Fighting for the Principle, Not the Person

No matter how lucidly or succinctly a writer attempts to frame an argument, people, in some cases, can and will take away whatever they want to believe from what they’ve just read. Such is the case regarding my column last week. I wrote about felon disenfranchisement as it applies to John Boyd — a candidate in the Ward 6 Cleveland City Council race who has been to prison. It seems the law barring him from holding office is fuzzy, and I championed his running... which is quite different from me endorsing his candidacy, as some surmise. As a journalist I don’t endorse candidates, but I do endorse ideas and causes that I feel are right... and this one certainly has the right feel to it.

Most weeks I write about issues of general public concern, but on the issue at hand, I do have a dog in the race since I’m also formerly incarcerated. So, while I’m not encouraging people to vote for Boyd, I certainly am defending his rights to be in the race — championing his right to hold office should he win.

To me the issue is larger than John Boyd’s criminal record. My argument is with the State of Ohio, which states in the Revised Code that felons cannot hold political office; but the law contradicts itself in other sections, which is why Boyd’s candidacy offers the opportunity to change the paradigm. In Illinois a felon can hold office, and that should also be the case in Ohio. Let the electorate decide if they want to vote for a formerly incarcerated person. However, as it now stands in Ohio (and many other states), society demands that felons fully rehabilitate themselves, but, in return, only offers partial restoration of citizenship rights. What kind of unfair and unequal bargain is that? One that in too many cases fails — which is why we have such a high recidivism rate in America.

The problem actually goes back centuries and should have been corrected with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. However, the civil rights activists who fought to make the bill law knew that it was flawed and incomplete, but felt that the legislation put forth was the best deal they get at the time. The act had to make its way through a somewhat hostile Congress, and southern “States’ Rights” advocates had to be placated lest they block the bill altogether. The compromise made was to allow individual states wide latitude on certain aspects of voter eligibility.

Thus, we are left with a hodgepodge of voting laws in various states. According to the Sentencing Project: “ 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony offense; two states - Maine and Vermont – permit the incarcerated to vote; 35 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole and 30 of these states exclude felony probationers as well; two states deny the right to vote to all ex-offenders who have completed their sentences; nine other states disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders and/or permit application for restoration of rights for specified offenses after a waiting period (e.g., five years in Delaware and Wyoming, and two years in Nebraska); each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them.

“An estimated 5.3 million Americans, or one in forty-one adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction; 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of Black men are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average; and an estimated 676,730 women are currently ineligible to vote as a result of a felony conviction; more than 2 million white Americans (Hispanic and non-Hispanic)2 are disenfranchised; in five states that deny the vote to ex-offenders, one in four black men is permanently disenfranchised; given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40 percent of Black men may permanently lose their right to vote; 2.1 million disenfranchised persons are ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. The state of Florida had an estimated 960,000 ex-felons who were unable to vote in the 2004 presidential election.” For more detailed information go to: www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm

Douglas A. Blackmon’s seminal new book, “Slavery by Another Name,” details how southern plantation owners, in cahoots with state legislatures and local sheriffs, kept the newly-freed Blacks in a form of virtual slavery for decades after the Emancipation Proclamation. They enacted vagrancy laws and other measures to keep former slaves tied to working on plantations, while keeping them out of the voting booth with the same laws. This, then, is the origins of felon disenfranchisement, and the onerous laws remain on the books in many places to this very day.

The real genius of arch conservatives like Karl Rove lies in their ability to convince working-class people to take positions that are diametrically opposed to their own best self-interest. For instance, rural farmers in places like southern Ohio were persuaded to support a Republican agenda that benefited only the super-wealthy and stockholders in companies like Halliburton. Similarly, residents of Ward 6 are being duped into rejecting John Boyd out-of-hand, based solely on his prior criminal record. I’m not saying that he is the best candidate in the race, but what if he just happens to be?

Now, it could very well be that his opponent in the contest is better qualified to hold the job — but to determine if that is the case debates and forums need to be held where residents can ask substantive questions of both candidates so they can come to an informed decision. This, quite simply, isn’t happening in this race. Boyd’s criminal record, not the issues, has been (and remains) the focal point of an ugly and vicious whispering campaign and the needs of the residents of the ward are not on the agenda.

However, this could be a dangerous and losing strategy for those in opposition to Boyd. In a ward where virtually every family has been negatively impacted by the problem of a loved one’s prospects in life being severely limited due to a felony conviction, attempting to use Boyd’s criminal background against him could backfire. The haters in Ward 6 need to keep in mind that Black folks — and especially older, poorer Black folks — are among the most forgiving people on the face of the earth. Simply put, over the decades Blacks have been so selectively marginalized, so unfairly castigated, so utterly disrespected... that we have had little choice but to learn the Christian lesson of forgiveness. And that extends to even forgiving the likes of John Boyd for his past transgressions and allowing him to fully participate in our democratic processes. Isn’t that what Jesus would do?

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com
Comments? InfoATCoolCleveland.com
(:divend:)