LWVKY President's Testimony in Opposition to SB 62
TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE ELECTIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 62
March 11, 2020
Chairman Bratcher and members of the Committee, thank you for letting us speak today. My name is Fran Wagner, and I’m president of the League of Women Voters of Kentucky, and joining me at the table are League members, Ed Monahan and Cindy Heine.
The League of Women Voters has a long history of supporting a constitutional amendment that would automatically restore the right to vote to felons, following completion of their sentence. Our position is based on studies the League has done here in Kentucky, as well as national reports.
Our research convinces us, and I hope you, as well, that both justice and the good of society will be served by restoring ex-felon voting rights. The right to vote grounds all other rights, empowering citizens to become participants in our democracy rather than mere petitioners. Nothing speaks more to citizenship than the right to vote. Withholding that right, even after a person has served his/her time, damages the individual’s re-integration into society, harming not only the individual but the common good that could benefit from the person’s input. Business groups, parole officers, researchers and, perhaps most important, Kentucky citizens tell us that voting rights should be automatically restored. In our most recent study, Kentuckians supported restoration of voting rights by a 2-1 majority.
The League of Women Voters applauds Senator Higdon for his efforts to enfranchise more ex-felons, but we must oppose SB 62 in its current form for three reasons:
1. The most important reason is that SB 62 does not allow the people to vote on automatic restoration of voting rights. Instead, it allows the legislature to decide who will have their voting rights restored, and when. This approach is particularly problematic because historically, the General Assembly has opposed automatic restoration of voting rights. Moreover, if the legislature is authorized to set the rules about reenfranchisement, they could change every time the legislature meets, leading to complexity and confusion.
2. Second, SB 62 would continue constitutional disenfranchisement of thousands of Kentucky citizens guilty of certain serious crimes. As reprehensible as these acts are, ex-felons deserve a chance to change and become valuable members of society. Most of us believe in redemption and second chances. While we all want safer communities, it’s in our interests to re-integrate people once they’ve completed their sentences. Continuing to punish ex-felons after completing their sentences serves no social benefit and is unjust.
3. Third, we are concerned about imprecise language in the law than could be subject to various interpretations. Significant terms are not defined. The lack of precise definitions leaves it to the legislature to create definitions without significant restrictions. In conclusion, Kentucky is an outlier as one of three states, along with Virginia and Iowa, that permanently disenfranchises persons with felony convictions, even after completing their sentence. It’s time to pass legislation that will amend the constitution to make restoration of the right to vote automatic upon completion of sentence.
Memo to The House Elections, Constitutional Amendments and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee