Restore Voting Rights
Voting rights should be restored to individuals convicted of crimes who are no longer incarcerated.
February 19, 2018 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
We have just finished an immensely successful, if somewhat complicated, criminal justice improvement through our constitutionally, statutorily, and judicially administered reform of the cash bail system. As we have noted, this is a nationally significant reform of the early part of the criminal justice process that has and will avoid the unnecessary damage to livelihoods and families through the unfair cash bail system. (“One Year In, Bail System Not Perfect, But Much Better,” NJLJ, Jan. 15, 2018.)
Last month Gov. Christie signed three important pieces of legislation dealing with expungement, thereby implementing needed reforms at the end of the criminal justice process. These bills expand the number of people and types of offenses that are eligible for expungement, shorten the time people must wait to apply for expungement, permit several offenses occurring within a brief period to be expunged together, and move still further in the direction of shielding people from employer questions about their criminal records (“ban the box”). These reforms, of course, provide important further steps toward reintegrating those who have offended into our society for the benefit of not only them, but all of us.
Now it is time for at least one more step in the right direction. Under the authority of article II, paragraph 7 of our state constitution (“The Legislature may pass laws to deprive persons of the right of suffrage who shall be convicted of such crimes as it may designate”) the Legislature banned from voting anyone “(8) Who is serving a sentence or is on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this or another state or of the United States.” This legislative decision is now out of step with the current criminal justice reform philosophy in both our state and the nation. (“Let Them Vote,” NJLJ, Feb. 9, 2004). The ban on voting has significant negative ripple effects in minority communities, where one former offender not being permitted to vote has wide influence on the failure to vote by extended family and friends. This effect has been demonstrated by serious social science research and continues to erode the status of those who have paid their debt to society.
The Appellate Division rejected a constitutional challenge to the voting ban, on a disparate impact theory, in 2005, stating simply “Because the statute in question is specifically authorized by the New Jersey Constitution, we affirm.” New Jersey State Conference-NAACP v. Harvey (App. Div. 2005). The argument had been that, despite this apparent constitutional authorization to the Legislature, the actual statute enacted had a serious disparate impact on minority voters in violation of our state constitution's equality guarantees. Our Supreme Court denied certification. Now we have the report of the Law and Justice Transition Advisory Committee to Governor Murphy, dated Jan. 1, 2018, which states that “[r]esearch shows that voting helps facilitate rehabilitation and reduce recidivism,” that 94,000 people currently cannot vote because of criminal convictions; that half of those people are black; and that this constitutes 5 percent of the black voting-age population. The committee's recommendation to the governor is to “[e[ndorse legislation to restore voting rights to people on probation, parole or other community supervision.”
We agree with that recommendation. Voting rights should be restored to individuals convicted of crimes who are no longer incarcerated. The impact of restoring voting rights to individuals while incarcerated should be studied. With a new administration, and New Jersey occupying a leadership position in the national spotlight of criminal justice reform, this unfair and damaging situation can now be easily remedied by our Legislature. We urge our legislators to move expeditiously with this next step in criminal justice reform.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250