Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

A Wake Up Call

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the State of Washington’s Constitutional disqualification of convicted felons from voting, who have not had their civil rights restored, violates the federalVoting Rights Act.  In a 2-1 decision, the Court found that voting rights in Washington were being denied as a result of racial discrimination within the Washington Criminal Justice System.

Under the Washington Constitution, persons convicted of “infamous crimes” are disqualified from voting unless their civil rights have been restored.  By statute, the Washington legislature defines “infamous crimes” as ones punishable by death or imprisonment in a state correctional facility, i.e. felonies.  Convicted felons are not eligible by statute to have their civil rights restored until they have been released from state custody.  Several prisoners challenged the disqualification under the federal Voting Rights Act.  The challenge was supported by two statistical studies of racial disparity within the Washington Criminal Justice Systems conducted by University of Washington professors.  These studies found, in the words of the Court, that “police practices, searches, arrests, detention practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater burden on minorities that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

The studies noted, for example, that police policy choices to focus on crack cocaine and street drug trafficking (as opposed to powder cocaine and drugs deals in homes and apartments) fall disproportionately on African Americans and Latinos compared to those groups’ share of the drug trade in Washington. Similarly, the proportion of drug arrests of those groups bears no proportion to users among the races.  African Americans and Latinos were subject to police searches at higher rates than whites even though such searches resulted in fewer proportionate seizures.  Minorities were detained in disproportionate numbers even accounting for issues such as the severity of their crimes, past criminal records, community ties and prosecutor’s recommendations.  The evidence that the system is biased was “compelling.”  The Court concluded that because this racial bias resulted in a disproportionate felony conviction rate for minorities and resulting disenfranchisement, the Voting Right’s prohibition on denial of the right to vote because of race was violated.

The responses from the State Attorney General (he announced today that he’s appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court)  and Secretary of State have focused on the decision being an aberration. They are right.  The decision is an aberration in that other federal Courts of Appeal have held that felony disenfranchisement laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities are not violative of the Voting Rights Acts.  And even though the decision is well-reasoned, it likely will be overturned either on a full hearing before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.

The State Attorney General and Secretary of State have also argued that there is nothing wrong with the notion that a person convicted with a felony forfeits many rights including the right to vote. That conclusion can be subjected to a reasonable policy debate, but the people of Washington have spoke on this issue with clarity in the Washington Constitution.  And (as Josh reported from last year’s session in Olympia) the State legislature appropriately amended the reinstatement process last year to remove the draconian requirement that released felons pay all fines and interest associated with their sentence before their rights can be reinstated (a problem that infamously plagued Florida in prior elections).

But a debate on either of these points completely misses the significance of the decision.  The decision is a broad and ringing indictment of a criminal justice system that is broken and needs fixing immediately. There simply is no excuse for a system that is racially discriminatory.

This is a wake-up call to all levels of government from the Governor and the Attorney General to the Mayor and soon to be named police chief of Seattle to fix the system to make it fair and unbiased.  And if anyone gets to that, focus should also be given to the role of economics in disparities in the criminal justice system.  Poorer Washington citizens do not have equal access to justice in Washington and also bear a disproportionate burden from a system that is broken.




  • cowboy

    thank god someone has brains to deny this. what makes bleeding hearts feel they should ever have the rights to vote. released felons pay all fines and interest associated with their sentence bull crap. most of them go right back into the crime that got them their. i can see this world is a mess now if they let child molesters, rapest, serial killers and child killers vote i guesss this will all become legal soon

  • cowboy

    thank god someone has brains to deny this. what makes bleeding hearts feel they should ever have the rights to vote. released felons pay all fines and interest associated with their sentence bull crap. most of them go right back into the crime that got them their. i can see this world is a mess now if they let child molesters, rapest, serial killers and child killers vote i guesss this will all become legal soon

  • cowboy

    thank god someone has brains to deny this. what makes bleeding hearts feel they should ever have the rights to vote. released felons pay all fines and interest associated with their sentence bull crap. most of them go right back into the crime that got them their. i can see this world is a mess now if they let child molesters, rapest, serial killers and child killers vote i guesss this will all become legal soon

  • http://www.dorsolplants.com/ Dorsol Plants

    You do understand Cowboy a huge reason that released human beings who have served what was judged to be a fair sentence to pay for the crime they committed and return to crime are largely the result of two reasons.

    1. 40% of released inmates will be released homeless and stay that way. Leading to either desperate acts of a human trying to survive or violations of their terms for early release for such crimes as sleeping in a park because there are no shelters or urinating in an alley because you can’t use the bathroom without paying downtown.

    2. Even after serving the full term of their sentence many individuals seeking employment only to find that even Papa Johns won’t hire a former felon leading them to either under the table work or the one employer always hiring former felons….present felons.

    I have my own reservations about those presently being held being allowed to vote, and don’t agree with the concept. I do believe the point stands that this is a call to correct our presently broken justice system, and for us to look at our society and how we handle people who have served their time and allow them to interact with us.

  • http://www.dorsolplants.com/ Dorsol Plants

    You do understand Cowboy a huge reason that released human beings who have served what was judged to be a fair sentence to pay for the crime they committed and return to crime are largely the result of two reasons.

    1. 40% of released inmates will be released homeless and stay that way. Leading to either desperate acts of a human trying to survive or violations of their terms for early release for such crimes as sleeping in a park because there are no shelters or urinating in an alley because you can’t use the bathroom without paying downtown.

    2. Even after serving the full term of their sentence many individuals seeking employment only to find that even Papa Johns won’t hire a former felon leading them to either under the table work or the one employer always hiring former felons….present felons.

    I have my own reservations about those presently being held being allowed to vote, and don’t agree with the concept. I do believe the point stands that this is a call to correct our presently broken justice system, and for us to look at our society and how we handle people who have served their time and allow them to interact with us.

  • http://www.dorsolplants.com Dorsol Plants

    You do understand Cowboy a huge reason that released human beings who have served what was judged to be a fair sentence to pay for the crime they committed and return to crime are largely the result of two reasons.

    1. 40% of released inmates will be released homeless and stay that way. Leading to either desperate acts of a human trying to survive or violations of their terms for early release for such crimes as sleeping in a park because there are no shelters or urinating in an alley because you can’t use the bathroom without paying downtown.

    2. Even after serving the full term of their sentence many individuals seeking employment only to find that even Papa Johns won’t hire a former felon leading them to either under the table work or the one employer always hiring former felons….present felons.

    I have my own reservations about those presently being held being allowed to vote, and don’t agree with the concept. I do believe the point stands that this is a call to correct our presently broken justice system, and for us to look at our society and how we handle people who have served their time and allow them to interact with us.

  • sarah68

    If the unrepentant CEOs who ripped off the whole country and are now being paid huge bonuses for doing so are allowed to vote, then I don’t see the problem with letting people who have served their time for often lesser crimes voting again.

  • sarah68

    If the unrepentant CEOs who ripped off the whole country and are now being paid huge bonuses for doing so are allowed to vote, then I don’t see the problem with letting people who have served their time for often lesser crimes voting again.

  • sarah68

    If the unrepentant CEOs who ripped off the whole country and are now being paid huge bonuses for doing so are allowed to vote, then I don’t see the problem with letting people who have served their time for often lesser crimes voting again.

  • Sarge

    AG McKenna, and Cowboy miss the point. Instead of channelling energy into solving the problem of minorities being disproportionately incarcerated due to systemic racial bias, they want to focus on fighting for disenfranchisement of felons because they may be more likely to vote for Democrats.

    With Republicans, political dynamics trump social justice every time.

    Where is the AG’s outrage about the underlying injustice which led to the decision?

    “police practices, searches, arrests, detention practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater burden on minorities that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

  • Sarge

    AG McKenna, and Cowboy miss the point. Instead of channelling energy into solving the problem of minorities being disproportionately incarcerated due to systemic racial bias, they want to focus on fighting for disenfranchisement of felons because they may be more likely to vote for Democrats.

    With Republicans, political dynamics trump social justice every time.

    Where is the AG’s outrage about the underlying injustice which led to the decision?

    “police practices, searches, arrests, detention practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater burden on minorities that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

  • A in Seattle

    Maurice Clemmons should have been able to vote!

  • A in Seattle

    Maurice Clemmons should have been able to vote!

  • A in Seattle

    Maurice Clemmons should have been able to vote!

  • Mr. X

    Riddle me this, conservative “strict constructionists” – where in the US Constitution does it say you can deny fundamental individual voting rights due to a felony conviction?

  • Mr. X

    Riddle me this, conservative “strict constructionists” – where in the US Constitution does it say you can deny fundamental individual voting rights due to a felony conviction?

  • Mr. X

    Riddle me this, conservative “strict constructionists” – where in the US Constitution does it say you can deny fundamental individual voting rights due to a felony conviction?

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Advokat, the flaw in your argument is that you assume the two studies offered by the plaintiffs are accurate in their accusation of racial discrimination in Washington’s criminal justice system. The judges felt they had to accept that because the validity of the studies was uncontested by the state (which turned out to be a mistake in the state’s legal strategy) and because they had to consider it in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. But that DOESN’T mean that those studies don’t deserve to be challenged, or that they wouldn’t be shown to be bogus if they were actually challenged. Let’s not go off assuming that Washington’s criminal justice system is in fact racially discriminatory just because two questionable studies and these two judges say it is.

    You also need to read the dissent — the majority shouldn’t have directed the district court to grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs, but should have remanded the case to the district court for proper consideration of the plaintiff’s motion in a light most favorable to the defense.

    http://patterico.com/2010/01/06/more-on-that-ninth-circuit-decision-granting-voting-rights-to-felons-in-washington-state/

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Advokat, the flaw in your argument is that you assume the two studies offered by the plaintiffs are accurate in their accusation of racial discrimination in Washington’s criminal justice system. The judges felt they had to accept that because the validity of the studies was uncontested by the state (which turned out to be a mistake in the state’s legal strategy) and because they had to consider it in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. But that DOESN’T mean that those studies don’t deserve to be challenged, or that they wouldn’t be shown to be bogus if they were actually challenged. Let’s not go off assuming that Washington’s criminal justice system is in fact racially discriminatory just because two questionable studies and these two judges say it is.

    You also need to read the dissent — the majority shouldn’t have directed the district court to grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs, but should have remanded the case to the district court for proper consideration of the plaintiff’s motion in a light most favorable to the defense.

    http://patterico.com/2010/01/06/more-on-that-ninth-circuit-decision-granting-voting-rights-to-felons-in-washington-state/

  • A in Seattle

    @6 probably where it says you have the right to have a gun; I’m sure it’s in there somewhere, keep looking.

  • A in Seattle

    @6 probably where it says you have the right to have a gun; I’m sure it’s in there somewhere, keep looking.

  • A in Seattle

    @6 probably where it says you have the right to have a gun; I’m sure it’s in there somewhere, keep looking.