Politicians with a conviction history?

According to Wikipedia, the town of Rehoboth in the State of Massachusetts has an open town meeting run by a board of selectmen.  This Monday night, 384 of its 10,172 residents attended and voted down a petition proposed by the board to do a criminal background check on candidates running for a local office.  And I am pleasantly surprised (though "surprised" may be too mild a term here) to read that:

[A selectman arguing for doing a criminal background check on political candidates] was booed for his statement while several residents and other town officials who spoke against the article received hoots and hollers of approval.

Seriously, what is going on here?  I suspect some unusual local politics going on here, not reported in the news article above.  Why did the board of selectmen propose the article?  Was there someone running for office in the recent election that they didn't like and had a criminal record?  Was this person well-liked by the citizens of Rehoboth?  What's going on here?  It's not every day that we see "booing" for those tough background-check-everybody-and-their-cousin folks.  And it's certainly unheard of that we see those working to limit background checks receive "hoots and hollers of approval."

But this episode dovetails well with what a "guest" at the All of Us or None meeting last night mentioned, i.e. that we need a champion for our cause.  We need to work to elect into a political position an individual(s) with personal experiences of facing barriers due to his/her conviction history.  It's an obvious point.  And it should be done.  When I heard it, however, I thought it unlikely that it'll happen in my lifetime.  Well, then again, something like this thing at Rehoboth comes around to make me think.... Maybe it will.

UPDATE: The right to vote while in prison, Farrakhan v. Gregoire

The 9th Circuit decision overturning Washington State's felon disenfranchisement law based on its disparate impact on people of color, has been ordered for an en banc review, according to Sentencing Law and Policy blog. As previously discussed, the decision is not likely to survive this or the next appellate review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But who knows? I'll be certainly glad to be proven wrong in my prediction.

The right to vote while in prison, Farrakhan v. Gregoire

In Farrakhan v. Gregoire, decided on January 5th, 2010 by a 3-judge panel in the 9th Circuit, the Court strikes down the Washington state's disenfranchisement of people currently incarcerated in state prisons as violating § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973 under its "totality of circumstances" test, due to the large racial disparity in incarceration rates.

I doubt that the Supreme Court will uphold this decision, even if the 9th Circuit sitting en banc may, because the Court's rationale depends on the type of racially disparate impact analysis so disfavored by the highest court. Still, the decision is a breath of fresh air in the bleak "post-racial" and "color-blind" world we live in.

"Vote SAFE: Safe And Fair Elections Act"

First, a little bit of context.

California Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 4 states:

The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.

In 2006, the California court of appeal in the first appellate district interpreted the above phrase and affirmed that, as long as the person is neither imprisoned in a state prison nor on parole under the supervision of the Department of Corrections), s/he has the right to vote under the California Constitution. See League of Women Voters v. McPherson, 145 Cal.App.4th 1469 (2006). In other words, those on felony probation, even if they are incarcerated in a county jail as a condition of probation, have the right to vote.

This might change soon.

Last year, California State Senator George Runner introduced an initiative (Prop 6) that sought to treat more and younger children as adults for the purpose of criminal prosecution. It failed by a wide margin. This year, Sen. Runner is back with another initiative, called "Vote SAFE: Safe And Fair Elections Act, " which attempts to overturn League of Women Voters.

The initiative proposes to amend the relevant section of the Elections Code to read:

A person entitled to register to vote shell be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not in prison or on parole or probation for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election.

"Conviction of a felony" for purposes of this code means conviction of a felony offense which results in incarceration in prison or parole or felony probation.

All of Us or None in Califronia had an all-chapter conference last month (which I couldn't attend due to work) and another conference call this morning (which I did participate in) to discuss how to oppose this initiative. Part of our effort will be directed to educating the public and other community-based organizations about this ironically-named initiative. And we are planning more direct action, once Sen. Runner's camp starts collecting signatures for the initiative in its final form. Stay tuned.