Registering prison inmates to vote; what do they expect?

By Deacon Mike Manno

          There was an interesting news item this week: the president had ordered the attorney general to establish procedures to identify and register to vote inmates in federal prisons. What was even more interesting was that the order was signed March 7, 2021, some 47 days after assuming office.

          So why is it just becoming public?

          Now think about this: most people who find themselves incarcerated in a federal institution are there because they have been convicted of a felony which, in most states, disqualify a person from voting until, if allowed by state law, they have taken the proscribed steps to re-qualify as a voter. Additionally, many such inmates will not be released for many years, and some not at all. And there is no accounting in the order for those on death row.

          Yet the order directs the AG to provide “educational materials related to voter registration and … to facilitate voter registration …” Additionally the AG “shall establish procedures, consistent with applicable law, to ensure the United States Marshals Service includes language in intergovernmental agreements and jail contracts to require the jails to provide educational materials related to voter registration and voting, and to facilitate voting by mail …”        

          You notice when the subject turns to the marshals and intergovernmental agreements, the beneficiaries of the order are expanded to include inmates of state, county, and local jails.

          So why?

          The order is a wide effort to make voting easier for a number of various groups including:

          Increasing opportunities for employees to vote, which includes granting time-off for voting and ensuring employees have the opportunity to participate in early voting, or service as a poll worker or observer; ensuring equal access to persons with disabilities; assistance with voting by Native Americans by working with tribal nations and leaders including by mitigating barriers to vote and increasing “language access;” and to assist military personnel on active duty and citizens overseas.

          In his stated purpose, the president notes, “many Americans, especially people of color, confront significant obstacles to exercising that fundamental right [to vote]. These obstacles include difficulties with voter registration, lack of election information, and barriers to access at polling places, including long lines, and voting by mail.

          “For generations, Black voters and other voters of color have faced discriminatory policies and other obstacles that disproportionally affect their communities. … Limited access to language assistance remains a barrier for many voters,” he wrote.

          The order then requires various agencies of the federal government to act to find ways to provide relevant voting information including voting by mail, such as: distributing vote-by mail ballot applications, providing registration materials and seeking the assistance of nonpartisan third-party organizations to provide registration services on agency premises.

          Unfortunately Mr. Biden did not give us the name of any nonpartisan, third-party organizations that might be suitable.

          Okay, let’s look at this as a whole. Of course nobody minds helping those with disabilities or soldiers to vote. Neither does anyone (or most anyone) want to interfere with the ability of any legal voter. But we need to ask ourselves what is the proper level of assistance needed by the average voter and what is the legitimate roll of government in providing such help?

          I’m not sure that all need the same assistance. For example, unless you are living in a cave in the middle of a desert, or have a handicap that prevents you from easy travel, you don’t need any assistance to register. That is easy, so how much of this order will be used by federal bureaucrats to nudge people who have no interest in voting to now register and get a ballot. How might that person’s ballot become available to someone who has a high degree of interest – especially with mail-in ballots? “Now, Mr. Citizen, if we can get you that ballot, where would you like it mailed?”

          And how much language access is needed? And what is meant by that? Do we need the ballot translated into a foreign language? Shouldn’t an American citizen know English? I can understand if someone cannot read or is blind, but doesn’t the citizenship process require understanding English?

          And what is all this focus on inmates, most of whom lost their voting privileges when convicted. I can understand the state providing information on how their voting rights might be restored at the time they are released, but is this order assuming voting by felons from the comfort of their cells? And except for a few references to the “appropriate” law, what assurance is there that there will be any attempt by those charged with enforcing the order to determine if the inmate was ever eligible to vote in the United States?

          And what about those who are held by intergovernmental agencies and local jails which are located in sanctuary jurisdictions where local authorities are forbidden to ask about the immigration status of a detainee?

          It’s a wonder from all the criticism we’ve heard about the administration’s border policies, sanctuary cities, and the president’s party’s stand on mail-out and mail-in ballots, lengthy early voting periods, signature verifications, and now the attorney general announcing that he will move to challenge voter ID laws. Why this was done under the radar? And why were the prisoner rules buried in the middle – page 4 – of a six page, single spaced, small-type document?

          Voting is wonderful, but only if the proper safeguards are in place. Seems to me this order is an attempt to by-pass those safeguards. 

Mother Cabrini

          My wife and I had the pleasure of watching the new movie “Cabrini” at one of our local movie theaters with several of our parishioners. While there we also ran into several parishioners from a nearby parish. I think we all had the same opinion of the movie: it was great, two thumbs up, as the reviewers would say.

          For many of us the name “Mother Cabrini” invokes memories of the nuns of our childhood Catholic elementary schools teaching us about the woman who was considered a Catholic superstar. If you have never been introduced to the woman who became the first American saint you should take the opportunity to meet her at a theater near you. And if your memory of her is only a fleeting reference to what the good nuns told you, go back to the theater and find out what makes the Church so proud of this, her daughter.

 (You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)