Felon voting revisited

The state constitution says that certain felons - those whose crimes involve "moral turpitude" - are ineligible to vote until their voting rights have been restored in accordance with state law. Specifically, Amendment 579 states:

No person convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, or who is mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil and political rights or removal of disability.

Last month, Jefferson County circuit court judge Robert Vance, Jr. ruled that the state can no longer enforce that restriction until the legislature defines which felonies involve "moral turpitude." I gave my opinion on the Judge's ruling here, and applauded Attorney General Troy King for appealing to the Alabama Supreme Court.

In the time since my original post, Judge Vance has delayed imposing much of his ruling until after the November election. From this AP report:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A judge has delayed his ruling allowing felons to vote until after the Nov. 7 general election and until the state Supreme Court can review the issue.

Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. agreed to stay much of his order, which held that felons could vote until the Legislature clarifies a law that bars voting by felons convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude." His ruling last week said the state law does not define what crimes involve moral turpitude. ...

Vance's ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Jefferson County by Richard Gooden, who lost his right to vote in 2000 when he was convicted of felony driving under the influence.

The attorney general's office had asked for a stay of Vance's entire order.

But Vance let stand his instructions to county voter registrars to allow people to register if they have been convicted of a crime that past attorney general opinions or court decisions have said do not involved moral turpitude.

Those include such offenses as driving under the influence or possession of small amounts of illegal drugs such as marijuana.

Now, the Attorney General is asking the Alabama Supreme Court to delay all parts of Judge Vance's ruling. From the AP today:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The state attorney general has asked the Alabama Supreme Court to delay all parts of a judge's order allowing felons to vote in Alabama.

Attorney General Troy King's motion argues that the entire ruling last month by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. should be shelved until the high court can rule on an appeal.

Vance had ruled last month that felons must be allowed to vote until the Alabama Legislature clarifies crimes of "moral turpitude." At a Sept. 1 hearing, Vance agreed to stay much of his order until after the Nov. 7 general election and until the Supreme Court could rule on the appeal, but he allowed felons convicted of certain offenses to vote.

The judge let stand a portion of his order that allowed people to register to vote if they have been convicted of a crime that past attorney general opinions or court decisions have said do not involve moral turpitude. Those include such offenses as felony driving under the influence or possession of small amounts of illegal drugs such as marijuana.

Ryan Haygood, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund representing Alabama felons in the class-action lawsuit, said Tuesday that portion of Vance's ruling was important because it was telling "state and local officials to follow the law."

The approach taken by the attorney general in his motion "ignores the reality" that voter registrars are not allowing eligible people to vote, said Haygood.

The judge's ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Jefferson County by Richard Gooden, who lost his right to vote in 2000 when he was convicted of felony driving under the influence.

When Gooden completed his sentence and tried to have his voting rights restored, he was told that the Alabama secretary of state's office had ordered no felons be registered until the attorney general issued an opinion on what crimes do not involve moral turpitude.

Gooden has since been allowed to register to vote in Jefferson County, and King's motion Friday cited the Gooden registration in arguing that Vance's order be put on hold.

"There was no evidence that any registrar in Alabama was denying all felons the ability to register to vote without regard to whether the felony involved moral turpitude," the motion said.

The trouble is...contrary to what AG King says, it is plainly evident that prior to Judge Vance's decision, at least some registrars were denying all felons - not just those whose crimes involved moral turpitude - the ability to register. For instance, Mr. Gooden was convicted of DUI, a felony which both Alabama courts and the AG's office have agreed does not involve moral turpitude. Nonetheless, he was not allowed to register to vote. Mr. Gooden's case may have been an isolated incident, but that's not at all clear.

Additionally, as stated in the AP article quoted above: "[Judge Vance] let stand a portion of his order that allowed people to register to vote if they have been convicted of a crime that past attorney general opinions or court decisions have said do not involve moral turpitude."

So, why is the Attorney General's appeal necessary? The constitution says that only certain felons - those whose crimes involve moral turpitude - are to be denied the privilege of voting. Judge Vance has said that registrars must refer to previous court decisions and AG opinions when determining who is ineligible to vote under that constitutional provision. I don't see the immediate problem, and I don't see the need for this particular appeal. What am I missing here?