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.