Knew that headline would get your attention. We speak here of Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who last Thursday approved a measure to restore voting rights to an estimated 950,000 Floridian ex-felons, about 9 percent of the voting-age population of the Sunshine State. Crist’s initiative has political observers scratching their heads. How much of a political impact could it have? Salon‘s Farhad Manjoo puts it this way:
The ex-cons belong to traditionally Democratic demographics — many are African-American, and many are poor. If they’re allowed to vote, they’ll likely go to the polls at lower rates than everyone else; Uggen and Manza’s work suggests felons turn out to vote at about the half the general turnout rate in any given election. But in a state as closely divided politically as Florida, that could still make all the difference. In the past several decades, say Uggen and Manza, at least two Senate races in Florida would have gone to Democrats instead of Republicans had felons had the right to vote. Buddy McKay would have beaten Connie Mack in 1988, and Betty Castor would have beaten Mel Martinez in 2004. And, of course, the 2000 presidential election would have gone to Al Gore. Uggen and Manza’s research suggests Gore might have picked up 60,000 votes from felons……if the state’s ex-cons had been allowed to vote in 2000, George W. Bush would now be the commissioner of baseball.
Also check out Nancy Scola’s take on the topic at MyDD, “Felon Enfranchisement: Florida Vs. Rhode Island,” which puts the movement to restore voting rights to America’s ex felons in perspective.
2 comments on “Republican Leader Shows Integrity”
Lee Daneker on
Governor Crist probably did as well as he could with the political cards that he was holding, but progressives shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that most of those 950,000 ex-felons will have their rights restored any time soon.
Before they get their rights to vote back, they have to pay what was described in the NYT as “restitution.” This sounds like compensation for the victims, but it probably is a short hand for all court costs, fines, and victim restitution that the court has ordered.
At the moment, we have a similar law here in Washington, with the result that most ex-felons have not had their voting rights restored. That is because when they are discharged they often can get only low wage jobs and can’t pay off the court ordered financial obligations, which continue to increase because of interest. In effect, this requirement is a de facto poll tax. Even when they have paid their court ordered costs, there are numerous bureaucratic hurdles to get their status recognized by the state so that they can legally vote. Ex-felons in Florida are likely to face the same bureaucratic hurdles which will delay restoration of the voting rights of most or at least many.
The message is that Crist has taken a good step, but progressives should monitor the implementation process closely and speak up strongly if it turns out that actual progress in restoring voting rights is glacial. Progressives should continue to pressure Florida to adopt a system like that in place in other states, e.g. when you serve your prison time and parole time you can vote. We all have an interest in seeing ex-felons integrated into society. It is hard enough for them without the state taking pains to point out(by denying their right to vote) that they aren’t full citizens.
The post says that Crist “approved a measure.” Was this a statute or other measure that required approval of the GOP Legislature? If so, whatever got them to approve such a politically disadvantageous move? If it was something Crist could do on his own, any info on what pressures he was under from his party not to do it, and why he did it anyway?
This year’s big media narrative has been the confirmation saga of Neera Tanden, Biden’s nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget. At New York I wrote about how over-heated the talk surrounding Tanden has become.
Okay, folks, this is getting ridiculous. When a vote in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the nomination of Neera Tanden was postponed earlier this week, you would have thought it presented an existential threat to the Biden presidency. “Scrutiny over Tanden’s selection has continued to build as the story over her uneven reception on Capitol Hill stretched through the week,” said one Washington Post story. Politico Playbook suggested that if Tanden didn’t recover, the brouhaha “has the potential to be what Biden might call a BFD.” There’sbeen all sorts of unintentionally funny speculation about whether the White House is playing some sort of “three-dimensional chess” in its handling of the confirmation, disguising a nefarious plan B or C.
Perhaps it reflects the law of supply and demand, which requires the inflation of any bit of trouble for Biden into a crisis. After all, his Cabinet nominees have been approved by the Senate with a minimum of 56 votes; the second-lowest level of support was 64 votes. One nominee who was the subject of all sorts of initial shrieking, Tom Vilsack, was confirmed with 92 Senate votes. Meanwhile, Congress is on track to approve the largest package of legislation moved by any president since at least the Reagan budget of 1981, with a lot of the work on it being conducted quietly in both chambers. Maybe if the bill hits some sort of roadblock, or if Republican fury at HHS nominee Xavier Becerra (whose confirmation has predictably become the big fundraising and mobilization vehicle for the GOP’s very loud anti-abortion constituency) reaches a certain decibel level, Tanden can get out of the spotlight for a bit.
But what’s really unfair — and beyond that, surreal — is the extent to which this confirmation is being treated as more important than all the others combined, or indeed, as a make-or-break moment for a presidency that has barely begun. It’s not. If Tanden cannot get confirmed, the Biden administration won’t miss a beat, and I am reasonably sure she will still have a distinguished future in public affairs (though perhaps one without much of a social-media presence). And if she is confirmed, we’ll all forget about the brouhaha and begin focusing on how she does the job, which she is, by all accounts, qualified to perform.
Governor Crist probably did as well as he could with the political cards that he was holding, but progressives shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that most of those 950,000 ex-felons will have their rights restored any time soon.
Before they get their rights to vote back, they have to pay what was described in the NYT as “restitution.” This sounds like compensation for the victims, but it probably is a short hand for all court costs, fines, and victim restitution that the court has ordered.
At the moment, we have a similar law here in Washington, with the result that most ex-felons have not had their voting rights restored. That is because when they are discharged they often can get only low wage jobs and can’t pay off the court ordered financial obligations, which continue to increase because of interest. In effect, this requirement is a de facto poll tax. Even when they have paid their court ordered costs, there are numerous bureaucratic hurdles to get their status recognized by the state so that they can legally vote. Ex-felons in Florida are likely to face the same bureaucratic hurdles which will delay restoration of the voting rights of most or at least many.
The message is that Crist has taken a good step, but progressives should monitor the implementation process closely and speak up strongly if it turns out that actual progress in restoring voting rights is glacial. Progressives should continue to pressure Florida to adopt a system like that in place in other states, e.g. when you serve your prison time and parole time you can vote. We all have an interest in seeing ex-felons integrated into society. It is hard enough for them without the state taking pains to point out(by denying their right to vote) that they aren’t full citizens.
The post says that Crist “approved a measure.” Was this a statute or other measure that required approval of the GOP Legislature? If so, whatever got them to approve such a politically disadvantageous move? If it was something Crist could do on his own, any info on what pressures he was under from his party not to do it, and why he did it anyway?