Maryland: Lawmakers Push to Restore Vote Maryland lawmakers are pushing a bill that would immediately restore the right to vote following release from prison, the Baltimore Sun reported. The proposed legislation would also change the current Maryland law which bans formerly incarcerated individuals with two felony convictions from voting three years after sentence completion. Bills have also been introduced that would restore voting rights after completion of sentence, including parole. Similar proposals failed in the state last year. For additional coverage, see the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Florida: Gov. Crist Vows to Restore the Vote Gov. Charlie Crist said this week that he may issue an executive order restoring civil rights to formerly incarcerated individuals who have completed their sentences, the St. Petersburg Times reported. “My plan is to work with you to make sure we restore civil rights,” Crist said during a visit with the Florida Conference of Black State Legislators. “The important thing is that we get there. It’s going to be better than where we are now, I can tell you that.” Crist indicated he may still continue to seek a policy change in the four-member Cabinet, or by changing state law, though Cabinet member, Attorney General Bill McCollum, opposes automatic restoration. Alabama: Amending Constitution to State’s Old Ways Will Strip Rights, and Money from State Residents An editorial in the Anniston Star condemned Alabama’s stringent disenfranchisement laws. Commenting on Attorney General Troy King’s proposal for a constitutional amendment requiring all individuals who have completed a felony sentence to apply to the state parole board to get their voting rights restored after finishing their punishment, the editorial board stated: “By adding King's amendment to the Constitution citizens are either voting to raise the revenue for hearing and processing the requests or they are indicating their willingness to accept the problems the amendment will create” for an overworked, overburdened Board of Pardons and Paroles. For more coverage, see Votelaw. Arizona: Accountant Faces Prison for Voting The confusion behind who can vote and when has sparked a court case for an Arizona man who may face up to five years in prison for voting in the 2004 presidential election. Dale Schwartz had been on probation for illegally collecting unemployment benefits, and said he didn’t know the law banned those on probation from voting. Schwartz rejected a plea bargain offer for the voting charge that would have doled out a three-month prison term, according to the Phoenix New Times. “No one ever told me the law about this,” he says. “I just can't accept pleading guilty to something I didn't know about.” Colorado: Parolees Hoping to Vote Face Attorney General, Secretary of State Opposition The ACLU and the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition rallied this week for community support of SB 83, an election reform bill that would allow people on parole to vote. Both the Attorney General's office and the Secretary of State's office oppose parolee voting on grounds that it is unconstitutional. The Colorado constitution, however, states that persons confined in prison may not vote, but it leaves the voting rights of parolees at the discretion of the legislature, granting that body the power to define "term of imprisonment." The Colorado Supreme Court recently confirmed this by stating, "...parole is part of the incarcerated person's sentence when the General Assembly so provides." Previous legislatures saw fit to disenfranchise parolees by voting to define parole as part of the "term of imprisonment." Currently, people on probation and people in jail serving a misdemeanor sentence can vote. National: If They Can be Recruited for Military, They Should be Able to Vote An Associated Press article reported that the U.S. military is accepting more recruits with criminal and felony records. In response to the article, a “Concurring Opinions” writer asked on why the nation would allow formerly incarcerated individuals to represent the country in the armed forces but not at the ballot box. “If we trust felons (at least some of them) enough to let them carry guns and have access to our military in the middle of a war, I can't see an argument that there's any valid reason to prevent them from voting,” wrote Scott Moss.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information: Jen Nessel, 212-614-6449 / 917-442-0112 cell Dan Klotz, 917-438-4613 / 347-307-2866 cell FAMILIES WIN VICTORY IN COURT OF APPEALS ON PRISON TELEPHONE CHALLENGE High Court Allows Challenge to “Unlegislated Tax” on Poor Families to Move Forward Albany, NY, February 20, 2007 — Today the Court of Appeals ruled that a constitutional challenge brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of New York family members who pay a grossly inflated rate to receive phone calls from their loved ones in state prisons must be allowed to move forward. The lawsuit, Walton v. NYSDOCS and MCI, seeks an order prohibiting the State and MCI from charging exorbitant rates to the family members of prisoners to finance a 57.5% kickback to the State and money damages for the recipients of those calls. MCI charges these family members a 630% markup over regular consumer rates to receive a collect call from their loved ones, the only way possible to speak with them. The case was dismissed in 2004 by Judge George Ceresia of the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, citing issues of timeliness and the Appellate Division affirmed that dismissal in 2006. The Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, agreed to hear the case in July of 2006, and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the lower courts erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ constitutional claims as untimely. The Court held today that plaintiffs acted reasonably in bringing their complaints to the Public Service Commission, the administrative body that regulates telephone rates, before bringing the case in State Court. “We are thrilled with the Court’s ruling” said Rachel Meeropol, the attorney handling the case for the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The family members and friends of prisoners in New York State have sought a ruling on the constitutionality of New York’s prison telephone system for years. That day is now in sight.” Plaintiff Ivey Walton also embraced the decision. “I can’t talk to my son in prison because I flat-out can’t afford to pay MCI’s crazy rates. No one should be cut off from their family, just so the State can make a profit. I’m so happy the courts didn’t turn their backs on this injustice.” The Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case on January 9, 2007, the day after Governor Spitzer announced that the State would soon cease collecting the challenged “kickback.” “We were impressed by Governor Spitzer’s principled decision” explained Meeropol, “but we still need the Court to declare that plaintiffs’ rights have been violated to ensure that no future administration reinstates the illegal tax, and to compensate those individuals who have been injured by the State’s past illegal actions.” Craig Acorn, co-counsel on the case at Community Service Society also welcomed the news: "The Court's decision represents a long-awaited recognition that impoverished and stigmatized New Yorker's seeking justice can have their grievances heard and the wrongs they've suffered made right." Judge Pigott wrote the opinion for the Court. Judge Smith wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed that plaintiffs’ claims should move forward, but acknowledged that this decision was “influenced” by the fact that plaintiffs raised “substantial” constitutional claims. Judge Read dissented. The Court remanded the case back to the Supreme Court, to rule on whether plaintiffs’ Constitutional claims state a cause of action. Previous members of the Center for Constitutional Rights legal team on Walton include Barbara Olshansky and Robert Bloom. The New York Campaign for Telephone Justice works to end the kickback contract between MCI and the New York State Department of Correctional Services, and deliver choice, affordability, and equitable service to the families and friends of those incarcerated in New York State. The campaign is a project of the Center for Constitutional Rights, in partnership with Prison Families of New York, Inc. and Prison Families Community Forum. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a nonprofit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.