KFTC Response to Thayer Op-ed

A week ago, Senator Damon Thayer published an op-ed against changing Kentucky's present policy of disenfranchising all former felons unless they go through a process to get a pardon from the Governor.  Below, is the KFTC response, written by Homer White which was just published in the Georgetown News-Graphic amidst several letter to the editors that also challenged Thayer's opinion.

Right to vote should not be subject to a whim
By Homer White
Published in the Georgetown News-Graphic

Last week our State Sen., Damon Thayer, wrote a column for the News-Graphic arguing against House Bill 70, a proposed amendment to the Kentucky constitution that would restore voting rights automatically to former felons who have served their time.

The Senator has shown himself a man after my own heart - a public servant keen to debate issues openly and on their merits. I am honored to continue the conversation he has initiated.

First of all, though, a slight quibble. Thayer wrote that HB 70 "failed in the Senate this year."

Technically this is true, but only because Thayer himself declined to call the bill for a vote in the Senate Committee that he chairs.

HB 70 passed the House 83 to 14, with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Surely it merits full consideration by our state senators.

Thayer's first substantial point against HB 70 is that a streamlined process for restoration is available to former felons through the governor's office.

However, even the streamlined pardon process is far from adequate.

Conversations with former felons indicate that most have not heard about the process and don't know how to initiate it. Even officials in the Kentucky Justice system and the state's county clerk offices often don't know how to help people through it.

We have to bear in mind that persons recently released from prison are at a particularly vulnerable point in their lives. If we want them to re-engage in society in a positive way, we should provide them with every possible encouragement to do so, and work to remove every hurdle that stands in their way.

Also, the pardon process is entirely dependent upon the sitting governor.

It's easier under Beshear, but was quite difficult under Gov. Fletcher.

Who is to say that the pardon process won't change again under a future governor?

A civil right as fundamental as the right to vote should not be subject to the whim or favor of any one individual.

A sense of the fundamental, even sacred character of the right to vote may underlie Thayer's second objection to HB 70, namely that the amendment "would create two classes of felons - those who don't have to do anything to regain their rights and those who must rely on the favor of the governor."

Apparently he alludes to the fact that HB 70 as currently written does not automatically restore rights to those who have committed murder or sexual abuse.

This is a point worthy of consideration.

For myself, I would prefer to restore rights without exception. After all, the most dangerous voters are those who use their rights to advance their own interests at the expense of the common good.

For example, lobbyists for business interests routinely support laws that give their business a special and unfair advantage, often at taxpayer expense.

Yet we would never think of denying such persons the vote.

The right to vote is just that sacred.

A former murderer, on the other hand, never has an opportunity to vote for politicians who pledge to "make murder easier," so his vote is far less likely to damage the common good.

Accordingly there is even less reason to deny this person the right to participate in our democracy.

The right to vote is just that sacred.

Nevertheless, I concede that HB 70, as it stands, has widespread support, and it would at least restore rights to nearly all former felons. Although it is a compromise, I support it wholeheartedly.

The right to vote is just that sacred.

HB 70 is more than just a technical device to make the restoration process cheaper and more reliable than the current system of individual pardons, though it will certainly accomplish this aim.

For in the end it is not, strictly speaking, the right to vote that is sacred - it is the dignity of the human person that is sacred. Picture, if you would, a young woman who gets mixed up in drugs and goes to prison.

Many of us know such a person - she may be a childhood friend, someone we went to school with, a relative, even our child.

HB 70 is a message to this young woman that she has dignity, that we need and value her positive involvement in society, that we want her to rebuild her life and that when she does so we are delighted to welcome her back.

And it delivers its own message in a practical way - by restoring her right to vote.

This response is on behalf of Scott County members of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. If you share our passion about this issue, please join our regular meetings at 6:30 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month at the Ed Davis Center.

Contact me at 502-570-0032, or [email protected].

Homer S. White is professor of Mathematics and a Georgetown resident.