This video discusses voter eligibility of persons incarcerated in jails in the state of California, focusing on the development of statutory and constitutional law regarding elections over the past decade [at 19:33], as well as on logistical obstacles faced in the utilization of voting rights [at 26:59]. Also discussed is the disparity that persons in jail encounter, relative to the general population, in accessing conditional voter registration / provisional balloting [at 30:22]. The legal significance of the Governor’s veto of Assembly Bill 544 (2024) is commented upon [at 34:00]. The video concludes with reflections on the relation of election law and principles of democracy [41:32].
Voting
Votar en las cárceles de California en 2024: contrarrestar la desinformación oficial y no oficial (Spanish)
Este video analiza la elegibilidad para votar de personas encarceladas en cárceles del estado de California, enfocándose en el desarrollo de leyes estatutarias y constitucionales relacionadas con las elecciones durante la última década [a las 19:33], así como en los obstáculos logísticos enfrentados en la utilización del sistema de votación. derechos [a las 26:59]. También se analiza la disparidad que enfrentan las personas encarceladas, en relación con la población general, a la hora de acceder al registro de votantes condicional/votación provisional [a las 30:22]. Se comenta la trascendencia jurídica del veto del Gobernador al Proyecto de Ley 544 (2024) [a las 34:00]. El vídeo concluye con reflexiones sobre la relación entre la ley electoral y los principios de la democracia [41:32].
Free The Vote 2020 Report
Building on decades of voting rights work begun in 2003 as All of Us or None, formerly incarcerated & convicted people campaigned over the past three years to restore voting rights to 50,000 Californians on felony parole, culminating in the passage of Prop 17.
From the first All of Us or None meetings in Oakland in 2003, to the passage of Amendment 4 in Florida restoring voting rights to 1.4 million people with felony convictions, we have struggled with few resources and against the assumption that people directly impacted by the criminal legal system could organize and lead meaningful campaigns. As our new report clearly documents: not only do we need a seat at the table, we need to set the agenda and center our voices in the work. Nothing about us without us.
Richardson v. Ramirez at Fifty: Deconstructing Disenfranchisement
In Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), the U.S. Supreme negated federal equal protection of the laws for persons disenfranchised on account of criminal conviction. This case forms the bedrock for contemporary state-based voting eligibility rules for system-involved persons as well as for the state-by-state movement to reform it, as exemplified by California’s Prop. 17 (2020) which restored the right to vote to persons on parole. This webinar will carefully analyze the Court’s opinions in Ramirez to uncover the ways in which text and history are implicated in the constitutional interpretation of democratic norms.
Presenters: Alissa Moore (Re-Entry Coordinator) and Eric C. Sapp (Staff Attorney) from Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.
