking anyonewho wants to be part ofthe settlement to callVega's office at 524-2000.

Reach Ken Kobayashi [email protected] or 525-8030.

Copyright (c) TheHonolulu Advertiser. Allrights reserved.

Reproduced with the per-mission of Gannett Co.,Inc. by NewsBank, inc.Record Number:hon2004080612062528

54


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63


voting while incarcerated · vwi: voting while incarcerated a tool kit for voting rights advocates...

Documents