http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50915F83C540C768EDDAA0894DE404482
New York Times
March 25, 2006
Editorial
The right to vote should never be curtailed in a way that
disenfranchises a whole class of people. This view is gaining traction even in
the Deep South, which pioneered the shameful state laws that barred nearly four
million ex-felons, parolees and probationers from voting in the last national
election. It's heartening to see those laws being modified or repealed across
the country. But states will need to re-educate elections officials, who are
often dismally ignorant of election laws and biased against people who have
been convicted of even minor crimes. As a result, many men and women who have
paid their debts to society remain disenfranchised, even in states that
guarantee them the right to vote.
One good example is New York, where the State Board of Elections
has failed to uphold a state law that guarantees voting rights for people on
probation, as well as for those who have completed their maximum sentences or
been discharged from parole. As is completely appropriate, the law presumes
that ex-offenders are as eligible as anyone else once they meet age,
citizenship and residency requirements.
Unfortunately, the law isn't being followed, as was vividly
documented in a new study by two civil rights groups, the Brennan Center for
Justice, and Demos. Canvassers who contacted all of the state's county election
boards found that nearly 40 percent were actually ignorant of the state's
voting rights law and that nearly one-third continued to disenfranchise
probationers and former inmates who were eligible to register and vote under
state law.
This is all the more distressing because the State Board of
Elections was made aware of all these problems after a similar survey three
years ago. New promises to look into the matter aren't good enough.
State officials need to require every worker at every local
board of elections to know the law, and make their own spot-checks to make sure
that the law is being followed. It should do this quickly, before prisoners'
rights advocates file a lawsuit that could well put the state's elections under
a layer of court supervision that would be far more difficult to contend with
than simply doing the right thing now.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company