The Iowa Supreme Court is deliberating on a case that holds the voting fate for more than 20,000 Iowans. Griffin v. Branstad challenges Executive Order 70, issued by Gov. Terry Branstad in 2011, which overturned former Gov. Tom Vilsack’s 2005 executive order that automatically reinstated voting rights to 115,000 ex-felons.
“Civil death,” or the stripping away of rights from a felon, is an old tradition. Most aspects of civil death have been abolished for decades if not centuries, but one portion still remains prevalent in some parts of the modern United States: felon disenfranchisement.
Felon-disenfranchisement laws vary drastically amng states. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose the right to vote. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons are granted the right to vote after completing their sentences. The three harshest states on felon disenfranchisement are Florida, Kentucky, and Iowa.
When Vilsack issued his executive order in 2005, the move was both lauded and despised. Democrat lawmakers saw it as a long overdue update of the Iowa law that denied felons the right to vote permanently. The denial of voting rights is disruptive to the rehabilitation process and makes it clear that the Iowa justice system isn’t interested in rehabilitation but perpetual punishment. The barring of ex-felons to vote also disproportionately affects minority Iowans, because black Iowans are sent to prison at a rate 13 times higher than their white neighbors, according to a 2007 analysis by the Washington-based the Sentencing Project.
Iowa’s Republican lawmakers saw the move as marring Iowa’s “tough-against-crime” image and a cheap political ploy to increase the numbers of Democrat voters. Of course, the disenfranchisement of ex-felons, should it help Democrats, would inherently hurt Republicans in Iowa’s voting cycles. Further, a “tough-against-crime” rhetoric doesn’t extend to voting rights. Taking away the right to vote is not an efficient deterrent against crime, in the same way that the death penalty has little to no effect on crime rates. The primary purpose of penalties is to deter crime from happening. Inefficient penalties are therefore not useful to the state and should be removed.
Re-entering society after living in the prison system is a difficult transition, made more difficult by the label of felon, which removes many opportunities in housing and in the workforce. The right to vote is an essential part of the American democratic system and a fundamental right; denying it to ex-felons, people who have been deemed safe enough to return to civilian life, is an outdated and alienating practice. Through his executive order, Branstad has added another hurdle in the process of reintegration for ex-felons in the state of Iowa.
The Daily Iowan Editorial Board believes the right to vote should be automatically extended to people who have paid their debt to society and are looking to re-enter their communities successfully. As an integral part of being an American, denying the right to vote to ex-felons is an alienating practice. It might help Republicans in Iowa politically, but it hurts the process of rehabilitation for ex-felons and is an archaic practice that should be ended.