I Was in Prison and You Visited Me … Then What?
by Katharyn L. Waldron
It is no longer “enough” for us to visit people in prison; justice demands a fuller response to the Gospels.
In the months before his death in mid-February this year, Rev. Walter J. Burghardt, S.J., and I often talked about the upcoming presidential election. At mention of the economy he would wonder aloud, “How is it possible a full century after my immigrant parents arrived in this country, millions of people still work long hours but earn only minimum wage and receive no benefits?” Mention of no benefits would lead to his speculating how many persons struggle to pay rent and buy food and have no money left for doctor visits and medications. Yes, Burghardt bemoaned, issues demanding attention are countless and complex. The war in Iraq, genocide in Darfur. Sub-standard schools in inner city Manhattan, too few schools in the woods of Appalachia. Global warming, globalization. Often these and other critical concerns circled back to a constant concern: who will vote for change, who will work for justice?
Currently the airwaves are trying to “rock the vote,” to remind us voting is not only a right but also a responsibility. Important though this message is, does it miss a significant, some would say nasty, reality potentially altering election results? How many people in our pews are aware that voter disenfranchisement prohibits millions of U.S. citizens from voting? Isn’t this the country of one person, one vote?
A quick review of voting legislation reminds us that it was not until the 1870 ratification of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution that black men “could” vote in every state. More precisely, 1870 was the date of the law indicating black men had the right to vote. But the plurality of ballots which should have come from that long overdue step towards more fully realizing democracy was diminished by poll taxes — many of which were still in place as recently as 45 years ago when they were finally abolished by the 24th Amendment — and by literacy tests designed to keep non-whites from exercising their right to vote.
While many more than a few white men were jealously guarding the ballot box from those whose skin did not match the color of their own, others tried to stop the efforts of another group of people struggling for the right to vote. Women. For females the path to the polls in this country was long —one step forward, two steps back. For instance, in 1776 New Jersey gave the right to vote to the few women who had at least $250 in property but later reneged and no woman could vote. In the 1800s some states allowed women to vote only in school board elections or other local elections. It was not until 1920, more than a decade after the deaths of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, that women gained full suffrage.
Over the decades that followed, unease arose among yet another group of Americans — young people who were old enough to go to war and die for our country but who were not old enough to vote for those who championed peace. Only in 1971 did Congress amend the Constitution for the 26th time and lower the voting age for men and women to 18.
Despite these advances toward building a more perfect union, there continue to be persons who do not vote. Reasons given are aplenty: “All politicians are corrupt.” “People who register to vote get called to jury duty.” “Lobbyists buy off politicians of both parties and so it doesn’t matter whether or not I vote.” But one vote does matter. For instance, in 1845, one vote brought Texas into the Union; in 1876, one vote gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency of the United States; and in 1960, one vote per precinct elected John F. Kennedy the President of the United States. Nonetheless, the Census Bureau reports that in the 2004, a full 28% of registered voters did not vote in the presidential election.
In addition to the abundance of apathy and “good reasons” for not voting, there is a profound problem prohibiting millions — yes, millions — of people from voting: laws barring ex-felons from the polls. The Sentencing Project posts these statistics on their website:
• 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony offense.
• Only two states — Maine and Vermont — permit inmates 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 [italics mine]. Nine others disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders or permit application for restoration of rights for specified offenses after a waiting period.
• 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.
The impact of this disenfranchisement?
• 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% of black men, are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average.
• More than 2 million white Americans (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) 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% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote [italics mine].
• 2.1 million disenfranchised persons are ex-offenders who have completed their sentences.
One could preach an entire series on race and justice issues affecting voting, issues that will not likely be addressed in the upcoming presidential debates or in media interviews of people running in local elections. These ethical issues include: three strikes and you’re out legislation, differing penalties for powder and crack cocaine offenses, and unparallel voting practices from state to state. In a country with church and state separation, is there a moral mandate for congregations to become involved in efforts aimed at trying to eradicate voter disenfranchisement? Are there tangential ethical imperatives to care for children “orphaned” to prison and to assist senior citizens raising their grandchildren but not receiving government assistance equal to that given to non-familial foster parents?
A final word: “…now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.” When was this observation made? 1877. James Garfield — not someone today cautioning from our country’s capital or penning in a preacher’s parsonage—wrote this poignant admonition published in The Atlantic Monthly more than a century ago. Tragic, our nation needs this clarion call again today. Tragic, there are states in which jurors send a felon to prison not realizing they are taking away for life a person’s right to vote. Tragic, disenfranchisement keeps us from being a democracy in which each person has a vote. It is no longer “enough” for us to visit people in prison; justice demands a fuller response to the Gospels.
