Iowa’s highest court on Wednesday heard arguments in case that could restore voting rights to more than 20,000 of the state’s ex-felons.
The state’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued the lawsuit on behalf of Kelli Jo Griffin, an Iowa woman who was charged with perjury for attempting to vote in a 2013 municipal election with a low-level drug charge on her record.
Iowa is one of three states with the harshest felon disenfranchisement laws. The state constitution revokes voting rights for life from anyone who has committed what it calls an “infamous crime,” a vague phrase that currently includes all felons, from low-level drug offenders to those who have committed more serious, violent crimes. But the ACLU argued before the state Supreme Court that most felons have not committed an “infamous crime.”
“This case is very important, not just for Kelli, but potentially for the six percent of Iowans who can expect to get a felony conviction and under the law, face lifetime disenfranchisement,” said ACLU Legal Director Rita Bettis, who argued the case on Wednesday. “Iowa is one of the three worst in the country in this way.”
Griffin was convicted in 2008 and served a period of probation for delivering a small amount of cocaine. In 2013, after she had completed her sentence, she took her four children with her to the polls to vote in a local election. A few weeks later, Griffin learned that a state Division of Criminal Investigation officer had decided to press charges against her for perjury because of her drug charge.
Griffin faced jail time, but was ultimately acquitted of voter fraud by a jury. She told ThinkProgress last year that at the time of the trial, she feared that she was going to be taken away from her children.
“This is a very important day for me,” she told ThinkProgress on Wednesday. “I am so grateful that the court did hear my case, and I just feel that voting is very valuable to me. I have young children and if I do not have the ability to vote, then I have no say about what’s going to happen in their future.”
Bettis said that the ACLU sought, and the court granted, expedited review so that the case can be resolved by the end of this Supreme Court term in June — before the November presidential election. If the court ends up restoring ex-offenders’ rights, they will likely be able to participate in the general election.
“For most people, their opportunity to engage in the political process and exercise their fundamental right to vote is during these general elections,” she said. “That’s really going to be a high-impact time when it comes to a very large number of people in Iowa looking to exercise their right to vote, and then finding that they’re blocked through the current law, despite the fact that they’ve paid their debt to society and fully discharged their sentence.”
More Than 1.8 Million People Can’t Vote This TuesdayWhile candidates and pundits alike are preparing for what has been deemed another Super Tuesday, there are more than 1…thinkprogress.orgThe case is particularly frustrating for Griffin, who would not have been charged with perjury had she attempted to vote before 2011. In 2005, Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) issued an order which restored the right to vote to felons who had been disqualified in the state, a total of 110,000 people at the time. But in January 2011, newly elected Gov. Terry Branstad (R) issued an executive order reversing Vilsack’s action.
Griffin was one of 68 former felons who were investigated in 2013 by then-Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) for voting despite the revocation of their rights. Schultz claimed the state had a massive voter fraud problem but uncovered an infinitesimal number of cases of potential fraud.
Bettis said the Iowa Supreme Court’s pending decision “may even change the national landscape on felon disenfranchisement” because it would leave just two states with permanent bans. Currently, Iowa, Florida and Kentucky ban felons from voting unless they complete a burdensome restoration process. Virginia also limits rights restoration for ex-felons who have completed their sentences, but the state’s Democratic governor recently took a step to make that process easier.
Close to 6 million Americans convicted of felony offenses couldn’t vote in the 2014 election, and 75 percent of those disenfranchised voters were on probation, parole, or had already completed their sentences. But five states have made changes to relax their disenfranchisement laws since 2008, including Maryland, which recently restored voting rights to more than 40,000 ex-offenders. Only two states — Vermont and Maine — grant full voting rights to prisoners.