Indiana is one of only 10 states that takes away people's voting rights if they're jailed even for misdemeanors. Whether that goes too far depends on how the Indiana Supreme Court interprets the term "infamous crime" in the state constitution:
The constitution says people convicted of an "infamous crime" may lose the right to vote. A state law traced to the 1840s says people who are incarcerated after a criminal conviction lose the right to vote.
The state has interpreted the law to include anyone who does time for a misdemeanor or felony.
But according to the lawsuit, that interpretation is unconstitutional. The lawsuit contends that misdemeanors are not "infamous crimes," so only felons should lose the right to vote.
Since those who lose the right to vote are free to re-register after serving their time, this isn't something to get that exercised about. And losing the franchise even momentarily is a useful reminder for people that they have stepped outside the law and there are consequences. The Indianapolis Star did a study showing that a disproportionate number of those disqualified are minority and living in Democratic precincts, but that's a bogus argument -- do the crime, do the time, etc.,etc.
But this is one of those cases in which the constitution uses a term without defining it, which means we are required to supply a meaning based on our current understanding and experience; "cruel and unusual" in the national Constitution is another example. Even the strictest constructionists shouldn't have a problem with the court hearing this case and making a stab at "infamous."
Comments
The Indiana Constitution doesn't disenfranchise people automatically; it simply gives the legislature the ability to do so. It's quite possible that the state legislature will revisit this issue, it having been raised by this lawsuit.
Fifteen states allow a felon to vote after he's released from prison. Two of those states, Maine and Vermont, even allow voting while the felon is behind bars. If there is any problem with this, it's not very evident.
More than half the male population, 20-30, of Baltimore is imprisoned, on parole, or on probation. When large segments of the population are deprived of the vote, government of the people, by the people, for the people, doesn't really exist.
I agree, but on the other hand some judges have to stand for election. How eager would you be to make a lifelong enemy of a future voter?
Nonetheless, I think everyone should be allowed to vote. Maybe all judges should be appointed, but not necessarily for life.
How eager would you be to make a lifelong enemy of a future voter?
That'd probably be more of a problem for judges handling divorce than those handling criminal prosecutions, wouldn't it?