by Mark Wilson

“Individuals who commit crimes need to be held accountable, but they should not be stripped of their rights as a citizen,” said Oregon state Senator Floyd Prozanski, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose committee is considering one of two bills to eliminate Oregon’s 164-year prohibition on prisoner voting rights. “As a citizen, they should have the continued right to vote and have a say in their government, even if they are incarcerated.”

Disenfranchisement is rooted in the ancient concept of “civil death” and “encourages the prisoner to be treated as an ‘other,’ part of an ‘untouchable class;’ a ‘second-class citizen,’ or a ‘conditional citizen,’” observes Corman Behan in his 2013 book Citizen Convicts, Prisoners, Politics, and the Vote, (Manchester University Press). Yet “one cannot be a half citizen, a conditional citizen, a second-class citizen. Each one is a contradiction, the adjective rendering the noun meaningless.”

Oregon prisoner Anthony Richardson, who has never had the right to vote because he has been incarcerated since he was a minor, said being denied the right to vote makes him feel like less of a citizen. “Prison is about the loss of liberty, not the loss of citizenship,” he said.

Oregon’s “civil death” law was enacted when the state still embraced its racist foundation.

Fifteen years before statehood, the territorial Committee enacted Black exclusion laws in 1844, prohibiting Black people from settling in Oregon under penalty of lashings, forced labor and banishment. During an 1857 constitutional convention, the Oregon territory approved exclusion laws that prohibited Blacks from voting, implemented felony disenfranchisement laws and other racist prohibitions against Chinese people.

When Oregon was admitted to the union in 1859, it was the only state with a Black exclusion law enshrined in its Constitution. Article 2, Section 3, of the Oregon Constitution also declared that “the privilege of an elector, upon conviction of any crime which is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, shall be forfeited, unless otherwise provided by law.”

Oregon repealed its Black exclusion laws in 1926, but not its felony disenfranchisement law. While the state finally “repealed” its civil death law in 1961, it did so through the enactment of ORS 137.240(2), which continued to prohibit prisoner voting and many other rights. That law was renumbered as ORS 137.280 in 1975 and continues to deny prisoners voting and many other rights still today.

Bobbin Singh, executive director of the Oregon Justice Resource Center (OJRC), who partnered with Samantha Gladu, executive director of the Oregon civil rights organization Next Up, to prioritize prisoner voting rights, notes that allowing prisoners to vote would help them transition back into the community after release.

“This type of punishment doesn’t make any sense,” he said. “It has no correlation to public safety.”

Outside the prison context, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly shared Anthony’s and Prozanski’s view that “to the extent that a citizen’s right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen.” See: Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 567, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964). “A citizen cannot hope to achieve any meaningful degree of individual political equality if granted an inferior right of participation in the political process. Those denied the vote are relegated, by state fiat, in a most basic way to second­class status.” See: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 233, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982).

Yet since our founding, felon disenfranchisement has been the American rule rather than the exception. Only two states — Maine and Vermont — have allowed prisoners to vote, without incident, since statehood. Oregon is just one of 19 states that allows former prisoners to vote while on supervision.

Still, efforts to repeal felony disenfranchisement laws have been gaining momentum in recent years, as we continue to struggle against systemic racism within the criminal justice system and beyond. Ending felony disenfranchisement would be a significant step toward eliminating laws created during the Jim Crow era that are rooted in white supremacy, notes Singh.

Washington, D.C. became the first jurisdiction to succeed in abolishing its felony disenfranchisement law in 2020. In 2019, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and other states introduced legislation seeking to allow prisoners to vote but none of those bills ultimately passed. Only the Hawaii and New Mexico bills made it past one committee.

Legislation

On January 11, 2021, Oregon lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 571 and House Bill 2366, in both chambers of the state legislature. The bills are virtually identical, proposing to eliminate ORS 137.280’s prohibition on prisoner voting and allowing prisoners to register and vote in the county of their last pre-incarceration address.

“Mechanically and logistically, this is actually a very easy lift for Oregon,” said Singh. Oregon has allowed vote-by-mail in state elections since 1981 and in federal elections since 1996. In 2019, it passed legislation mandating that the state pay return postage for every voter’s ballot.

Representative Andrea Salinas, who is sponsoring the legislation in the House, said the issue is personal for her because her cousin was incarcerated multiple times and ultimately committed suicide. “When the advocates came to me with this bill, I was like, ‘This is what my cousin Andrew would have needed — a piece of what he would have needed to stay connected to the community,”‘ she said. “I don’t see a downside to this, quite honestly. Oregon is so committed to expanding voting rights and expanding democracy and, that principle is so ingrained in Oregonians on both sides of the aisle.”

As evidence of that, the legislation already had 15 co-sponsors in the Senate and the House upon introduction. The Oregon Legislative Black, Indigenous & People of Color (BIPOC) Caucus also has included it within its top 10 priorities during the 2021 legislative session, given that an estimated 9 percent of Oregon’s prisoners are Black, but African Americans make up just 2.5 percent of the state’s population. Hispanics and other minority populations are also disproportionately represented within Oregon’s prison system.

With Democrats in control of both legislative chambers, the Governor’s office, the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Justice, Oregon’s legislation is unlikely to face strong opposition and stands a much better chance than the legislation in other states. Singh said he feels “very optimistic” that it will pass this year.

New Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan also expressed optimism. “There is more work to be done here and across the country though, including for adults in custody,” said Fagan. “I look forward to learning more about the bill introduced in the Oregon legislature while building on our work to ensure everyone has fair access to the process. Those denied the vote are relegated, by state fiat, in a most basic way to second­class status.” See: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 233, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982).

Yet since our founding, felon disenfranchisement has been the American rule rather than the exception. Only two states — Maine and Vermont — have allowed prisoners to vote, without incident, since statehood. Oregon is just one of 19 states that allows former prisoners to vote while on supervision.

Still, efforts to repeal felony disenfranchisement laws have been gaining momentum in recent years, as we continue to struggle against systemic racism within the criminal justice system and beyond. Ending felony disenfranchisement would be a significant step toward eliminating laws created during the Jim Crow era that are rooted in white supremacy, notes Singh.

Washington, D.C. became the first jurisdiction to succeed in abolishing its felony disenfranchisement law in 2020. In 2019, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and other states introduced legislation seeking to allow prisoners to vote but none of those bills ultimately passed. Only the Hawaii and New Mexico bills made it past one committee.

On January 11, 2021, Oregon lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 571 and House Bill 2366, in both chambers of the state legislature. The bills are virtually identical, proposing to eliminate ORS 137.280’s prohibition on prisoner voting and allowing prisoners to register and vote in the county of their last pre-incarceration address.

“Mechanically and logistically, this is actually a very easy lift for Oregon,” said Singh. Oregon has allowed vote-by-mail in state elections since 1981 and in federal elections since 1996. In 2019, it passed legislation mandating that the state pay return postage for every voter’s ballot.

Representative Andrea Salinas who is sponsoring the legislation in the House said the issue is personal for her because her cousin was incarcerated multiple times and ultimately committed suicide. “When the advocates came to me with this bill, I was like, ‘This is what my cousin Andrew would have needed — a piece of what he would have needed to stay connected to the community,”‘ she said. “I don’t see a downside to this, quite honestly. Oregon is so committed to expanding voting rights and expanding democracy and, that principle is so ingrained in Oregonians on both sides of the aisle.”

As evidence of that, the legislation already had 15 co-sponsors in the Senate and the House upon introduction. The Oregon Legislative Black, Indigenous & People of Color (BIPOC) Caucus has also included it within its top ten priorities during the 2021 legislative session, given that an estimated 9 percent of Oregon’s prisoners are Black, but African Americans make up just 2.5 percent of the state’s population. Hispanics and other minority populations are also disproportionately represented within Oregon’s prison system.

With Democrats in control of both chambers of the legislature, the Governor’s office, the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Justice, Oregon’s legislation is unlikely to face strong opposition and stands a much better chance than the legislation in other states. Singh said he feels “very optimistic” that it will pass this year.

Oregon’s new Secretary of State Shemia Fagan also expressed optimism. “There is more work to be done here and across the country though, including for adults in custody,” said Fagan. “I look forward to learning more about the bill introduced in the Oregon legislature while building on our work to ensure everyone has fair access to the process. Those denied the vote are relegated, by state fiat, in a most basic way to second­class status.” See: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 233, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982).

Yet, since our founding, felon disenfranchisement has been the American rule rather than the exception. Only two states — Maine and Vermont — have allowed prisoners to vote, without incident, since statehood. Oregon is just one of 19 states that allows former prisoners to vote while on supervision.

Still, efforts to repeal felony disenfranchisement laws have been gaining momentum in recent years, as we continue to struggle against systemic racism within the criminal justice system and beyond. Ending felony disenfranchisement would be a significant step toward eliminating laws created during the Jim Crow era that are rooted in white supremacy, notes Singh.

Washington, D.C. became the first jurisdiction to succeed in abolishing its felony disenfranchisement law in 2020. In 2019, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and other states introduced legislation seeking to allow prisoners to vote but none of those bills ultimately passed. Only the Hawaii and New Mexico bills made it past one committee.

On January 11, 2021, Oregon lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 571 and House Bill 2366, in both chambers of the state legislature. The bills are virtually identical, proposing to eliminate ORS 137.280’s prohibition on prisoner voting and allowing prisoners to register and vote in the county of their last pre-incarceration address.

“Mechanically and logistically, this is actually a very easy lift for Oregon,” said Singh. Oregon has allowed vote-by-mail in state elections since 1981 and in federal elections since 1996. In 2019, it passed legislation mandating that the state pay return postage for every voter’s ballot.

Representative Andrea Salinas who is sponsoring the legislation in the House said the issue is personal for her because her cousin was incarcerated multiple times and ultimately committed suicide. “When the advocates came to me with this bill, I was like, ‘This is what my cousin Andrew would have needed — a piece of what he would have needed to stay connected to the community,”‘ she said. “I don’t see a downside to this, quite honestly. Oregon is so committed to expanding voting rights and expanding democracy and, that principle is so ingrained in Oregonians on both sides of the aisle.”

As evidence of that, the legislation already had 15 co-sponsors in the Senate and the House upon introduction. The Oregon Legislative Black, Indigenous & People of Color (BIPOC) Caucus has also included it within its top 10 priorities during the 2021 legislative session, given that an estimated 9 percent of Oregon’s prisoners are Black, but African Americans make up just 2.5 percent of the state’s population. Hispanics and other minority populations are also disproportionately represented within Oregon’s prison system. With Democrats in control of both chambers of the legislature, the Governor’s office, the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Justice, Oregon’s legislation is unlikely to face strong opposition and stands a much better chance than the legislation in other states. Singh said he feels “very optimistic” that it will pass this year.

Oregon’s new Secretary of State Shemia Fagan also expressed optimism. “There is more work to be done here and across the country though, including for adults in custody,” said Fagan. “I look forward to learning more about the bill introduced in the Oregon legislature while building on our work to ensure everyone has fair access to the ballot.” Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt, who campaigned in Oregon’s most populous county supporting the abolition of felony disenfranchisement, also supports the legislation. “If that’s something that we can be doing to get people enthusiastic about participation in society, it just seems like such a no-brainer to me,” said Schmidt. Senator Prozanski is also a prosecutor who said he supports the legislation, in part, because he is a firm believer in making the criminal justice system more restorative, and not punitive.

“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live,” the United States Supreme Court has declared. “Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.” See: Westberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18, 84 S.Ct. 576 (1964).

If Oregon becomes the first state to finally embrace that truth by passing the legislation to abolish felony disenfranchisement, advocates believe it could inspire other Democrat-controlled states to join them. “I hope we’re on the front edge of a humongous wave over the next two to five years,” said Singh. “I’m hoping that by passing this, we can not only demonstrate to Oregonians but to the rest of the country that when we say we cherish the right to vote and political participation, we mean that.” We hope so too! We will report on any significant developments with the legislation.

 

Sources: theappeal.org, SB 571(2021), HB 2366(2021), Oregon BIPOC Caucus Top Ten Priorities

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal cases