Much has been made about the barriers broken in this historic election, and for good reason.  For the first time in this nation’s history, either an African-American or a woman will be the Presidential nominee from a major party.  It is very possible that one of them will become the President of the United States. This would have been impossible not so many years ago, mainly because the laws in our past “democratic” system outlawed voting by women and African-Americans.  The federal guarantee of women’s voting rights was not established until 1920 (my 89-yr. old grandmother was born before women had the right to vote in this country).  For African-Americans, the date was technically 1870.  However, Jim Crow laws in the South were designed to disenfranchise black voters through “legal” means such as poll taxes (voting “fees”) and “literacy tests” (from which most whites were exempt).  This, combined with violence and intimidation, kept black voters largely locked out of American elections in many parts of the country for almost one hundred more years.  It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that African-American voters were truly enfranchised by federal law.  I wonder, though, how democratic our voting system is today when an estimated 5.3 million Americans of voting age are disenfranchised due to laws barring convicted felons from voting. 

According to the Pew Center on the States, young people in their twenties are almost twice as likely to be incarcerated as the rest of the adult population.  Hispanic men are almost three times more likely to be incarcerated.  Black men are over six times more likely to be in jail or prison.  Young African-American men between the ages of 20 and 34 are eleven times more likely to be imprisoned, with 1 in 9 incarcerated today.  Given these statistics, it is obvious that young people, and especially young men of color, are much more likely to be barred from the electoral process due to felony disenfranchisement laws. The Sentencing Project, a national organization devoted to criminal justice reform, indicates that 13% of black American men are unable to vote due to felony disenfranchisement.  Is this the last continuation of Jim Crow legislation? 

"Statistics from the Sentencing Project’s research indicate that three-quarters of all people incarcerated for drug offenses are people of color."

Forty-eight of our fifty states have some form of voting disenfranchisement for convicted felons (Maine and Vermont are the two exceptions).  In other words, once one is convicted of a felony, their right to vote no longer exists. This applies not simply to those who are in jail in prison. In most states, convicted felons cannot vote even after they’ve served their time.  Thirty-five states don’t allow those on parole to vote and thirty states don’t allow probationers to vote.  Every state offers some method of having rights restored, though the methods vary wildly.  In two states (Kentucky and Virginia) it can only be restored by a Governor’s pardon, an incredibly rare occurrence.  In four states, the convicts’ rights are lost for a specific period of time (usually two or five years).  For most states, though, the process involves some method of traversing difficult and convoluted state bureaucracies. Until recently, Tennessee’s restoration process was a maze of constantly changing laws and regulations.

I spoke with one of the state’s leading activists on the matter, Denver Schimming.  The issue is very personal to him because he is one of the state’s former felons. Alcohol abuse and depression precipitated Schimming’s robbing a Tennessee bank in 1991.  Schimming was convicted and paid his debt to society by serving 46 months at a federal prison in Texas.  After putting his life back together once released, Schimming began to think about his role as a citizen and the role of voting.  Once headed down this path, Schimming found that the laws changed every decade or so with different methods for restoration depending on the conviction date.  For those lucky enough to fall in a certain window, the right would be automatically restored after time served.  For others, it was never lost.  For some, it involved a difficult process of petitioning the court, and for others still it involved a different court review process.  Legal activists working on behalf of felony re-enfranchisement had to hold training seminars for attorneys because the process was so convoluted.  Schimming was one of the lucky few that had his voting rights restored automatically after serving his time.  It seemed to restore more than this basic right, however.  It also restored his dignity and his sense of participation in his country and community.

“Because you went to prison, you feel like you're not fully vested, like a second-class citizen,” Schimming has said. “But when you're afforded the opportunity to vote, you think ‘Yes, I am fully vested in my city, state, country. I'm just as much a citizen as anyone else.’ I think it shows rehabilitation, I think it shows a mindset that you're looking forward, not backward. No one should ever lose that right because of a felony conviction.”

This feeling must have had a deep and profound resonance for Schimming because he became a tireless activist fighting to change felony disenfranchisement in Tennessee.  He spoke to “any group that would hear my story.”  He spoke on the radio and television shows.  He also worked with numerous non-profit organizations to help change Tennessee’s laws. An important figure he met along the way was State Representative Larry Turner.  Turner had a re-enfranchisement bill that had been kicking around the state legislature for twenty years.  Schimming poured himself into the work of getting the bill passed into law.   He lobbied legislators, conducted research, and after eighteen months of hard work, the bill was passed in 2006. 

Here is how the law works now.  Those convicted of murder, rape, treason, or voter fraud are permanently unable to vote.  The process of restoration for all others became much more streamlined, though.  Tennessee now allows for automatic restoration once the Board of Parole and Probation issues a “certificate of restoration”.  Ex-offenders are eligible for the certificate once their full sentence has been served including any probation and parole.  When applicable, full restitution must also be paid to the courts and all child support payments must be current.  Though pleased with the changes made, Schimming is still wary of the financial criteria.  He likens them to the poll taxes of old.  “These things need to get paid,” he said in reference to the restitution and child support, “but they shouldn’t have bearing on a person’s right to vote.” 

Even with the monetary criteria, Tennessee’s felon re-enfranchisement policy is easier than many others.  The Sentencing Project says that “most restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them.”  Anyone who has had a problem at the DMV can understand how difficult state bureaucracies can be.  When dealing with state court systems, the problems can be exponentially worse due to a lack of funding and an overcrowded system.  Combine that with a disregard for ex-offenders and one can imagine how cold and inflexible the system can be.  That, however, is the root of the problem. 

Too often, this country treats certain populations, especially those in the most impoverished communities, as disposable.  Our prisons are overflowing with non-violent offenders swept up in the “war on drugs.”  Statistics from the Sentencing Project’s research indicate that three-quarters of all people incarcerated for drug offenses are people of color.  Many have lost more than their freedom while incarcerated.  Once released, they may find they’ve also lost one of their most basic rights as a citizen: the right to vote, participate, and, therefore, have their voice represented.  Is this any way to reintroduce someone to society?  Does this send a message that you are invited to participate and contribute to society, or is this the message of the Jim Crow laws - you are not a welcome member of this society?  Will this make us safer or stronger as a nation?  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was recognition that it harms all of society when any group is “legally” oppressed.  In this current Presidential election, we are witnessing the legacy of that noble legislation. Unfortunately, the consequences of those uglier prior laws still seem to resonate today, too.