Commentary: Override the governor’s veto and expand voting rights

Listen to this article

In the coming days, the Maryland Senate has the opportunity to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto of Senate Bill 340, which would allow those who have been released from prison to vote in elections. Senators should seize the opportunity and support the expansion of voting rights.

I read with great disappointment that my fellow attorneys were advocating for the suppression of the vote – a bedrock of democracy – from our fellow Marylanders. Members of the Maryland bar should be advocating for the expansion of such a vital and basic right instead of the continuation of roadblocks that keep our representative democracy from actually representing all of its citizens.

The past few weeks have also brought the return of “tough on crime” rhetoric as well. This was predictable, as there is a certain segment of the population that believes each person imprisoned is to be feared and deserves disdain.

Del. Christopher R. West, R-Baltimore County, began a recent commentary in The Daily Record with fear, reminding us that some felons had committed murder, rape, hate crimes, etc. This is true, and no one is arguing that those crimes should not be severely punished. However, those eligible to vote under SB 340 are people living in the community who have been granted release by the Maryland Parole Commission or by a judge that ordered the person to go through the probation system.

Lost in the arguments is the reality that the parole process provides for an extensive analysis of factors designed to determine whether it would benefit the inmate and society to be released back to the community. Obtaining release on parole is not merely a measure of whether an inmate has “behaved himself” while incarcerated.

The parole commission, which reviews the eligibility of inmates for parole, is required by law and regulation to analyze a number of factors about each individual who is “up for parole.” The commission evaluates the circumstances surrounding the inmate’s crime; mental and moral qualifications; the probability that the parolee will remain at liberty without violating the laws; and whether the release of the prisoner on parole is compatible with the welfare of society. Before granting release, a parole examiner or commissioner also determines whether continued incarceration would substantially enhance the inmate’s ability to lead a law-abiding life.

There is recognition across the political spectrum, as demonstrated by the final report of the bipartisan, inter-branch Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council, that our current system of imprisonment and parole and probation needs to be changed. Indeed, prison sentence lengths have increased over the past decade despite the “growing body of criminological research demonstrates that prison terms are not more likely to reduce recidivism than noncustodial sanctions.” The JRCC’s research also shows that 75 percent of parolees who are returned to prison did nothing more than commit a technical violation, such as missing a meeting with a parole agent.

Disproportionate impact

Ending the prohibition on voting for those on parole and probation would represent a departure from the retributive model of criminal justice that has disproportionately impacted people of color. In Maryland, African-Americans constitute 70 percent of those admitted to prison but only 30 percent of the population. The JRCC also reports that blacks in Maryland are sentenced to longer terms than whites, are less likely to be paroled and end up serving an average of 31 percent longer than white inmates.

Yet, as lawmakers were presented with an opportunity to ensure that those returning citizens are able to participate in civil society, we were reminded of the powerful force of inertia. The Editorial Advisory Board of The Daily Record opposed the veto override in advance of the House of Delegates’ vote. Rightfully, the delegates rejected the board’s call to maintain the status quo.

The arguments put forward by the board have all the hallmarks of those who argue against change, not the least of which is favor for incrementalism. It argued that SB 340 would do little to expand voting rights – a position with which the 40,000 Marylanders in the parole and probation system would beg to differ. Gaining back a fundamental right should not be brushed aside so lightly.

Nor should we withhold a fundamental right from that vast number of people because, as the board noted, some may be sent back to prison. Voting rights should not be withheld because we are not certain as to whether the voter may be in prison by the time the next election comes around. When our society is finally recognizing that we are sending people to prison to frequently, for too long and in ways that are racially discriminatory, we should not withhold voting rights because the current, broken criminal justice system sends too many people back to prison for no good reason.

The time has come to reject wholesale retribution and disenfranchisement. For our state Senators, you have the opportunity to expand rights for a group of disfavored Marylanders. Carpe diem.

Matthew Thomas Vocci is of counsel to Williams & Santoni LLP in Towson and represents individuals who have suffered injuries, had their civil rights violated or were victims of consumer fraud. He is a regular contributor to The Daily Record’s Generation J.D. blog and can be reached at [email protected].