Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Iowa Legislature advances felon voting rights, but with expensive caveat

Iowa felon voting

Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds favors a constitutional amendment restoring voting rights to felons.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

The long-running effort to end Iowa's status as the only state permanently stripping voting rights from convicted felons has taken some crucial turns in recent days.

A proposal to ask voters to restore the franchise to convicts who have completed their sentences has been embraced by the same state Senate committee that killed the idea a year ago.

But that endorsement got delivered Friday at what advocates for restoring voting rights view as an improperly high price: Gov. Kim Reynolds signing legislation, produced by her fellow Republicans in charge of the General Assembly, that would require felons to pay fines and restitution if they are ever permitted to register and vote again.


Iowa is considered to have the most restrictive rules about convicted felons and voting of any state, permanently disenfranchising them unless they go through a complicated restoration process and get approval from the governor.

Floridians voted two years ago to abandon similar rules and restore voting rights for felons who had completed their sentences, but the state's GOP Legislature added the condition that all fines and fees have to be repaid first — a measure similar to the new Iowa statute.

A federal judge struck down Florida's law two weeks ago on the grounds it created an unconstitutional "pay to vote" requirement, and a federal appeals court had earlier taken a similar view, suggesting Iowa's new statute could face significant challenges if it's ever applied.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Iowa has about 60,000 people who are barred from voting for life under the current system.

Reynolds has been pushing for the restoration of felon voting rights since she was elected in 2018. But Republican senators in Des Moines had made clear they would not support the idea without the repayment bill being approved.

Even then, some continued to dissent; the vote in the Judiciary Committee was 10-4. But that should pave the way for passage by the full Senate and the state House, which voted overwhelmingly for the idea last year.

The cart-before-the-horse restitution law would not come into play, and be subject to lawsuits, before 2023 at the earliest. That's because the General Assembly would have to endorse the state constitutional amendment not only this year but once again in its 2021-22 session — at which point the measure would be put to a statewide vote for its ultimate test of approval.

A March poll by the Des Moines Register and Mediacom found 63 percent of Iowans favored the referendum and 45 percent favored requiring restitution be paid to crime victims before voting rights are restored.

The topic has taken on added urgency because of the nationwide protests, including in Des Moines, over the death of George Floyd after a Minneapolis police officer put a knee to his neck for nearly nine minutes.

A study four years ago by the Sentencing Project found that nearly 10 percent of black adults in the state are barred from voting because of a felony conviction.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less