— by Guy Hamilton-Smith —
It has been five years since Governor Beshear restored my right to vote in 2019 through an Executive Order. A past conviction no longer ruled my life. I, along with thousands of other Kentuckians, were the lucky ones.
But the harsh reality is that many other Kentuckians who live, work, and pay taxes in our communities still don’t have this right. Why? Because for too many people, punishment for a past crime never ends, in spite of them having met all the obligations imposed on them by the judicial system.
I will be the first to raise my hand and declare that being held accountable for a crime, and for harm one has caused, is not only important but necessary. It’s just as important, however, to recognize that punishment divorced from redemption, rehabilitation, and proportionality becomes little more than a poison that diminishes us all. I can attest to that personally and professionally.
When I was in law school more than a decade ago, I co-authored research that analyzed the potential impact of disenfranchisement on crime rates. In other words, would denying people the right to vote because of committing crime affect rates of crime? My co-author and I found that states who permanently deprive their citizens of the right to vote because of a past conviction suffer higher rates of recidivism than states who restore voting rights to those persons.
The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently cited this research in Hopkins v. Hosemann. The Hopkins case struck down Mississippi’s disenfranchisement scheme, finding that “[b]y severing former offenders from the body politic forever, Section 241 ensures that they will never be fully rehabilitated, continues to punish them beyond the term their culpability requires, and serves no protective function to society.” This insight is equally true in Kentucky. So why hasn’t the system changed here?
The Kentucky General Assembly had the opportunity to do just that during this past legislative session, affording these individuals relief through several bills that would eliminate the practice of disenfranchisement in our state. But as they have for many years, Kentucky’s legislators failed to act.
Governor Beshear can’t single-handedly change the law, but he does have the authority to issue another Executive Order, as he did in 2019. But he has failed to do so.
So why can’t affected individuals ask the Governor to restore their voting rights individually? The answer is they can, but in my experience that process amounts to false hope.
In the years prior to Governor Beshear’s 2019 Executive Order, I submitted many applications to have my voting rights restored. I even once included a copy of the research article I had co-authored. I never received a response; not a yes or a no, only inscrutable silence. In my experience, forcing people to rely on a discretionary, byzantine process to restore the fundamental right of voting is woefully insufficient in a country and a Commonwealth that bills itself as believing in second chances.
If we want people to do better, we should lead by example. While the General Assembly has been unwilling to act, Governor Beshear has demonstrated that he believes in these principles and will act on them. I urge his office to take yet another step, and to restore the right to vote to all Kentuckians who are living, working, and raising their families in the Commonwealth. Not only is this an issue of fairness, but as evidence indicates, one of sound social and fiscal policy as well.
--30--
Guy Hamilton-Smith is a civil rights and criminal defense attorney in Washington, D.C. He is also the author of several law review articles on various topics, including the article referenced in this op-ed: Guy Hamilton-Smith & Matt Vogel, The Violence of Voicelessness: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement on Recidivism, 22 Berk. La Raza L. J. 2, 407 (2012). You can read his other writing or contact him via his website, guyhamiltonsmith.com.
