Posted On: February 18,2002          Updated On: February 23, 2002
© Terence T. Gorski, 2001

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I recognize the work of Senators Dodd and 

McConnell, and others. Certainly they are the ones who run this 

committee and are responsible for bringing forward the legislation that 

is before the Senate and for crafting bipartisan legislation.

  The most fundamental premise of democracy--and that is one of the 

reasons we have this legislation before the Senate--is that every vote 

counts.

  The reality is that votes cast in wealthier parts of the country 

frequently count more than votes cast in poorer areas because wealthier 

districts have better, more accurate, more modern, and less error-prone 

counting machines than poorer precincts and districts. One can see in 

looking at a State, those counties within a State that have more money 

have more resources; they have better voting machines, more modern 

voting machines. The same is true in Nevada.

  Reality was thrust upon us, of course, during the 2000 Presidential 

election after which many Americans justly questioned the 

trustworthiness of our Nation's electoral process. But even though 

Florida was beaten up very badly, if that same light had been shone on 

other States, the same problems would have been seen, as far as I am 

concerned.

  In the last election I was involved in Washoe County, which is the 

second most populous county in the State of Nevada, a very good, well-

intentioned worker in the county in the election department thought she 

would save a little money and print their own ballots. They did that 

and saved some money. They did not go to the professional, the same 

company that sold them the voting machines.

  Well, come election time, some of the votes were not counted. They 

were off one-sixteenth of an inch or less, but the voting machine would 

not pick up that paper. So thousands of votes had to be hand counted 

once, twice, sometimes three times.

  In that same county, I can remember very clearly, it was a close 

election. I

[[Page S800]]

had won the election, and I get a call a week or two after the 

election--there is a recount going on. They found 3,000 ballots they 

had not counted. When the election is going to be decided by a few 

hundred votes, that gets your attention.

  The attention was focused on Florida, but it could have happened, I 

believe, in any of the 50 States. Florida may not have handled what 

they came up with very well after the fact, but I think we have to be 

considerate and understand that election problems have been around in 

this country for a long time. What this legislation will do is allow 

more fair elections, and I think that is so important.

  The United States is the oldest democracy in the world, but we can do 

better. We are an imperfect nation as I have said hundreds of times, 

imperfect but the best country, with the best of rules, by this little 

Constitution, best set of rules ever devised to rule the affairs of men 

and women.

  The bipartisan legislation that Senators Dodd and McConnell have 

crafted, while unable to address every single issue and every single 

problem that was exposed in 2000, takes a giant step in that direction. 

So I support the efforts of my colleagues from Connecticut and Kentucky 

and look forward to swift passage of this legislation, hopefully today.

  The amendment I have sent to the desk, and I am pleased to recognize 

that this is bipartisan legislation--I am very honored Senator Specter 

has joined with me in this legislation--and this is an issue that has 

not received the attention it deserves. Basically what this amendment 

does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their 

sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, 

should not be denied their right to vote.

  When I am doing my morning run, I always listen to public radio. On 

public radio this morning, they had something called Heart to Heart. It 

is Valentine's Day and they had examples of different organizations 

doing nice things for people. I listened to these two law students, two 

women, who were counseling and trying to teach women who were in prison 

about the law. They went through the Constitution and taught about the 

First Amendment rights and such things. Interestingly, during that 

interview I heard this morning, the women said the one thing they 

wanted to talk about and the one thing that bothered them so much is 

they did not know they would not be able to vote when they got out of 

prison, and they focused on that. That means so much to an American to 

be able to vote.

  We do not have the voter turnout that we should have, but still it is 

a right that must be protected.

  My parents were uneducated. They knew how important it was to vote. I 

can remember my mother especially, there would be somebody on the 

ballot and she would say: I know him; Glen Jones.

  But she did not know Glen Jones. She had met Glen Jones at some 

political rally. But I thought she knew Glen Jones and she thought she 

knew Glen Jones. He was sheriff of Clark County.

  Mr. President, I want to tell my colleagues . . . how I became 

involved in this issue. Some will say there are a lot more important 

things to do, and maybe that is true. In Las Vegas, we have a radio 

station KCEP, in a predominantly, African American part of Las Vegas. I 

went there 1 day to spend an hour taking phone calls, and I made a very 

brief statement. I took my first call and a woman said:

       My brother committed a crime when he was a teenager. He 

     completed his probation and he is now a man in his fifties 

     and he cannot vote. He has never done anything wrong in his 

     life other than when he was a teenager. But, he cannot vote. 

     He supports his family. He pays his taxes. Why should he not 

     be able to vote?

  And that one phone call started for an hour people calling in saying: 

Senator Reid, can't you do something about that? They would give 

example after example.

  I could give scores of examples. I cannot remember everybody who 

called me on that radio station, but I have an e-mail that was sent to 

me that perhaps illustrates what these radio callers were talking 

about.

       Dear Senator Reid: I heard on the news this morning that 

     you are working on some legislation regarding the voting 

     rights of convicted felons. I have a felony conviction from 

     the sixties. I did my time, learned my lesson, and have been 

     a responsible citizen since then. I moved to Las Vegas in 

     1982 and have lived here since that time. I have been 

     employed all that time. I currently make over $60,000 per 

     year. I own two houses in Las Vegas and 40 acres of land in 

     Utah. I pay my fair share of taxes, both local and Federal, 

     and yet I have no say in my government. I suppose I could 

     hire a lawyer and try to get my civil rights back, but it is 

     very confusing. I would first have to petition California 

     where the offenses occurred, and then petition Nevada.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 

Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator Reid: I heard on the news this morning that 

     you are working on some legislation regarding the voting 

     rights of convicted felons. I have a felony conviction from 

     the sixties. I did my time, learned my lesson, and have been 

     a responsible citizen since then. I moved to Las Vegas in 

     1982 and have lived here since that time. I have been 

     employed all that time, currently I gross over $60,000 per 

     year. I own two houses in Las Vegas and forty acres of land 

     in Utah. I pay my fair share of taxes, both local and federal 

     and yet I have no say in my government.

       I suppose I could hire a lawyer and try to get my civil 

     rights back. But it's very confusing. I would first have to 

     petition California where the offenses occurred and then 

     petition Nevada.

       I registered here when I first came to Nevada and got my 

     ex-felon card. I also registered to vote. In California I was 

     allowed to vote and I though it would be the same here. I did 

     vote for over ten years here and then a few years ago out of 

     the blue I received notice that I no longer could vote. I was 

     devastated. First off I could not see where it even made 

     sense, I was a working property owner who payed taxes and 

     obeyed the laws. (In the past thirty years I have two traffic 

     tickets and that's all). I still feel that I should have the 

     right to vote. I hope that you can accomplish something that 

     will allow me to have some say about the future of this great 

     country.

       I feel that it is not only the right of every American to 

     vote. It is also their duty.

       Thank you

                                         Melvin Douglas Miner, Jr.

Mr. REID. He closes by saying he has paid all his taxes and obeyed 

all the laws. The past 30 years he had two traffic tickets which he 

paid. He still believes he should have the right to vote. He says:

       I hope that you can accomplish something that will allow me 

     to have some say about the future of this great country. I 

     feel that it is not only the right of every American to vote, 

     it is also their duty.

  My constituent's name is Melvin Douglas Miner, Jr., and he is not 

embarrassed by the fact he has done this. He is rendering a service to 

the people of this country by allowing me to use his letter to me.

  There are examples after examples. A man came to me who is almost 80 

years old, a successful businessman in Las Vegas, with tears in his 

eyes, and said: I am going to close up my business and turn it over to 

my children.

  He said: I cannot vote. Every time the election time rolls around I 

make excuses to my children. I got married late in life. My children 

are asking me questions even today. I have been able to hide from them 

the fact that I do not vote is because I cannot vote. Could you do 

something about it?

  There are stories such as there all over. I don't condone people who 

commit felonies, but I recognize that when people pay their debt to 

society we should make them part of society. I am not saying the day a 

person gets out of prison they should be able to vote. But when he gets 

out of prison and has completed his parole and probation, let him vote.

  The right to vote in a democracy is the most basic right of 

citizenship. It is a right that may not be abridged or denied, by any 

State, race, color, gender, or position of servitude. It is a 

fundamental right. It is a glaring example of what our free society 

represents.

  Think about Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison. 

Nelson Mandela as a young man spent his best years in prison. One would 

think for a man who spent 27 years in prison, many of those years in 

very squalid conditions, that the most important day of his life would 

have been walking out of that prison after 27 years, or maybe it was 

the day he became president of a post-apartheid South Africa. But that 

is not what he said. The great Nelson Mandela said the most important 

day of his life was the day he voted for the first time. Think about 

that.

[[Page S801]]

  Millions of people in America cannot vote. They have completed their 

debt to society. As elected officials who have been given the privilege 

to serve, we need to recognize the strength of a democracy depends on 

voluntary participation of its citizens. Low voter turnout is not 

something we should be proud of; certainly we should not compound that 

by having people who have fulfilled their debt to society not be 

allowed to vote.

  States have different rules as to when a person can vote if a person 

committed a felony. In 14 States, ex-felons who have served their 

sentence, including parole on probation, are denied a right to vote; 

the 36 other States have various rules. But it adds up to hundreds of 

thousands and millions of people. Fundamental fairness dictates this 

policy is wrong.

  The amendment that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have 

introduced today aims to correct this injustice. In these 14 States and 

other States, the process by which individuals who have fully served 

their sentences and wish to regain their right to vote is often 

difficult and cumbersome. Some may have to petition a board and get a 

pardon. For others, Governors can give them the right to vote. In some 

States, ex-felons who have completed their sentences must obtain a 

Presidential pardon. As every Member knows, very few people have the 

financial or political resources needed.

  This disproportionally affects ethnic minorities. According to the 

Sentencing Project, an estimated 13 percent of adult African Americans 

throughout the United States are unable to vote as a result of varying 

State disenfranchisement laws. The rate is, unbelievably, seven times 

the national average.

  In some States, the numbers are more extraordinary. In Florida and 

Alabama, more than 31 percent of all African American men are 

permanently barred from ever voting in those States again. In six other 

States, the percentage of African American men permanently 

disfranchised is over 20 percent. Given current rates of incarceration, 

the Sentencing Project estimates that up to 40 percent of African 

American men may permanently lose their right to vote.

  I want to make sure that not lost in this debate is the fact that 

criminal activity is wrong and must be punished and punished severely. 

I am for the death penalty. I introduced, in the State of Nevada, 

legislation that said if you are convicted of a crime and sentenced to 

life without possibility of parole, that is what it should mean. It 

should not mean a person gets out in 20 or 30 years. If a jury, with 

the approval of a judge, sentences somebody to life without the 

possibility of parole, that is what it should mean.

  I believe in strict enforcement of the law. However, I also believe a 

sentence is a sentence, and when a judge gives somebody 10 years and 

they get out in 5 years, after 5 years of parole and any probation time 

they should be able to be voters in the State of Nevada and the rest of 

this country. Sufficient and appropriate sentences should be imposed 

upon those who violate our laws. We should not, however, disenfranchise 

those who have fully completed their prescribed sentences.

  We have a saying in this country: If you do the crime, you have to do 

the time. I agree with that. But if you do the time, and do it 

completely, why should you have to do more time?

Mr. REID. As I am sure the manager of the bill knows well, the State 

of Connecticut recently voted to guarantee all ex-felons on probation 

the right to vote.

  Nonetheless, the amendment Senator Specter and I have crafted is 

narrow in scope. It does not extend voting rights to prisoners. Some 

States do that. I don't believe in that. It does not extend voting 

rights to ex-felons on parole, even though 18 States do that. It does 

not extend voting rights to ex-felons on probation, even though some 

States do that. This legislation simply restores the right to vote to 

those individuals who have completely served their sentences, including 

probation and parole.

  Finally, this legislation would only apply to Federal elections, but 

it would set an example for the rest of the States to follow what we do 

in Federal elections.

  Even though we have delegated to the States time, place, and 

authority, Congress has retained the ultimate authority with ample 

precedent to set qualifications for Federal elections. We did that with 

motor-voter registration and others.

  The revolutionary patriot, Thomas Paine, said: The right of voting 

for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are 

protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for 

slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he also 

has not a vote in the election of representatives in this case.

  We must do away with Thomas Paine's definition of slavery. People 

should be able to vote when they have done their time. When Mr. Miner 

of Las Vegas wrote to me about the fact that he could no longer vote 

even though he has been a model citizen for 30 years, I am sure he felt 

and still feels as did Thomas Paine. Those people who called me at KCEP 

radio, know in their heart that something is wrong. They and their 

relatives and friends have done their time. They have done enough. They 

should be able to vote.

  This bipartisan amendment, in many ways is similar to the bipartisan 

compromise reached by Senators Dodd and McConnell. It does not go as 

far as some people would like, but it is certainly a giant step in the 

right direction. I hope the Members of this Senate would rally around 

this amendment and allow it to become law.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague 

from Nevada, this is an issue for the States, not the Federal 

Government. Voter qualification is generally a power the Constitution 

leaves within the prerogative of the States. The Constitution grants 

States broad power to determine voter qualification. It is highly 

doubtful that Congress has constitutional authority to pass legislation 

preempting the states with regard to this issue.

  The Ford/Carter Commission agrees with this assessment. The 

Commission concluded, ``we doubt that Congress has the constitutional 

power to legislate a federal prescription'' on States prohibiting 

felons from voting.

  In 1974 the Supreme Court held that convicted felons do not have a 

fundamental right to vote, and that excluding convicted felons from 

voting does not violate the Constitution. Federal courts have 

consistently dismissed lawsuits aimed at letting prisoners vote. One 

court even concluded that the facial validity of felon voting 

restrictions may be ``absolute.''

  Only two States do not impose restrictions on the voting rights of 

felons. In fourteen States, felons convicted of a crime may lose the 

right to vote for life. Congress should not interpose itself between 

the States and their people. As the Ford/Carter Commission said in 

their report:

       [W]e believe the question of whether felons should lose 

     their right to vote is one that requires a moral judgement by 

     the citizens of each state.

  This proposed amendment frankly, should fail on the merits. When a 

person is convicted of a felony, that person should lose their right to 

vote. Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to 

other citizens going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece.

  Voting is a privilege; a privilege properly exercised at the voting 

booth, not from a prison cell. States have a significant interest in 

reserving the vote for those who have abided by the social contract 

that forms the foundation of a representative democracy. We are talking 

about rapists, murderers, robbers, and even terrorists or spies. Do we 

want to see convicted terrorists who seek to destroy this country 

voting in elections? Do we want to see convicted spies who cause great 

damage to this country voting in elections? Do we want to see 

``jailhouse blocs'' banding together to oust sheriffs and government 

officials who are tough on crime?

  Those who break our laws should not have a voice in electing those 

who make and enforce our laws. Those who break our laws should not 

dilute the vote of law-abiding citizens. Fundamentally, Mr. President, 

as a former Governor yourself, this is a decision made in each State by 

the Governor, as to whether or not to restore the rights of convicted 

felons. But in any event, it seems to me a Federal prescription in this 

area, just as the Ford/Carter Commission concluded, is not appropriate. 

So I hope we will not seek to preempt this area of State law in the 

course of our action on election reform legislation.

Mr. President, I know also Senator Sessions wishes to speak on this 

issue. I think he will be here shortly. I yield the floor and suggest 

the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from Kentucky 

is very typical of what happens in instances such as this. We have a 

situation where we have now 36 States that allow felons the right to 

vote in various but limited ways. I went over some of them. This 

legislation simply is to correct what I believe are some problems in 

the law.

  In Federal elections, people who have the same qualifications should 

be able to vote. As I have said, 36 States already allow ex-felons to 

vote.

  It is easy to talk about terrorists and rapists and all that. But the 

point is that people who are convicted of crimes serve time. Sometimes 

they serve a lifetime. Those people can't vote. Sometimes people serve 

30, 40 years. Sometimes they serve 10 years. Sometimes they are on 

parole for many years. Sometimes they are convicted and they never go 

to jail; they are on probation. Whatever the sentence, they should 

serve it completely. But when they have done so, these people should be 

able to vote.

  It is easy to incite people, saying this is so terrible. Thirty-six 

States allow ex-felons to vote right now. Is this such a wave-breaking 

issue?

  I think it would be a terrible shame if we sent a message to millions 

of people in America today--people such as Mr. Miner, who in the 1960s 

did something wrong, but has since been a good citizen. We have a lot 

of people who would be better citizens if they could vote.

  Categories of felons disenfranchised under State law--some States 

even allow people in prison who are felons the right to vote. That is 

the way it is today. Some States allow people to vote when they are on 

probation. Some States allow people to vote when they are on parole.

  I am not doing that. I am saying a person who has completed his 

sentence and has completed his probation and parole should be able to 

vote. So I think it is really out of line for my friend from Kentucky 

to raise all these irrelevant issues, suggesting this is some big new 

deal that is going to cause problems. My amendment will allow millions 

of people to vote who deserve to vote.

  It goes without saying that one reason this legislation has not been 

embraced much earlier is that some people are afraid--afraid of unfair 

and irrational statements made such as those by the Senator from 

Kentucky. But the fact is all these bad people who are sentenced and 

jailed shouldn't be able to vote. I said that. But let us not confuse 

the issue. Once somebody is out of prison and they have completely 

finished their parole and probation, let them vote. It's the right 

thing to do.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on 

an issue of some importance, both as it relates to the traditional role 

between the States and the Federal Government and with regard to the 

constitutional role between the Federal and State governments, and then 

some personal insight into the idea that people who have been convicted 

of felonies in this country should be mandated the right to vote by the 

Federal Government in States that may not agree with that idea.

  Frankly, people who violate felony laws--this does not include 

juvenile crimes, it does not include traffic offenses, it doesn't 

include DUIs, and it doesn't include petty theft and small drug 

offenses. It deals with people who have felony convictions, many of 

whom have served time in jail. Historically, we have referred to those 

people as being outside the law or, in short, outlaws. All the way 

through the beginning of the United States of America, we have believed 

that a person who violates serious laws of a State or the Federal 

Government forfeits their right to participate in those activities of 

that government, that their judgement and character is such that they 

ought not to be making decisions on the most important issues facing 

our country. Virtually every State in this country takes that position 

to one degree or another.

  As a prosecutor for 15 years, I wonder about how those people I 

helped put in the slammer feel about me. I do not care about them 

voting on my election. Would it intimidate or discourage or diminish 

the ability of judges who run for election? Or would a prosecutor who 

runs for election in some way not be as aggressive? Would it be a 

concern to them? Would it allow votes to occur against a strong law-

and-order candidate that might not otherwise occur? I do not know.

  But, for a lot of reasons, our States have decided they do not want 

to give felons, people who have committed serious offenses in this 

Nation, the right to vote. That is a common practice in virtually every 

State in America where they have some restrictions on it.

  Sometimes what we do in this Chamber is argue about what we have the 

power to do. But the other question is, What ought we to do? I think 

this Congress, with this little debate we are having on this bill, 

ought not to step in and, with a big sledge hammer, smash something we 

have had from the beginning of this country's foundation--a set of 

election laws in every State in America--and change those laws. To just 

up and do that is disrespectful to them.

  At this very moment, in States throughout America, legislatures are 

discussing under what circumstances felons should or should not be 

allowed to vote. Some are allowing them to vote in any number of 

different ways, under certain circumstances, based on what crimes they 

may have committed, how long they served in jail, how long they have 

been out of jail, whether or not they seek a pardon and get it, whether 

or not they have been rearrested. Whatever they decide to do, it is 

going on in those legislatures.

  We have not had hearings, to my knowledge, on this subject.

  I am on the Judiciary Committee, which normally deals with those 

issues. We have not had hearings. We have not had anything but an 

amendment appear in this Chamber on this subject. It would be unwise 

for us to presume, after such a short debate, that we ought to just 

override the laws in every State in America. We should not do that out 

of respect for them.

  Most Americans are familiar with President Ford's and President 

Carter's work together on any number of issues--a Republican President 

and a Democratic President. They have had some discussion about these 

issues. They had a commission that dealt with voting issues. They 

concluded--I will quote from their report--``we doubt that Congress has 

the Constitutional power to legislate a federal prescription'' on 

States prohibiting felons from voting.

  In other words, they doubt that this Congress has the constitutional 

power--not a question of deference or propriety--to do this.

  That was a bipartisan commission with two of our elder statesmen for 

whom people in this country have great respect.

  The Supreme Court, in 1974, specifically held that felons do not have 

a fundamental right to vote and that excluding felons from voting does 

not violate the U.S. Constitution. That is clear law from the Supreme 

Court of the United States in 1974, and it has not been altered since.

  Another Federal court has even concluded that the facial validity of 

felon voting restrictions may be ``absolute.''

  So there may be one or two States that impose no restrictions on 

voting, but the overwhelming majority do. And they have given thought 

to it. Each State has different standards based on their moral 

evaluation, their legal evaluation, their public interest in what they 

think is important in their States. That is what I believe we should 

do. We should follow that.

  When we allow a brief moment of debate to alter State historic 

principles on issues of complexity such as this, we are really stepping 

beyond our bounds.

  I want to stay on the point a little bit about the propriety, about 

the deference, about the respect this Congress

[[Page S804]]

should give to States. Yes, there are certain steps we take when we 

believe it is in the overwhelming national interest--particularly when 

there is a need to have uniformity in rules and regulations--to pass 

some regulation for health or safety, such as for railroad width or 

whatever we decide to do. Those things are justified.

  But it ought not to come up with some last-minute vote without in-

depth hearings, without hearing from secretaries of States around the 

country, without hearing from State legislators who may have voted on 

it last month or may have voted on it last year and discussed these 

very issues and debated them within their States. And we come in now, 

and we are going to tell them: We do not care what you think. We do not 

care about your debates. We have not had debate here, but we are going 

to change our mind. We are going to change the law of America. And 

anybody who committed acts of murder, burglaries--whatever they did--

serious drug offenses, drug dealing, they can all vote now in America.

  I am not for that. Somebody else may be. That is a good matter to 

debate. The question is, Where should it be debated? I say it should be 

debated where it has always been debated: In the States of America. 

They have set the voting qualifications for our voters, except for 

certain major requirements that the Constitution places on them and 

Federal law requires. But this should not be an expansion now into this 

category of voting. I strongly oppose it. I think it is a big-time 

mistake. It is a rush job. It is disrespectful to the hundreds, 

thousands of State legislators who deal with these issues regularly.

  We have not had any serious suggestion, to my knowledge, that the 

voting process is being gummed up over this rule. It seems to be 

working well. Each State has its own system for identifying felons and 

informing them that they are not qualified to vote. To change that now 

on this bill would be a terrible step. It is something we would regret. 

If you believe President Ford and President Carter in the commission 

they established, it would be reversed by the Supreme Court of the 

United States as being unconstitutional.

  When we pass legislation in this Chamber, we have sworn to uphold the 

Constitution. If we have evidence that it is unconstitutional, we ought 

not to pass it on that basis, also. So as a matter of policy, respect, 

and constitutional law, it ought not to be voted for.

  Frankly, I do not think the American debate and American policy is 

going to be better informed if we have a bunch of felons in this 

process as opposed to them not being in this process. That is my 2 

cents' worth.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in 

support of legislation which has been offered by the Senator from 

Nevada, Mr. Reid, and myself. Carefully and narrowly crafted, it would 

authorize ex-felons who have served any prison sentence--for 

misdemeanors as well--who have fully served their prison sentence, and 

any parole or probation, to have the right to vote in Federal 

elections.

  The statistics are that there are only 15 States, and the District of 

Columbia, that have a prohibition limiting all felons from voting. The 

balance of the 50 States have various provisions that allow ex-convicts 

to vote in a variety of circumstances. Four States--Utah, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, and Maine--even allow felons to vote while they are in 

prison; 14 States, and the District of Columbia, only prohibit felons 

from voting when in prison; 32 States prohibit felons from voting while 

on probation and/or on parole.

  This amendment would authorize ex-convicts who have fully paid their 

debt to society to vote in Federal elections, leaving the matter for 

State elections to be determined by the State.

  It is my view that this provision would aid ex-convicts in being 

reintegrated into society and would be a fair provision on the basic 

proposition that these people have fully paid their debt to society. I