Tag: Mark Goins

Categories
News News Blog News Feature

State Officials Raise Bar to Restore Voting Rights for Those With Felony Convictions

State Capitol (Credit: Tennessee State Government)

Tennessee residents who have felony convictions and want to vote must comply with two state laws rather than one or the other, according to guidance from the state coordinator of elections.

Beginning last Friday, they now must obtain a pardon or have all citizenship rights restored, and show they have paid all restitution and court costs from their conviction, and are current on child support payments.

The guidance from Coordinator Mark Goins, an official in the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office, applies to people convicted in Tennessee, another state or in federal court. The policy builds upon a June 29th ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court on the voting rights of a Ernest Falls, who currently lives in Tennessee and was convicted then granted clemency in Virginia.

The Campaign Legal Center, among the legal organizations representing Falls, said the guidance issued by Goins “effectively closes the door to voting rights restoration for over 470,000 Tennesseans.”

Tennessee Supreme Court rules in felony voting rights case

Even before the guidance and the state Supreme Court ruling, few people with felonies have regained their right to vote in Tennessee.

By one estimate, fewer than 5 percent of those completing felony sentences ever succeed in restoring their voting rights here, according to a 2022 report by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center that was cited in an April 2023 League of Women Voters of Tennessee survey on restoration of voting rights.

“The League of Women Voters is extremely disappointed” in the communication from the Tennessee Secretary of State’s elections coordinator, the League’s Tennessee president, Debby Gould, said Monday. It does a “real disservice to thousands of Tennesseans who want to (take an active part in society) and be able to cast their vote with others in elections.”

Gould called Tennessee’s procedure for restoring voting rights after a felony conviction “labyrinthine. So many people despite their best efforts are never going to be able to meet it.”

At issue in voting right restoration are two state statutes, one passed in 1981 and the other in 2006. Both relate to the impact of felony convictions on the right to vote and how someone convicted of a felony can regain that right.

The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision flies in the face of more than 40 years of existing law and of common sense. Elections officials can’t just wake up one day and decide to unilaterally change the law to disenfranchise eligible voters, and it is deeply disappointing that the State Supreme Court went along with it.

– Blair Bowie, Director of Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote program

The 1981 statute says that conviction in an infamous crime – a felony – in Tennessee disenfranchises the person who committed the crime unless he or she has been pardoned by the governor or had full rights of citizenship restored. It contains similar provisions for people convicted in federal court or in another state of crimes that would disqualify them from voting in Tennessee.

The 2006 statute sets up an administrative process for having voting rights restored. Some felons can never get voting rights restored; for example, those convicted of voting fraud or treason can never vote in Tennessee again.

A person complying with all the requirements of the 2006 law, which includes payment of all court costs, court-ordered restitution and being up to date in child support payments, is issued a certificate of voting rights restoration.

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a Memphis Democrat who served in the Tennessee Senate in 2006, sponsored the bill that created the Certificate of Restoration process. In a Monday phone interview, Cohen said the intention was to set up a procedure for restoring voting rights that didn’t depend on the discretion of any official or judge.

Asked whether the state legislature intended in 2006 that people convicted of felonies would have to comply with both the 2006 law and the 1981 law to regain the right to vote, Cohen replied, “Absolutely not.”

What Cohen described as the intention of state lawmakers collided with the rules judges follow in interpreting statutes in the Falls case.

A three-justice majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court said in the Falls case that judges must look to legislative intent, as shown in the ordinary meaning of words used in statutes. Judges, they concluded, must look at several laws on the same topic and try to reconcile how they work together. They must follow a general rule that a law passed later in time amends or repeals an earlier one on the same subject, but, the majority said, Tennessee courts are reluctant to repeal a law indirectly, through implication.

In the Falls case, the justices read both the 1981 and 2006 laws together and concluded that Mr. Falls had to show he paid all of the costs required by the 2006 law, in addition to having received clemency in Virginia. A fourth justice sided with Falls and a fifth newly appointed justice didn’t participate in the case.

Goins, in his July 21st memo to local election officials, said the two-part process the Supreme Court described in Falls applied in all cases of felons seeking reinstatement of voting rights, because statutory language is similar whether a person is convicted of a felony in Tennessee, in an out-of-state court, or in a federal court.

Also on July 21st, Goins sent county election officials a one-page listing of eight frequently asked questions, along with answers, and conducted statewide training for the officials, Julia Bruck, spokeswoman for the Secretary of State, said in an email Monday.

Blair Bowie, an attorney and director of the Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote initiative, said in a news release last week that Goins’ guidance “short-circuits the longstanding Certificate of Restoration process and creates a new requirement that all people with past felony convictions must also receive either a court order or gubernatorial clemency to restore their right to vote.”

“The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision flies in the face of more than 40 years of existing law and of common sense,” she said. “Elections officials can’t just wake up one day and decide to unilaterally change the law to disenfranchise eligible voters, and it is deeply disappointing that the State Supreme Court went along with it.”

“The 2006 legislature only intended to add a new pathway for restoration, not to change the scope of who loses the right to vote in the first place,” Bowie said in an email. What she sees as confusion in the Falls case over the two statutes led to an erroneous decision. Last week’s guidance from Goins, she said, represents “a complete contradiction of the Election Division’s policy for the last 17 years.”

FALLS-Majority Opinion-Filed

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Momentum for IRV

Photo: Jhaviv | Dreamstime.com

Last week’s administrative hearing in Nashville was the first step in enabling ranked-choice voting in Memphis.

The long-pending matter of ranked-choice voting — aka instant runoff voting (IRV) — may be resolved in time for the next Memphis city elections, set for October 2023. That was the word from well-known IRV advocate Steve Mulroy, one of several participants in an administrative hearing on the subject held in Nashville last week.

On Thursday, August 5th, state Elections Coordinator Mark Goins presided over the hearing in the state capitol. In his official capacity, Goins had previously determined that IRV was illegal under Tennessee election law and prevented its implementation in Memphis, despite three separate local voter referenda approving the process. Goins, who, ironically and unusually, took part in the procedure both as an adverse party and the final decision-maker at the administrative level, was represented by the state attorney general’s office.

Petitioners, including former and future City Council candidates Erika Sugarmon, Sam Goff, and John Marek, participated as challengers to Goins’ original decision and in the current determinative process. They were represented by Taylor Cates and William Irvine of the Burch, Porter & Johnson Memphis law firm, assisted by attorneys from the international Hogan Lovells law firm. University of Memphis law professor Mulroy represented additional intervenors, including former and future City Council candidate Britney Thornton and the Ranked Choice Tennessee organization (a pro-IRV advocacy group).

Yet another participant was attorney Allan Wade, representing the Memphis City Council, which has joined the state in seeking to block IRV implementation.

The administrative hearing is a necessary step before the matter can be appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. An administrative decision from last week’s process is expected within a few months, with a more definitive Chancery Court ruling expected a few months after that.

At last Thursday’s hearing, pro-IRV expert testimony was provided by George Gilbert, a former elections administrator in North Carolina and current associate of the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, a nationwide clearinghouse for Ranked Choice Voting, which allows voters to rank candidates on a ballot in order of preference, successively sampling these choices until a majority-winning candidate can be selected. (Ranked-choice voting was the method recently used by New York City in its primaries to elect a new mayor.)

Gilbert explained that it was technically feasible to implement IRV in Memphis, using either current Shelby County equipment, hand-marked paper ballots, or any other equipment Shelby County might obtain in the future. He also insisted that, under a proper administrative interpretation of the state’s election statutes and regulations, there was nothing illegal about doing IRV in Memphis.

Memphis voters approved IRV overwhelmingly by referendum in 2008, amending the Memphis City Charter to that effect. Currently, it applies to all City Council districts but not to citywide races like mayor or city court clerk. But IRV was not immediately implemented at least partly because the then Shelby County Election Administrator Richard Holden opined that the county’s voting machines could not handle IRV. His successor, current Election Administrator Linda Phillips, stated in 2017 that this opinion was incorrect and that the county’s extant machines could indeed handle IRV.

Phillips was set to implement it for the 2019 City Council election when Coordinator Goins instructed her not to, claiming that IRV violated state law. Incumbents on the Memphis City Council placed two different IRV repeal referenda on the November 2018 ballot. Memphis voters rejected both repeal efforts, indicating once again a willingness to see IRV elections in Memphis.

Petitioners and intervenors disputing Goins’ legal interpretation also protest the involvement of the Memphis City Council in the litigation. In their view, the anti-IRV perspective is adequately represented by the state. “The City Council should respect the will of the voters and stop trying to block something that Memphis voters voted for three times,” said Mulroy.

Categories
News News Blog

Groups File Lawsuit Challenging New State Law on Voter Registration


Three groups filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a new Tennessee law that would put substantial requirements in place for groups that participate in voter registration efforts.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee, Campaign Legal Center, and Fair Elections Center on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, Rock the Vote, and Spread the Vote.

The defendants in the suit are Mark Goins, coordinator of elections for the state of Tennessee; Herbert Slatery, Tennessee Attorney General; and members of the state election commission.

The law in question, signed by Gov. Bill Lee last week, lists a slew of requirements for those participating in voter registration efforts and penalties for those who don’t comply.

[pullquote-1]

The legislation, HB 1079/ SB 971, sponsored by Rep. Tim Rudd (R-Murfreesboro)  and Sen. Ed Jackson (R-Jackson) includes conditions organizations must adhere to when holding voter registration drives.

Some of the requirements include providing the coordinator of elections with information about the drive prior to holding it, completing a training, and filing a sworn statement stating an intention to obey the laws and procedures pertaining to the process.

The law also creates civil and criminal penalties to groups or individuals who turn in more than 100 “deficient filings.”

The organizations who filed the lawsuit maintain that the law violates the freedoms of speech and association, due process, and the right to vote under the First and 14th Amendments.

“This is a lawsuit challenging strict, unnecessary, and irrational restrictions on community-based voter registration speech and activity,” the complaint reads. “Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent the enforcement of a new Tennessee law that unconstitutionally burdens and chills there core political speech and associational rights.”

The ACLU-TN said Thursday that Tennessee is ranked 44th in voter registration, but that there was a surge in registration during the 2018 midterm elections. The group believes the new law comes as a result of that registration growth and election officials’ lack of resources to handle the influx.

Sophia Lakin, staff attorney for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project said the legislation is “punishing” civic organizations that advocate for people’s right to vote and that help them do so.

“With its dismal voter registration rates, Tennessee needs these groups on the ground,” Lakin said. “What politicians should be doing is making sure that local election officials have the adequate resources to do their jobs. Silencing civic groups’ voices is not the solution.”

Paul Garner, organizing director of the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, one of the plaintiffs agreed, calling the law “draconian” and a form of voter suppression. Garner said the law punishes “those that want the democratic process to reflect and represent as many people as possible in communities like Memphis.”

[pullquote-2]

The lawsuit aims to ensure the political participation of all the state’s eligible voters, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU-TN said.

“Voter registration drives have long been a way for communities that are historically disenfranchises — including students, people of color, immigrants, and senior citizens — to empower individuals and gain access to the ballot box,” Weinberg said.

The League of Women Voters of Tennessee, another plaintiff, has prioritized making sure voters are properly registered and have all the information they need for nearly 100 years, according to Marian Ott, president of the organization.

“Voter registration surges like the one Tennessee saw in 2018 should be celebrated, not penalized,” Ott said. “We saw this law as a threat to democracy and a direct violation of our Constitution.”

The law created the “country’s most aggressive” penalties for voter registration drives, Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center, said.

“If the court does not intervene, the state will unlawfully chill the efforts of organizations working to get people registered,” Smith said. Voter registration drives for years have been a way for historically marginalized groups to empower their communities and gain access to the ballot box. We are taking Tennessee to court to protect that tradition against government threats of fines and jail time.”



Read the full complaint here. 

Categories
Editorial Opinion

TN GOP Legislators Propose Another Voter Suppression Measure

CREDIT: JB

Those readers of even moderate faculties of memory will recall a pair of legal set-tos last year pitting the Shelby County Election Commission against plaintiffs who were charging either disproportionate voting processes favoring suburbanites or outright voter suppression. Both issues were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, against suppression, and for the maximum possible enabling of the voting franchise.

JB

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett

The sad fact is — regarding this, as on a whole panoply of other matters — state government is attempting to intervene against the results of decision-making at the local level (in this case, against decisions in Shelby County Chancery Court). A bill backed by Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett and state Election Coordinator Mark Goins would not only penalize new-voter applications that are incomplete but would hold individuals and organizations responsible for helping turn them in via voter registration drives, saddling those individuals and organizations with fines of up to $8,000.

This issue of incomplete ballots, of course, was the one adjudicated last year in the courtroom of Chancellor JoeDae L. Jenkins, who directed the Election Commission, which had thrown out various incomplete applications, to extend its deadlines long enough to allow those applications to be completed and/or amended.

Democratic members of the General Assembly held a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday to protest the measure (House Bill 1079/Senate Bill 971), which is pending this week in both the House and the Senate. They were backed up by representatives of the Tennessee Equity Alliance and the Black Voter Project. State Representative John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville) went through a brief history of prior voter suppressions, including the photo ID law and the prohibition of college IDs in connection with it. He said, “Ask Tre Hargett and ask Mark Goins what they’re afraid of? Black students? Brown students?”

Another Nashville Democrat, Vincent Dixie, followed that up: “If they’re not afraid of competition, why are they afraid to let people vote? What is this legislation really addressing?”

Those two were followed by state Senator Brenda Gilmore (D-Nashville), who provided the interesting (and alarming) fact that, in the interval since Tennessee’s adoption of the Voter ID law, the state had fallen from number 27 in its ratio of voter turnout to dead last. And finally Representative Bob Freeman (D-Nashville) issued the compelling truism: “We don’t need to do anything to rebut people’s right to vote.”

It remains to be seen, of course, if the Republican supermajority that controls the General Assembly can be brought to re-examine its premises. And even if the bill should pass muster in both chambers this week, there would remain the hope that Governor Bill Lee, who is capable of common sense and compassion despite his ever more obvious conservatism, could issue a veto.

And, if worse should come to worst legislatively, there are always the courts — and the hope that the judgment of Chancellor Jenkins can be replicated on a statewide scale.