by Zdenko Juskuv
Koren Carbuccia, speaking at a press conference at the State House, said “The State of Rhode Island will not allow me to be the best parent that I can be.”
Carbuccia, a mother of a four-year-old and a student at CCRI Lincoln who is working towards becoming a substance abuse counselor, may seem like an ordinary Pawtucket resident. But Carbuccia has served two and a half years in the ACI for drug-related offenses. She, like 15,000 Rhode Islanders, will not be able to vote until she finishes her parole in eleven years.
But all that may change in November, when Rhode Islanders will decide on Question 2, determining whether or not disenfranchised persons like Carbuccia will be allowed to vote despite being on parole or probation.
She recalls that she first nursed her son while in prison. “I knew then that I wanted my life to be different,” she said. “I am a responsible parent now”.
Rhode Island is the only state in New England to deny voting rights to persons on parole and probation.On the day of the Press Conference, Carbuccia had taken her son to school for the first time. She is aware that her son will be 15 by the time she can vote. Until then, she will have no say as to who sits on her city’s school board or city council, the bodies that will determine the nature of her son’s education.
Thus she is speaking out against the denial of her vote and the voting rights of thousands of others across the state. “Today I will set an example for my son,” she said.
Because of Article II, section I of the Rhode Island Constitution, the state has become the only one in New England to deny the right to vote to persons on parole and probation.
This means that RI disenfranchises a greater share of its residents than any other state in the region, especially since the state has the second highest rate of persons on parole nationwide.
Supporters of Question 2 argue that the conditions created by current laws impede the efforts of former prisoners to rejoin society. Studies show that giving parolees the right to vote cuts recidivism by half.
ACI’s budget in 1970 was approximately $3.4 million dollars. It has now swelled to a proposed $178 million for 2007.Opponents, such as Governor Carcieri, would rather use jobs and education to bring down crime rates. Meanwhile, the state has seen its prison population increase 625 percent in the past 30 years, according to a report from the Providence Family Life Center.
In monetary terms, it means that the ACI’s budget in 1970 was approximately $3.4 million dollars. It has now swelled to a proposed $178 million for 2007.
Proponents are especially concerned with the message that is being sent to prisoners. They fear that under current laws, prisoners don’t feel encouraged to make a full return to society—despite promises of employment or education.
State Senator Harold M. Metts (D-district 6 Providence), one the principal co-sponsors of a bill that approved the question’s inclusion on the ballot, says: “Resources need to be dedicated towards treatment. Until we realize this, the problem will continue.”
“Voting is an obligation in these troubled times”, House Majority Leader and Democrat Gordon Fox says. “It’s central to what we hold dear as Americans”.
Critics of disenfranchisement also point out that persons on parole and probation are required to pay taxes even as their right to vote is denied.
“That’s taxation without representation,” Representative Joseph S. Almeida (D-District 12 Providence) said in a speech at the State House, “We want their tax money but we don’t want them to participate.”
Critics also note that as unfair as current conditions are towards prisoners and parolees, communities and neighborhoods are really what have suffered the most. In South Providence 15.7 percent of its residents cannot vote. Providence as a whole has over 5,000 persons who can’t vote, according to the Right to Vote campaign.
Metts said that he first became aware of the issue when campaigning door-to-door through South Providence. He was shocked by how many people he met told him they couldn’t vote.
Almeida, in a speech at the State House, told a similar story. He explained that on one street alone he met eight different families who had a family member disenfranchised.
The result is communities that are already struggling with poor schools, high crime, and weak social services see their political voice diminished, especially on the local level where, as Fox noted in a speech, some South Providence city council races are decided by eight or nine votes.
Disenfranchisement falls heavily on minority communities...One in five black men, and one in eleven Hispanics, are barred from voting statewide.Criminal disenfranchisement falls heavily on minority communities in the state. According to Almeida, over 40 percent of black men between the ages of 18 and 34 are disenfranchised in the neighborhood of South side Providence which he represents.
According to statistics provided by the Right to Vote campaign, one in five black men, and one in eleven Hispanics, are barred from voting statewide. According to a report from the Providence Family Life Center, Hispanics are 2.5 times more likely than the general population to lose voting rights.
“Rhode Island is effectively suppressing the voice of its minority communities, its poorest neighborhoods and its urban areas,” Metts said in a press release.
In many ways, the issue is one of conflict between the urban and suburban parts of the state. Nearly all of the legislators who cosponsored the bill that put question on the ballot represent districts in Providence.
According to Right To Vote, the rate of disenfranchisement in urban areas is 3.5 time higher than for the rest of the state.
But it is in the suburban areas, as some legislators, off the record, quietly fear, that the initiative will face its toughest struggle.
Metts stresses that between 5 and 6,000 persons who are white and from non-urban parts of the state stand to benefit as well. “Its more than a minority and urban issue,” he said.
Cliff Monteiro, the RI NAACP branch President, agrees, “Everyone goes to jail”. He called it a “civil rights and human rights issue”.
The Right To Vote Campaign’s greatest opposition comes from negative perceptions. Some fear that the right to vote will be restored to murderers or rapists. Others argues that a felony conviction shows that a person has poor judgment and therefore should not be allowed to vote.
But as Metts points out, Rhode Island’s tough mandatory sentencing laws mean that violent criminals will be behind bars for a long time. Both legislators and non-profit organizations supporting the initiative never fail to stress that 80 percent of persons serving time in Rhode Island’s Prisons are doing so because of non-violent drug related offenses.
He also points out that some persons who lost the right to vote never even went to jail, “86 percent of that number [the 15,000 disenfranchised Rhode Islanders] are not in prison at this time, having either been released or never having actually been incarcerated”.
Fox criticizes that harsh stance taken by opponents, “Unfortunately in American society its is politically expedient to be punitive”.
“The current law represents a time when parole and probation was just another way to put them [ex-felons] down,” Fox said at the conclusion of his speech at a press conference, “We know as a society that we can’t afford that.”
Metts agrees, “Restoring the right to vote gives an individual hope and strengthens our democracy by increasing voter participation” And he adds, “Should the mistakes you make in your late teens and early twenties haunt you for the rest of your life?”
The Right to Vote campaign is a collaboration of a small but dedicated group of faith leaders, community advocates, and formerly incarcerated individuals. Spearheading the effort is the Providence Family Life Center, which was among the first to study the effects of disenfranchisement on the neighborhood level, attracting significant local and national attention in October 2004.
Since then they have successfully put the issue on the November ballot and gained endorsement from dozens of state wide organizations, like the NAACP, the ACLU, several churches, and even gubernatorial candidate Charles Fogarty.
Steven Brown, ACLU Executive Director for the State of Rhode Island, hopes that a favorable outcome in Rhode Island will encourage other referendums across the country in states that constitutionally disenfranchise ex-felons.
Despite the national implications, the campaign remains dedicated to working on a somewhat modest local and neighborhood level.
“Ballot Question 2 doesn’t have bumper stickers, or flashy commercials or a big bus that can roll around the state spreading this message” Almieda said, “so if we’re going to get it passed, we’ve got to rely on a grassroots effort.”
