Iowa legislature looks at restoring felon voting rights

Varad Diwate

A proposed legislation in Iowa legislature would automatically restore the right to vote for convicted felons. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is likely to veto the bill if it is passed by the legislature.

The bill, SF 2203, was introduced by Democrats in the State Government Committee. It is yet to be put up for a vote in the Senate. Democrats voted for the bill while Republicans voted against it in the committee. The bill was proposed last year by Sen. Dick Dearden, D-Des Moines, but did not go through the subcommittee.

”[The ex-felons] are paying taxes and doing everything other citizens are doing. They ought to be allowed to vote,” Dearden said. “It’s just wrong.”

He said the practice is almost equal to institutionalized racism as a lot of people currently in prisons belong to minority groups.

According to a provision in the Iowa Constitution, felons cannot vote even after they have served their sentence. The right to vote can be restored by the governor through an application.

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack first issued an executive order in 2005 that would automatically allow felons to vote after completing their sentences. Branstad then reversed this order once he took office.

Currently, convicted felons apply to the governor for restoration of their voting rights after completion of their sentences. Their application is approved after paying all legal costs and fees owed to the state. Branstad has approved 41 applications for restoring voting rights of felons since 2011.

“The inconsistency of the executive orders over the years has confused Iowans as to what the rules are … We believe it’s time now to make sure that the law is clear and consistent,” said Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls. “Hopefully, people who have the opportunity to vote get to do it.”

Republicans want to retain the requirement that felons pay off all their dues to the state before they are eligible to vote. Democrats have argued that some felons would never be able to pay off these obligations to the state.

“It’s just our belief that someone ought to fulfill all of their obligations and penalties from committing their crime before they have their right to vote and hold public office restored,” said Sen. Charles Schneider, R-West Des Moines. He said in instances of heinous crimes it seems just that felons should pay back all of their restitution.

Danielson and Dearden said they have received positive feedback on the legislation. So far, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz is the only one listed as opposed to the bill.

“[The bill] doesn’t take into consideration certain crimes that are of such a heinous nature that they can’t be fully restituted for such as murder, kidnapping, etc. The governor should be able to consider those cases on a case-by-case basis which is the process currently,” said Chance McElhaney, spokesman for Schultz via email.

Legislators are not sure about getting the bill passed in a divided legislature.

“The governor will probably veto it, but I think we need to make a statement,” Dearden said. “We have to stand for something occasionally … and keep the issue out in front of the people”

Danielson said even though the governor had signed the executive order three and a half years ago, it has come to light that the felony voter file is inaccurate. He said he is hopeful about Gov. Branstad improving the current system based on this new information.

A Des Moines Register editorial noted that a constitutional amendment would be needed so the legislative branch does not direct the governor on who should be able to vote.

Danielson said he is not convinced with this argument. ”I have got a difference of opinion with people who believe that it has to be a constitutional amendment. If that were the case, the governor would not be authorized to do an executive order,” he said.

Attorney General Eric Holder had previously asked states to repeal laws that ban convicted felons to vote. Iowa is one of four states that bars voting for convicted felons after they complete their term. Kentucky is also reconsidering it’s stance on this issue.