Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voting bill in Washington killed by impasse on which felons should benefit

State capitol in Olympia, Washington

Democrats in Olympia failed to corral enough votes in time to push through their expansion of felons' voting rights.

JerryPDX/Getty Images

The cause of felon voting rights has suffered an unexpected setback in one of the nation's more progressive states.

Legislation that would allow convicted criminals in Washington to register and vote as soon as they get out of prison was killed Wednesday night in the solidly Democratic state Senate — the victim of a lack of compromise.

The measure, which was spiked on the last day it could advance under the Legislature's rules, had been perhaps the most prominent state legislative effort this year to expand the franchise for freed felons in time for the presidential election.


Doing so is a top cause of civil rights groups, who say getting back the vote amounts to a stamp of readmission into society for a group already marginalized because it's disproportionately poor and non-white. On the other side are those who argue that felons' debt to society must not be made so easy to repay. And on top of that debate is partisan politics, because those who have been incarcerated lean decidedly Democratic.

At issue in Olympia was just how speedily voting rights should be restored, and for which felons. Washington is already among the 21 states that do so for all felons after they complete their parole or probation. The legislation would have made Washington the 17th state to make the restoration automatic upon release from prison. About 10,000 people would have benefited.

Democrats abruptly halted debate, however, when it became clear the bill lacked the 25 votes necessary for passage.

That happened soon after minority Republicans succeeded, with some cross-aisle votes, in amending the bill to deny the new benefit to sex offenders on probation. After senators narrowly rejected a subsequent GOP proposal to also exempt murderers and others convicted of violent crimes, Democrats concluded the bill's passage would pose campaign season trouble.

"If you're going to go home and say 'rape a child, you can't vote, shoot a child, you get to vote,' how do you explain that to your constituents, how do you explain that to the people?" Republican Doug Ericksen had warned his colleagues.

Several states have different timetables for giving the vote back to the most serious offenders, or deny them the vote altogether. The most famous recent expansion of felon voting rights, the referendum approved by Florida voters in 2018, does not cover murderess or sex offenders, for example.

"We are extremely disappointed that the voting rights restoration bill did not pass," the ACLU of Washington said in a statement. "The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the time to tear down these barriers is long past due."

The prime sponsor, Democrat Patty Kuderer, who has been working to win Senate passage for three years, vowed to try again in 2021. She noted her bill was pushed by a broad coalition of 50 organizations including the association of local prosecutors, the Department of Corrections, and Democratic Attorney General Bob Ferguson.


Read More

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election in the Kentucky, USA

Getty Images

Kentucky’s Independent Voters Are Growing. Why Are They Still Shut Out?

Kentucky’s political establishment has just been handed a number it should not be able to ignore.

In July, more Kentucky voters registered as independent or “other” than registered as Republicans and Democrats combined. More than 8,500 Kentuckians registered to vote, and the “other” category grew by 2,530 voters, compared with 2,483 new Republicans and a decline of 32 Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court, Washington, DC

Getty Images

If You Can’t Win, Disrupt

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the stay issued by Judge Talwani of the US District Court for Massachusetts. The case was brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin Executive Order No. 14399, issued by President Trump. The Executive Order (EO) was 90 pages long and is entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”.

The purpose of the EO according to its proponents is to (1) enhance the verification of the citizenship status of the voting public and to explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or vote in federal elections; (2) to utilize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE) to assist in verifying identity and voter eligibility. (3) Establish the transmission of state citizenship lists and prioritization of investigations and prosecutions related to election fraud. (4) Require the US Postal Service (USPS) to issue new rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. (5) Have the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of the SSA, and the Postmaster General, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, to effectuate all relevant aspects of the implementation of the Order. (6) Enforcement authority for this EO is vested in the Attorney General.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building in Washington, DC

Government reform

Getty Images

Why One Young Engineer Rejects the Two‑Party Binary

When Joshua Summers was in elementary school, his dad would come to class to perform science experiments. One time, they did an experiment to show how lightning bugs lit up.

“That was pretty cool,” he says. There was never one moment that drew him to science, but it may have helped that his mother was a nurse and his father was a mathematician.

Keep ReadingShow less
people in a boardroom


Happy female entrepreneur with colleagues sitting at a desk in an office

Getty images

Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Background

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.

Keep ReadingShow less