Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less