Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Humanitarian,
president leaves
great legacy
Editor's note: In memory of President John F. Kennedy, the
Emerald is reprinting an editorial originally run Saturday Nov.
23, 1963, the day after his death.
"All this will not be accomplished in the life of this ad
ministration nor in the life of this planet, but let us be
gin."
An anxious nation caught in the tensions of a cold war
found encouragement in John Fitzgerald Kennedy's In
augural Address on the first day of his administration.
Mis words accurately captured the attitudes and aspira
tions of an enlightened society. His statements promised
new direction for Americans in the 1960s. His outlook
was not narrow; he was in every sense a cosmopolitan, a
man with compassion for the citizens of the world. His
statements were not idle campaign promises, but posi
tive programs for effective free world leadership. John
Kennedy's concern for his fellow man was included in
the Alliance for Progress, the Peace Corps, Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty and civil rights legislation.
Under his leadership the free world stood firm against
the aggression of international communism. He chal
lenged the aggressor with the strength of the free world
in Berlin and in Cuba. He sought to rekindle that spirit
of the American Revolution which Americans have so
often failed to see. He encouraged new democratic gov
ernments in Asia and in Latin America. On his world
tours he told others about that unique spirit of the Amer
ican Revolution which will not tolerate dictators and
which strengthens the machinery of free, democratic
government.
As a senior at Harvard and later as the United States
senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy demonstrat
ed that he could write about courage. His books, "Why
Fngland Slept" and "Profiles in Courage," indicate that
he might have been a prominent historian as well as a
national leader. But, John F. Kennedy did more than
write about courage; he fully demonstrated it on many
occasions. His civil rights program is a case in point.
John Kennedy recognized that some Americans are not
yet free, a full one hundred years after the Emancipation
Proclamation. At a crucial period he stood for the dignity
of his fellow man. Political considerations were
cast aside when the president drafted his civil rights
legislation. He gambled his political fortune on legisla
tion which sought equal rights and privileges for
all Americans.
Americans will not soon forget John Kennedy's hu
man leadership, nor will they forget Friday's great na
tional tragedy. For students in the Pacific Northwest, it
was vivid documentation for the statement that geo
graphic proximity has no meaning in mass society. Ge
ographic distances are of little concern in a moment
of national tragedy. We must realize that the nation
must move forward and that John Kennedy's
humanitarian goals for an enlightened future have not
been fully realized, nor will they "in the life of this plan
et, but let us begin."
EDITORIAL POLICY
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters
@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited
to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Authors are limited to one submission per calendar
month. Submission must include phone number and
address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right
to edit for space, grammar and style.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt Aimee Rudin
Editor in Chief Freelance Editor
Jan Tobias Montry Ayisha Yahya
Managing Editor News Editor
Travis Willse
Editorial Editor
Eric Layton Illustrator
One more step toward universal suffrage
There was a time in America when only
rich white men were allowed to vote. But as
history progressed, so did we. Today, every
able adult citizen enjoys this most funda
mental democratic right with one notable
exception: convicted felons.
Due to a patchwork of state disenfran
chisement laws, more than 4.2 million
Americans — one in 50 adults — are denied
the right to vote. These people include more
than one million who have fully paid their
debt to society, yet still face sanction, some
times for their entire life.
At the turn of the 20th century, criminal
disenfranchisement laws — in conjunction
with poll taxes, literacy tests and other struc
tural measures — were retooled with the in
tent of denying black men their newly won
right to vote.
One hundred years later, black men rep
resent more than one-third of the total dis
enfranchised population, or 1.4 million
people. Sixteen states disenfranchise more
than 10 percent of their black citizens, ac
cording to a study in the December 2002 is
sue of the American Sociological Review.
This is no coincidence. The racially dis
proportionate impact of felon disenfran
chisement is the direct result of inequalities
within the criminal justice system. With 5
percent of the world's population, the Unit
ed States holds 25 percent of the world's
prisoners. How did this happen in the land
of the free?
According to I he Econoipist, the drug war
is what happened. Back in the early '70s,
America's imprisonment rate was seven
times less severe than it is today. In 1980,
only 15 per 100,000 adults were incarcerated
on drug-related charges. By 1996, that num
ber had mushroomed to 148 per 100,000.
The drug war became a cover for the per
secution of blacks. Even though blacks use
illegal drugs at approximately the same rate
as whites, according to the Department of
Justice's own numbers, blacks are admitted
to state prisons more than 13 times as of
ten as whites are. In some states, blacks
make up 90 percent of inmates incarcerated
on drug charges.
A study in the December 2001 issue of
Social Science Quarterly found that the
minority population of a state (in terms
of percentage) is the primary factor in pre
dicting the severity of that state's felon
disenfranchisement laws. A study com
missioned by the National Science Foun
dation found that states with proportion
ately ^ high numbers of ,npp\v|iite
prisoners are more likely to disenfran
chise convicted felons after incarceration.
These two studies show that the persist
ence of disenfranchisement is the direct re
sult of modem racism: Those in power-can
hide behind its race-neutral facade and
still inflict harm on black communities.
These laws also have devastating politi
cal consequences for Democrats, since
both prisoners and minorities tend to vote
David Jagernauth
Critical mass
in Democratic blocs. Were it not for felon
disenfranchisement laws, the composition
of Congress would tilt dramatically to
ward the left, according to a study in the
December 2002 issue of the American So
ciological Review.
We also know that Al Gore would have
easily won the presidency in 2000 were it
not for Florida's disenfranchisement laws,
which are the most severe in the nation.
Even a minor drug possession arrest is con
sidered a felony in Florida, and can result
in the loss of voting rights for one's entire
life, according to Graham Boyd, director of
the ACLll Drug Policy Litigation Project.
Voting is a fundamental right in a
democracy; therefore, states need to have
an extremely compelling justification for
■ eliminating voting rights.
One of the theoretical justifications is
based on the idea that criminals have bro
ken the social contract and therefore have
sacrificed their right to participate in it. By
this argument, criminal disenfranchise
ment fits comfortably within the concept
of liberalism, as defined by civic philoso
phers like John Locke.
In reality, criminal disenfranchisement vi
olates the primary tenet of liberalism: That
you cannot give away your citizenship. It also
fails to meet the liberal standard of propor
tional punishment for each and every crime.
Felon disenfranchisement fails the pro
portionality standard in two ways: (1) by ap
plying to all felonies, rather than felonies
specifically related to electoral fraud; and (2)
j by t^ing oyerly severe, atjeastin the case,qf a
lifetime loss of voting rights.
Another theoretical justification is
based on what is called civic republican
ism. Proponents of this argument say
that because felons (like children, the in
sane and non-citizens) are neither trust
worthy nor loyal to the nation, they
should also be denied the vote, just as
they are denied the right to serve on a
jury. Civic republicans argue that anyone
convicted of a serious crime has shown
himself or herself to be morally inferior,
and thus society has an interest in deny
ing them the vote.
We should not forget that an identical ar
gument was used in the past to keep non
whites, women, the poor and less educated
from the polls. Furthermore, voting is about
expressing one's opinion, ethical or not, un
like jury duty, which demands objectivity.
The penological justifications are equally
dubious. Disenfranchisement can't serve as
retribution when punishment is adminis
tered without proportionality. The low visi
bility of disenfranchisement makes it a poor
deterrent. And it hinders, rather than helps,
an ex-con's rehabilitation and reintegration
into society.
In Oregon, felons are only disenfran
chised while they are incarcerated. I feel
this is a fair compromise, so long as all
nonviolent felons have their civil rights
automatically restored to them once re
leased from prison.
In the case of violent criminals, I would
advocate keeping them disenfranchised
while on parole or probation. I feel that the
libertarian distinction between nonviolent
and violent crime is legitimate insofar as vi
olence is a more serious violation of the so
cial contract and thus should be punished
more severely.
States also have a legitimate interest in
disenfranchising those convicted of election
fraud or serious violations against the state,
like treason, perhaps even for life.
Enacting the above policies in every state
would remove the disparate racial impact of
felon disenfranchisement laws, bringing
them in line with the principles of liberal
ism without endangering the electorate.
Whether by state referendum, congres
sional injunction or judicial action, we must
continue America's historical march for
ward, ever closer to universal suffrage.
Contact the columnist
at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.