State opposes easing ban on felon voting

The state’s top litigator is trying to quash efforts by the ACLU to make it easier for some convicted felons to vote.

In legal papers filed in U.S. District Court, Arizona Solicitor General Mary O’Grady said there is nothing illegal about automatically disenfranchising people who have been convicted of at least two felonies.

She said both the U.S. and Arizona constitutions specifically permit states to take away voting rights.

O’Grady also is urging Judge Stephen McNamee to reject the contention of the American Civil Liberties Union that the state should stop requiring those who have been convicted of just one felony to pay off any court-ordered fines and restitution before voting.

O’Grady argued that the state is actually providing one-time felons with a right to vote — a right to which they are not legally entitled.

O’Grady said there is nothing wrong with requiring, in exchange for that right, that they complete all the terms of their sentences. And that, she said, includes financial penalties.

And O’Grady also said there is no merit to the argument that people convicted of drug offenses cannot have their voting rights taken away.

Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the ACLU, said roughly 176,000 people in the state are being denied the right to vote. That figure, she said, amounts to more than 4.3 percent of all voting-age Arizonans, giving this state the eighth-highest rate of felon disenfranchisement in the nation.

Arizona does automatically restore the voting rights of people convicted of a single felony. But Meetze, whose organization is representing five felons, said the requirement that they complete all the terms of their sentences, including fines and restitution, amounts to “the modern equivalent of a poll tax.”

O’Grady said there’s nothing unconstitutional or unfair about it.

“Plaintiffs made a conscious decision to engage in felonious conduct, knowing that conviction for such crimes would result in the loss of some of their civil rights, including the right to vote,” she wrote in her legal brief.

She also said requiring restitution as a condition of restoring voting rights supports the constitutional goal of ensuring that criminals and not their victims pay for the economic losses they cause.

None of this, said O’Grady, amounts to an illegal poll tax because it applies only to those who have committed crimes, and applies regardless of an individual’s ability to pay.

Arizona law allows those with two or more felonies to vote, but only after they get their civil rights restored by a judge.

Meetze said, though, the U.S. Constitution states that denial of the right to vote applies only to those convicted of treason and other “common law” crimes.

These are generally defined as offenses that were always presumed to be wrong, like burglary, assault, murder and rape. Meetze argued that disenfranchisement cannot be applied to drug offenses which are “statutory crimes” which exist only because the Legislature made them illegal.

But O’Grady said other courts have not made that distinction, arguing laws on loss of civil rights apply to people convicted of all felonies.

No date has been set for a hearing.

Plaintiffs in ACLU case

Armando Coronado, Tucson, was convicted of a drug offense. He was discharged by Department of Corrections in 2004, and still owes $2,740 in fines and $100 in restitution.

Joseph Rubio, Phoenix, was convicted of aggravated domestic violence. His request to have civil rights restored was denied earlier this year because he has not paid the costs of his probation.

Michael Garza, Phoenix, was convicted of a drug offense. He was released from prison and has finished his parole but still owes $3,700 in fines and restitution.

Michele Convie, Tucson, was convicted of a drug felony in California in 1975 and four separate drug offenses in Arizona. She is no longer on probation.

Raymond Lewis Jr., Tucson, was convicted of two drug offenses and is no longer on probation.