Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Local officials push Iowa governor to fulfill felon voting rights vow

Iowa felon voting, President Donald Trump, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds

County election administrators want Gov. Kim Reynolds, here at a January rally in Des Moines with President Trump, to make good on her promise right away.

Tom Brenner/Getty Images

Pressure is building for Gov. Kim Reynolds to quickly fulfill her promise to restore voting rights to Iowa's convicted felons in time for the general election.

On Thursday, one month after the Republican governor promised such an executive order, county election administrators urged her to hurry up — because otherwise it might not be possible to make the bureaucratic changes before the November vote.

The details of her proclamation could shape the civic future of as many of 60,000 Iowans who have finished prison terms for felonies. The state is the only one that permanently denies the franchise to all felons, at a time when expanding their political rights has been a top cause of civil rights groups.


"These changes cannot happen overnight," said the letter to the governor from Roxanna Moritz, the president of the state Association of County Auditors, the officials who run elections in Iowa.

Not only will mailings, instructions to poll workers and government websites need to be altered, she said, but "this policy should be supported by outreach and education to inform potential voters of their eligibility" so they can register by the Oct. 24 deadline, 10 days before Election Day.

"It will be out in plenty of time prior to the election," Reynolds vowed in a radio interview Wednesday, saying her staff and state attorneys are meeting with various groups to gather input.

She also signaled she would take victims into account by keeping the lifetime ban on voting for those convicted of murderer, rape and other violent crimes.

The county officials said they favored a blanket decision, because administering registration based on criminal statutes would be too difficult.

They also asked Reynolds to not require felons to repay any fines or restitution before voting again. The auditors said figuring out how much the ex-felons owe and collecting that money would be too complicated and time consuming.

That echoes arguments central to the most prominent felon voting move in the country, in Florida, where the restoration of rights for several hundred thousand ex-convicts has been halted by a state law requiring them to make good on all their financial obligations to the government. Critics say that amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax, but this week the Supreme Court decided not to intervene — at least not before the state's August primary.

Reynolds had supported a constitutional amendment restoring voting rights, but that proposal stalled last month in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Legislators did pass and the governor signed, however, a bill to require felons to pay restitution to victims if they ever get their voting rights back. A payment plan would still be allowed for fines and court costs and would not delay voting rights restoration.

But it's not clear if that law would apply to changes made through executive order. The law specifically states its requirements kick in only upon passage by the voters of a constitutional amendment restoring felon voting rights.

The issue has gained fresh attention during this summer's national reckoning with racism, in particular the racial inequities in law enforcement. A disproportionate share of the nation's prisoners are Black and Latino, and allowing them to fully re-enter society after their release is being hailed as an overdue step toward justice.

During a rally in June at the Capitol in Des Moines, Black Lives Matter activists presented a list of five demands, one of which was the executive order the governor then promised. Members of the group have pressed her for quick action ever since.

Read More

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less