Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
03/29/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB59 | |
| SB132 | |
| SB143 | |
| SB26 | |
| HJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 132 | ||
| = | SB 143 | ||
SSSB 26-FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SSSB 26 to be up for
consideration.
4:55:27 PM
AMANDA WILSON, Staff to Senator Davis, explained that SSSB 26
addresses Alaska voting laws. The Alaska State Constitution has
a provision that a person who is convicted of a felony of moral
turpitude loses the right to vote until his/her civil rights are
restored. Under statute a person's civil rights are restored
upon unconditional discharge. Unconditional discharge is defined
in statute as being discharged from probation or parole
provisions after having served the sentence.
The problem associated with this is demonstrated in the example
of a person who is convicted of a felony of moral turpitude and
receives a six-months sentence. After 6-months incarceration
comes probation and that can extend for a decade. The probation
period is not necessarily in line with what the judge thought
the sentence should be, she said.
While on probation the person pays taxes, maintains employment,
and perhaps raises a family, but he/she may not vote. SSSB 26
proposes to change the law to state that once a person is
released from incarceration, he/she would have the right to
vote. This changes no other rights or obligations, but it brings
the person back into society in a meaningful way. Furthermore,
studies have shown a person who votes is much less likely to
recidivate than a person who doesn't vote.
She suggested that the process would be rehabilitative to
participate in the community and public process of voting. To
bolster that point she read from President Bush's 2002 State of
the Union Address as follows:
This year some 600,000 inmates will be released from
prison back into society. We know from long experience
that if they can't find work or home or help they are
much more likely commit crime and return to prison.
America is the land of a second chance and when the
gates of the prison open the path ahead should lead to
a better life.
MS. WILSON said that although Alaska Natives make up just 15.6%
of the population, fully 37.4% of the disenfranchised population
is Alaska Native. Similarly, African American's make up 3.5% of
Alaska's population, but account for 8.2% of the
disenfranchised. She said these numbers indicate a greater
impact on the minority community.
"Felony disenfranchisement is the last major form of
disenfranchisement," she said. However, in the last seven years
a number of states have addressed this issue and two have
removed felony disenfranchisements altogether. The American Bar
Association and the National Association of Mayors have endorsed
this concept and she urged the committee to do the same.
5:00:14 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT referenced the sponsor statement and noted that
Alaska isn't out of step with the majority of states. Fully 21
states have the same provision and 14 states have permanent
disenfranchisement.
SENATOR DAVIS acknowledged that Alaska is in the middle.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER commented he doubts that when an
individual commits a felony that he/she thinks about losing the
right to vote. He suggested it is a consequence of the action
and he doesn't understand why the committee would worry about
that. Furthermore he wasn't sure how many would exercise the
right.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said a number of considerations go into setting
the jail time and length of parole and he didn't believe it was
fair to say that the judge thought the person should serve just
6-months and all rights should be restored at the end of the 6-
month period. The Legislature may have made the policy call that
the sentence should be 5-years and the judge could mitigate that
by giving part of the sentence as parole.
SENATOR DAVIS responded the Legislature did make that policy
call and that's why she introduced the bill. "It's time for us
to look at it again," she said. Just because someone didn't
think about losing the right to vote when committing a crime
doesn't mean that he/she wouldn't exercise the right if it were
given.
SENATOR WAGONER said he thought if a person was convicted and
did 9 months in jail he/she would be on parole in his/her own
community.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said Portia Parker could address the particular
questions.
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS assumed the majority of the people in
the population under discussion probably weren't registered to
vote prior to committing the felony.
MS. WILSON replied 4,643 Alaskans were registered to vote and
lost the right as a result of a felony conviction.
SENATOR HUGGINS responded, "The question is whether they voted
or not." He further assumed that for a felon, being able to vote
is not an important thing in his/her life.
MS. WILSON replied she hadn't done that poll, but if it's
important to a few it should be important. It's a part of the
rehabilitative process and some people often don't realize that
they lost the right to vote until they're released from prison.
SENATOR WAGONER clarified he said that the parole period is part
of the sentence. Losing the right to vote isn't part of the
sentence but with the parole period comes the loss of the right
to vote.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said if 4,600 people were previously registered
to vote and had lost that right then passing this bill would
give the right to vote to a much larger group.
MS. WILSON replied just the people who are on parole or
probation would be re-enfranchised.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said those people who are out on parole and
weren't previously registered to vote would have the right to
vote if this were to pass.
MS. WILSON said yes.
SENATOR HUGGINS remarked there are several things, such as
voting, that you do for your country. He elaborated, "The other
would be to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to defend your country.
The same people we're talking about here would not meet the
prerequisite to go to Afghanistan or Iraq." He asked Senator
Davis whether she would agree with that statement.
SENATOR DAVIS responded she didn't necessarily agree because she
didn't know the qualifications, but some convicted felons do
serve in the military.
SENATOR HUGGINS said it would require a waiver and his point is
that when you become a felon, there are things such as voting or
going to defend your country that you simply cannot do. However,
he said, "I think you could probably make a case that it might
be as good a thing as anything for recidivism if they could go
to Iraq..."
SENATOR DAVIS stated the intent of SB 26 is to give people the
right and opportunity to vote if they want to exercise that
right. The idea certainly isn't that you have to go to Iraq to
get the right to vote back. "That's not what we're concerned
about and neither should you be concerned about that," she
declared. Once you've served your time you should get back the
right to vote.
SENATOR HUGGINS clarified his point that felons are precluded
from service to country without a waiver.
5:12:43 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT remarked there is a right to vote in this
country as long as you keep the compact with society. Committing
a felony breaks that compact, which is why the freedom of
movement is revoked. The right to vote is the same. You can be
incarcerated and serving your sentence isn't limited to the time
spent behind bars. He said he would like Ms. Parker to clarify
whether or not it's possible to commit a felony in Alaska and
have no jail time. If you serve no jail time and didn't lose the
right to vote, "I'm not sure my constituents are ready for
people committing felonies and paying no price," he said.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if the people in his district appreciate the
fact that you might commit a felony and not serve any time at
all. It still happens, she said.
CHAIR THERRIAULT agreed that you might maintain the right to
move around but you'd lost your right to vote.
SENATOR DAVIS responded, "That's what I'm trying to correct."
MS. WILSON clarified the technical point that some convicted
felons serve jail time and don't lose the right to vote. It's
only those convicted of felonies of moral turpitude that lose
the right to vote. She said the list of those crimes is listed
in the bill packet.
CHAIR THERRIAULT opened public testimony.
5:15:04 PM
ALONZO PATTERSON JR., representing the Shiloh Missionary Baptist
Church, the American National and Alaskan Baptist Churches, the
Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, the Martin Luther King
Foundation of Alaska, and former member of the Alaska State
Parole Board spoke via teleconference. He reported that he also
served 12 years as chair of the Alaska State Parole Board.
He spoke in strong support of SB 26 and emphasized that
sentencing disparity and errors do occur. He further said:
Certainly when one goes to jail a price must be paid.
However, please keep in mind, part of the paid
programming in the institution is rehabilitation. If
rehabilitation is not a high consideration for us then
what is? If you take away the hope of an individual in
jail, to come out and do better, then you encourage
re-incarceration of that person or continued
recidivism of that person in the institution.
He urged the committee to pass SB 26. Give them something to
reach for, he said.
5:22:49 PM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), spoke in strong support of SB 26 and drew
attention to the letter he wrote to Senator Davis.
Since the mid 1980s the ACLU has supported the right of any
individual convicted of any offense to vote. Prisoners should be
able to express their beliefs freely except when the state can
demonstrate a compelling interest in limiting that expression.
"In our view, no compelling state interest can justify barring a
prisoner from expressing his or her belief in the form of
casting a secret ballot in a popular election."
If rehabilitation is a most important goal for the penal system,
what could be more important than ensuring successful reentry
into society, he asked. Establishing a comprehensive set of
connections between the offender and the community in which he
or she resides advances successful reintegration. Convicted
felons who reenter the community on parole or serve on probation
face overwhelming odds against successful reintegration yet we
expect them to face challenges in the same way as a non-
offender. "If that's our demand, we ought to act by the same
standard and give the released offender the opportunity to
exercise his or her rights as a functioning member of society if
in fact they have been released into society."
Referencing NAACP vs. Harvey he said that experts found that
there is no rational purpose in denying the vote to parolees and
probationers. Furthermore,
Denying suffrage to them, in fact, contradicts the
purpose of rehabilitating offenders. Voting is a
positive and re-integrative event that connects the
offender to his or her community and
disenfranchisement laws frustrate offenders in their
attempts to reenter society fully and successfully.
Disenfranchisement hinders the rehabilitative purposes
of parole and probation by denying to parolees and
probationers the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship and participation in community life
necessary to rehabilitation.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said his letter to Senator Davis cited a study
in Minneapolis that found a strong correlation between voting
and recidivism. It showed that voters are about half as likely
to be rearrested as non-voters. This study supports logic, he
said. Since voting is a pro-social endeavor, it has the effect
of weaving the offender back into the community. Furthermore,
since the purposes of probation and parole are rehabilitative
rather than punitive, SB 26 makes particular sense.
In passing this bill, Alaska will join a movement of states that
are recognizing that there is no practical reason for arbitrary
restrictions on voting rights. In fact, the American Bar
Association has taken a position that matches this bill.
"SB 26 offers you the opportunity to work for positive change in
advancing the ideals of our nation and the ACLU strongly urges
enactment of the bill," he concluded.
5:29:15 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Parker to come forward.
PORTIA PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), reported that the department has taken no position on the
bill, but it does have several concerns regarding implementation
and cost.
One issue is the definition of incarceration or incarcerated. A
number of offenders are receiving credit for being incarcerated
when serving in halfway houses, under electronic monitor, and in
treatment beds. These individuals are in the community but they
are incarcerated; they are in prison.
The other issue is the confusion between probation and parole. A
judge gives probation. If an offender receives a 12-year
sentence with 3 years suspended, 9 years would be served and the
3 years would be probationary upon release. However, because of
mandatory parole the offender would get out after 6 years. Some
of that time could be served in a halfway house. Following the 6
years, the offender is on probation for 3 years and parole for 3
years. In Alaska they run concurrently so supervision is for
just 3 years.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if the offender is released
unconditionally after 9 years.
MS. PARKER said that's correct; they would receive unconditional
release and their voting rights would be restored.
Since Peratrovitch, the Department of Corrections can no longer
restrict an offender from returning home if he/she is on a
waiting list for treatment. "Whether it's alcohol treatment or
sex offender treatment, we cannot - as probation and parole -
keep them from going back to their hometown as they're waiting
to get into a treatment facility or to other services. That was
a 2002 case in Peratrovitch."
Another concern is the cost and logistics of letting the
Division of Elections know because violation occurs between 30
and 50 percent of the time. Typically, parole violations and/or
revocations occur within the first year and it's not uncommon
for violation to occur within the first month. Certainly this
would increase the workload for the department and the Division
of Elections.
5:34:53 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT noted the Department of Corrections fiscal note
is zero.
MS. PARKER acknowledged that was correct and that the department
is working with the Division of Elections to determine the
impact. "It would just depend on the volume and turnover," she
said.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked how long a parole violator might spend
back in prison and how many times the door might revolve.
MS. PARKER said it depends. If he/she commits a technical
violation and a new crime is committed then he/she is revoked
and would typically go back into the system and serve the
probation/parole time. The offender may also reapply to get out
on discretionary parole or they serve and get out in another
two-thirds of the sentence.
Often the offender is re-released, but she didn't have data on
how often that occurs.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if she would be contacting other states
that have taken this step to determine the fiscal impact.
MS. PARKER said that would probably be the next step in trying
to determine the fiscal impact. She noted that Alaska has the
unified system compared to the county system so comparison is
challenging.
5:38:42 PM
SENATOR DAVIS asked her to speak to the form that DOC uses for
individuals who will be out on probation. She said her staff was
retrieving a copy.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if the recidivism rate is higher or lower
for felony of moral turpitude than other crimes.
MS. PARKER said she didn't have that information; the offenses
are wide ranging.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said it ranges from murder in the first degree
to unlawful furnishing of explosives to misconduct by a juror.
He asked Senator Davis what she had in mind for a definition for
"incarcerated."
SENATOR DAVIS answered as long as they're serving the sentence -
even if it's under house arrest - they would be serving their
term.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Ms. Parker to speak to the probationary
form.
MS. PARKER responded, "This is a letter that is used in the
Juneau region. They are a little different in each area." The
letter is provided to the offender upon completion of the
probation/parole advising that the individual's rights are being
restored.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what difference it would make to use this
letter under the provisions of SB 26.
MS. PARKER said there wouldn't be any difference. The individual
would receive the letter when discharged from prison and going
onto probation/parole. She said her concern relates to the
number of revocations.
SENATOR DAVIS asked how they use the letter now.
MS. PARKER answered it's used when the individual is completely
off probation/parole and therefore no longer under supervision.
CHAIR THERRIAULT asked if it's correct that parole/probation
can't be extended beyond the term of the original sentence.
Unless a new crime is committed, the individual would get just
one letter. Under SB 26 an individual could receive multiple
letters.
MS PARKER said that's correct.
SENATOR DAVIS suggested the wheels of progress don't move that
fast and the person who violates probation/parole within 12
hours probably wouldn't have received the letter yet.
Nonetheless, "That's something that could be worked through. I
have no problem with that. That still doesn't say they should
not have that right simply because we have to come up with some
way to make it work."
MS. PARKER responded she is just addressing the fact that once
released, the letter is sent to the Division of Elections. If
the individual isn't registered to vote and doesn't register
upon release it probably wouldn't create a lot of work for the
Division of Elections, but DOC would still need to give the
individual the letter upon release.
SENATOR DAVIS said that would all be taken into consideration if
the bill were to pass. It's premature for DOC to say how it
would work at this point.
MS. PARKER said it could be worked out that a letter wouldn't be
provided at all; she was just explaining what is done currently.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said, "At the very least, Senator Davis, we
need to work with the drafters on the definition of the word
"incarcerated."
SENATOR DAVIS said she had no problem with that.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced he was closing the hearing on SSSB
26. The bill was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|