Desiree Omli (7105)
Revocation and Restoration of the Right to Vote.
Under the state Constitution, all individuals convicted of an infamous crime are disqualified from voting unless their civil rights have been restored. An infamous crime is a crime punishable by death in the state penitentiary or imprisonment in a state or federal correctional facility and does not include an adjudication in juvenile court or a conviction for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. Felonies are the only crimes that qualify as an infamous crime.
When an individual is convicted of a felony and sentenced to total confinement under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections (DOC), the court must require the individual to sign a statement acknowledging that, among other things, the individual's right to vote has been revoked due to the felony conviction and sentence of total confinement. The individual's right to vote is automatically restored as long as the individual is not serving a sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the DOC and is not incarcerated for a federal felony conviction or out-of-state felony conviction.
Prior to release from the jurisdiction of the DOC, the DOC must notify the person of the process for restoration of voting rights unless they are being released to an out-of-state jurisdiction or federal detention center pursuant to a felony conviction.
Attestations of Voter Qualifications.
An individual registering to vote or submitting a ballot must attest that they, among other things, are not serving a felony sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the DOC and are not incarcerated for a federal felony conviction or out-of-state felony conviction.
Challenge to a Person's Right to Vote.
Registration of an individual as a voter is presumptive evidence of the individual's right to vote. A challenge to a person's right to vote may be based on personal knowledge that, among other things, the individual is serving a felony sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the DOC or is incarcerated for a federal felony conviction or out-of-state felony conviction.
Qualifications of Elected Officials.
A person filing a declaration of candidacy for an office must, at the time of filing, be a registered voter, among other qualifications. A person whose civil rights have been revoked may not register to vote until those rights are restored.
A registered voter may challenge the right of an elected candidate to assume office, the right of a candidate to appear on a general election ballot, or the certification of an election on that basis that, among other things, the candidate was convicted of a felony that had not been reversed or for which they had not had their civil rights restored prior to the election.
Residence of Incarcerated Persons.
For the purpose of registering and voting, a person's residence is the permanent address where they physically reside and maintain their abode. However, a person does not gain or lose residence by reason of their absence or presence while confined in any public prison.
Capital Punishment.
Prior to 2018, an adult convicted of Aggravated Murder in the first degree or Treason received either a sentence of life without the possibility of release or, if sufficient mitigating factors were not present, a death sentence. In 2018 the Washington Supreme Court determined that the death penalty, as applied, is unconstitutional. Legislation was subsequently enacted to repeal statutes allowing for the death penalty for Aggravated Murder in the first degree, and to remove all statutory procedures related to carrying out the death penalty. The only remaining crime for which the death penalty still applies is Treason.
The definition of "infamous crime" is narrowed to include only a state crime punishable by death. The circumstances under which a person's right to vote may be revoked by reason of a criminal conviction is narrowed to include only convictions in a Washington court of a crime punishable by death. Conforming changes are made throughout the elections code to update provisions relating to attestations and declarations of voter qualifications, challenging a person's right to vote or eligibility to hold office, the form at sentencing acknowledging the revocation of one's right to vote, and the DOC's responsibility to notify a person being released from its custody of the process for restoring their voting rights.
If an individual's right to vote is revoked because of a conviction for an infamous crime under the new definition, the individual's right to vote will be automatically restored as long as the person is not serving a sentence of total confinement under the jurisdiction of the DOC.
The change in circumstances under which a person may be disqualified from the voting franchise also modifies the eligibility requirements to hold state and local office. So long as a person is not convicted of a crime punishable by death, among meeting other statutory requirements, they may qualify for or hold state or local office.
This act may be known as the Free the Vote Act.
(In support) There is a long history in America of voter disenfranchisement laws. As far back as 1870, after ratification of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution which granted people of color the right to vote, many southern states passed felony disenfranchisement laws used in conjunction with other tools such as poll taxes and literacy tests as a way of prohibiting those people from voting and maintain white supremacy.
People are sentenced to incarceration as a punishment for their crime. As part of their punishment, certain privileges are taken away, such as being physically separated from the community. However, voting is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the right to vote should have never been taken away to begin with. Felony disenfranchisement is an outdated concept of retribution as voting has no correlation to crime or public safety. When people are overly punished, shamed, and striped of their humanity, they commit more crimes upon release, not less. Incarceration is supposed to be a time for rehabilitation, not more punishment. Restoring the right to vote is a rehabilitative model. People need to feel like they are a part of their community so that they have a stake in it. When people have a stake in their community they are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to want to be contributing members of society. Research shows that when civil rights are restored, recidivism is reduced. This bill is about restoring dignity and civic engagement to the historically disenfranchised.
Tribal members have suffered historical harms dating back to colonization and are underrepresented in every area except incarceration. Native people are incarcerated at nearly twice the national rate. In smaller communities where many tribal communities are located, every vote counts and restoring a person's right to vote will help to strengthen people's voices in those communities to find solutions that address the specific needs of the community.
Allowing people in prison to vote is not a new concept. Since 1997, 23 states have rolled back their disenfranchisement laws and 16 countries allow incarcerated people to vote. Some of those states and territories include Vermont, Maine, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.
This should not be a political issue. In fact, the current President is convicted of felony crimes. A study was done of 54,000 incarcerated people in 45 states and a majority of those interviewed indicated they would have voted for Donald Trump had they been allowed to, so it is wrong to think that people in prison will be voting a specific way.
There may be logistical issues with implementing this policy, but they are issues that the public expect the Secretary of State to resolve. Americans believe that the right to vote should be an inalienable right for all citizens. In a recent poll by the Sentencing Project, 56 percent of voters supported a law to guarantee the ability to vote for all citizens including those who are incarcerated compared to 35 percent who say they would oppose such a policy.
(Opposed) There are logistical problems to implementing this policy and the solutions to those problems are costly. All mail going in and going out of prisons are inspected which can compromise the secrecy of a vote. An alternative would be to set up voting center in prisons, but there is a high cost to that as well. In addition, about 27 percent of the prison population is being moved each month. County auditors and the DOC would bear the responsibility of constantly tracking people to get them their election materials. This also creates confusion about what address people use to register to vote and the bill is silent on where someone would be a resident. Many prisons are in remote areas and this can cause there to be voting blocks.
(In support) Representative Tarra Simmons, prime sponsor; Charles Longshore; Ralph Dunuan; Heather Kelly, League of Women Voters of WA; Kurtis Robinson, I Did the Time; Abigail Leong, Washington Voting Justice Coalition; Cindy Black, Fix Democracy First; Kyle Lucas, Chair, Urban Indians Northwest; and Kelly Olson, Civil Survival.