Good evening.  Welcome to this Brennan Center for Justice event. I am Sean Morales-Doyle,
deputy director of Voting Rights and Elections in the Democracy Program.
The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute affiliated with New York University
School of Law. We are partnered in producing this event with NYU’s John Brademas Center,
which advocates for civil debate on politics and public policy, and NYU Votes,
which strives to give every eligible NYU student the information they need to cast their ballot.
Please visit NYU.edu/NYU-votes for lots of resources about registering and voting. That’s NYU.edu/NYU-votes.
Tonight we’re here to discuss efforts around the country to restore voting rights to people with convictions.
As many of you surely know, across most of our country there are criminal disenfranchisement laws in effect
that deny many of our neighbors living and working in the community the right to vote.
These laws have historical roots in efforts to prevent Black citizens from voting, and
due to the racism inherent in our criminal justice system, they continue to have a
disproportionate impact on people of color.
Fortunately, there are people all over the nation working to roll back these laws, and we’re grateful
to have a number of these leaders here to discuss this from across the country.
I want to introduce each of them and also to give you a quick sense of where things stand in
their respective states. I’ll start by noting that we have, in a way, recently entered
a new era on this issue. For our nation’s entire history, there have been states
that permanently disenfranchised everyone convicted of a felony. As of 2018,
there were only three states left with that policy — Florida, Kentucky, and Iowa.
Then, in 2018, Florida’s voters passed a constitutional amendment putting an end to the policy.
Jhody Polk is here from Florida.
She’s founder and director of L.E.A.H., the Legal Empowerment and Advocacy Hub,
director of Community Justice at the River Phoenix Center for Peacebuilding,
and a 2018 Soros Justice Advocacy Fellow.
Then, after Florida’s historic move, in December 2019 Kentucky’s governor began using his clemency powers
to start automatically restoring voting rights to people in that state. Tayna Fogle,
a Democracy Fellow at Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, joins us to talk more about Kentucky.
Finally, just over a week ago, Iowa’s governor began using her clemency powers
to automatically restore voting rights to people in that state.
Daniel Zeno, the Policy and Advocacy Director at the ACLU of Iowa,
joins us to discuss that exciting development.
So now, literally just days ago, for the first time ever, there’s automatic rights
restoration of some form across the entire country.
But we also have reason to be hopeful for more change in the near future.
And, last but not least, our final panelist is Taina Vargas-Edmond, the co-founder and executive director
at Initiate Justice in California. In that state, there’s a proposition on the ballot in November, Proposition 17,
which would restore voting rights to people on parole and amend California’s Constitution.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for joining us. Before jumping in,
I want to invite those listening to share your questions for the panel. Type them in the Q&A box
and we’ll take as many as we can during the program. I want to start with a question for Daniel.
And I want to start with this question because I think it kind of ties together a number of the things
we’re going to be talking about today because, as you all just heard,
the changes to these laws can take a number of different forms. And in Iowa, we saw a big push, and
that Daniel was very involved in, to try to get the Constitution amended to put an
end to permanent disenfranchisement in Iowa.
They didn’t quite get there, but then as that was sort of falling apart a bit in the legislature —
and I’ll let you explain a little bit more, Daniel — there was a lot of advocacy to the governor,
who decided to use clemency powers that she had to restore voting rights to people that way.
And that’s something that Iowa’s — another Iowa governor had done in the past, and it’s kind of switched
back and forth between governors. So I want to ask you, Daniel, if you can speak to the way
that these different approaches to reform kind of interact with one another. And then maybe we can hear
from others about that question as well, as it’s played out in their states.
Yeah. Thanks, Sean. Yeah, it’s been — it’s been a long journey in Iowa. The Iowa Constitution disenfranchises
people. And because of some Iowa Supreme Court cases — in fact, litigation that the ACLU of Iowa’s
engaged in to challenge that — we weren’t successful.  And so in 2014 or 2015 the ACLU of Iowa,
in coalition with over 20 organizations across the state decided: you know what?
We’re just going to go for the gold and go for changing the Iowa Constitution.
And at that time, it really was a pipe dream.  It was something that we knew would take a
long, long, long time. In 2005, then-Governor Vilsack has issued an executive order restoring voting rights.
In 2011, then-Governor Branstad took it back. And so we, you know, got to the place where we said:
we got to have a permanent change. We can’t be in this place where every couple of years the governor changes
the regime for who can vote. And so we worked very hard. And eventually in January of 2019, Governor,
now-Governor Reynolds, a Republican, publicly supported changing the Iowa Constitution, which was a
huge shift. And while eventually we weren’t successful in getting that through the legislature,
ultimately we did change the conversation.
And so we changed the conversation from, "Should Iowa end lifetime disenfranchisement?" to, "When we end it,
what is it going to look like?" And that was a big shift.  And so even though the constitutional amendment
wasn’t successful in 2020, that’s where Iowa is right now, is what does it look like when we —
when we end this practice?
And so as the legislature was ending their work, the protests across the country were also happening right
here in Iowa. Des Moines Black Lives Matter was one of the leading organizations putting pressure on the
governor to say: there is something you can do right now. You can issue an executive order to make this
different and better right now. And you know, it was a good challenge, but a challenge for organizations like the
ACLU, others in our coalition like the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, others, who do our —
who generally do our work kind of in the system to navigate how do you — how do you coordinate with and
be respectful of and responsive to the voices of people on the street who are saying,
"We’re tired of waiting, do something now"? And so that is an ongoing challenge that
we’re working through to continue to be responsive, to listen to the voices of people who are — who are
part of the protests, others who are saying, "We can do this right now." And so because of all of that work,
on August 5th the Iowa governor issued an executive order restoring voting rights.  We believe —
I mean, thousands of people were impacted. Before the order was issued about 60,000 Iowans were not able
to vote. And so we’re really excited about the work we got to do before November to make sure that legal right
on paper becomes a real right, so people can actually show up and vote in November.
Yeah, I’m glad you raised that, Daniel. Thank you. That last point you made there, I’m hoping maybe Taina,
you can speak to this a little bit, about how things are going in Kentucky, another state where we’ve seen big
change recently. We’ve seen it again with an executive order. And also, like in Iowa, an executive order that has
some limitations in terms of who it reaches.  Can you speak a little bit about the work that is being done in
Kentucky to, as Daniel put it, sort of take that rights restoration on paper and turn it into actual civic
engagement and involvement? And any challenges that you’re facing in trying to get the word out to people?
First of all, I want to give honor to God, who is truly the head of my life, Sean, and without him
I would be nothing because I am one of those individuals who have a felony in their past, and there
are 312,000 or more Kentuckians who are just like me. And so it is true that our governor, in 2019,
gave — signed an executive order for 170,000 folks to get their voting rights back.
Senior Beshear, Governor Beshear, he also signed an executive order as he was leaving the governor’s office,
and then the following governor rescinded that executive order.  So thank God with all the work that we did in
Kentucky to push and move Governor Beshear and his office. It was a lot of work done.
But let me talk about the challenges as well as the accomplishments. Along with Kentuckians
for the Commonwealth and a lot of coalitions — and I am not going to start naming them because I'm gonna
forget some people and offend some people, so I am just not going to ... They know who they are in Kentucky,
and we're so proud to partner with them. But some of the things that we're doing is that we are reaching
churches. We are making phone calls. We have a program called ThruText
that we are locating that 170,000-and-beyond voters here in Kentucky. And so during the pandemic it is a
challenge to get to those folks because things are done virtually. But — however, we are setting up tables,
we're going door to door, we got lit drops that we’re leaving on people’s doors,
just talking about what’s going to happen in November.  The education piece of getting out to vote
is really difficult to do with individuals, and then just verifying that that list that exists here in Kentucky with
the people who have felonies in their past, just going down that list and working with organizations
and allies to help locate and educate and persuade folks that it is worth their while. One of the problems and
challenges that we have is that during the pandemic and even before the pandemic, most politicians
would not even come in the low-income, marginalized, people-of-color districts and talk about issues
that concerned them and so, therefore, the enthusiasm about getting to the polls just did not exist, and then it
started to dwindle. But now we have hope. We had a candidate that was running for the U.S. Senate and he
talked about issues that Kentucky was really concerned with.  As you all know that’s listening and as our
panelists know, we are sitting in a state with a U.S. senator that is slow to act on policies that we need
for health care, for voting, because voting goes beyond the ballot, and it really deals with people’s issues.
So those challenges that’s in front of us — we take one challenge a day, and then we try to break that down
and we talk across the state. We meet virtually to see what is the best practices that we can use. And so I’m
so excited about this election. Our constitutional amendment — Section 145 of the Constitution
disenfranchises folks with felonies in their past, and one out of every four Black African American people cannot
vote. So we have a real challenge and a lot of work to do, but we’re up for the challenge.
And I probably missed some of the things that we do, but we have great panelists on here,
so I’m going to slow down, and if there’s any questions around the state or around the nation
just put them in the chat and I’ll be ready to answer those.
Yeah, and I want to thank you, Tayna. That was very helpful. I do want to turn to Jhody
with some piece of this question as well. But before doing that, do you, is — what obstacles are you seeing
in terms of the confusion that comes from — you know, the governor’s order did restore voting rights to lots of people,
as you said, but not to everybody. And as you also said, this is something that’s changed over time.
You know, there was one governor with one policy, another governor with — that went back,
and then this governor’s now gone back to restoring rights. What do you see in terms of how confusion
impacts people’s ability to exercise this newly restored right in a state like Kentucky that is dealing with that history?
Well, I’ll tell you, there’s a lot of fear around voting here in Kentucky because of that confusion. Did the
executive order cover me? Can I vote? Should I register? Our voting says that you definitely are gonna
go to jail if you’re not supposed to be voting. The other confusing part of this is our mail-in ballot.
We are yet to get the word from our secretary of state, can we mail the — can we mail our vote in? Can we not?
What’s the process? What is the county clerks gonna to do? Because in the primary there was so much to do and
so much confusion about how to fill out your absentee ballot, when to turn it in. So when people get confused
like that and they’re also worrying worrying about if they got dinner tonight or if they got enough gas to get to
work or do they even have a job. So with all that mass confusion, some people kind of drop off. And so our job
is to keep them interested, try to give them some hope, keep showing them through my experience and other
people like me who are working as teams to get people eligible to vote. And we sign on — there is a website here
in Kentucky. It’s the Civil Rights Restoration, www.CivilRightsRestoration.org, where individuals can go
on, put their information in. But what about those individuals that don’t have computers? So that’s another
challenge we have, is just technology. So I hope I answered your question.
Absolutely. No, it was very helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you. So I’m dealing — you know, I’m getting used to the Zoom panel thing. I don't want to interrupt you.
It’s harder to give the cues and that kind of thing. So, no, it was fantastic. Thank you. So, Jhody, Florida, thankfully,
is a place where this hasn’t — this no longer is a back-and-forth executive order kind of situation, which
we had for a long time in Florida, but we have a constitutional amendment. It’s permanent or, you know,
as permanent as anything is, and there’s rights restoration now. But that doesn’t mean there’s not
confusion, and I’m hoping you can speak to a little bit of how that confusion is coming up in Florida. And I know
part of that is because there’s an ongoing battle about exactly what Amendment 4 means that we’re very
involved in. But also, I think Tayna started pointing to a couple things that I know you and I have spoken about
a lot about how there’s more to civic engagement and empowerment than simply changing the law
to give someone their right to vote back, and there’s more to actually making people feel like democracy is an
option — a real option that is available to them and that gives them agency in their lives than simply restoring
their right to vote. And so I’m hoping you can speak to that a little bit and how that’s playing out in Florida
in the wake of this huge victory that was Amendment 4.
Absolutely.  Thank you, Sean. And so, I mean, honestly mirroring what Tayna was saying, you know, in
Kentucky — and it’s, you know, interesting to hear so many deep similarities, you know. But a lot of times
we get often — we label people as disenfranchised, or these are marginalized or, you know, we understand,
like, the historic, you know, narrative of who people are and why they are disenfranchised. But these are
also — specifically in Florida, [inaudible] Florida, these are also isolated communities.
And so these are communities that are just typically living life truly unaware of the reality, the impact,
the realness, you know, of law and policy and just how that shapes and governs our lives. I, too, am
a formerly incarcerated woman. During my time in the Florida Department of Corrections, I was what’s
called a jailhouse lawyer. I was a law clerk.  And so I was always surprised at how many people would get to
prison and not even know, you know, legally how we — you know, how we’d gotten there.
And so a lot of times the criminal justice system is the only system that a lot of, you know, isolated community
members are, like, frequently, you know, interacting with, in a way. And so that has, you know, been a big part
of the confusion. We, too, have just creatively — especially being directly impacted individuals, these
communities, [inaudible] communities have looked at creative ways of how can we encourage?
You know, as Tayna was saying, you don’t teach citizenship. We believe at L.E.A.H., you know,
that it’s inspire. You’re encouraged. And that’s what gives me the hope to do and be who I am,
even when Florida, you know, doesn’t label me as such. And so we were just seeing how people were getting
discouraged with all of the back and forth, with all of the communication. A lot of time there’s this big
misconception that everyone is on YouTube. Everyone is, you know, on watching the news or, you know, plugging
into political information, and so thinking about who’s even sharing this information, if it wasn’t for,
I mean, literally not partners, but friends now that I would call them at various — the League, at the Brennan Center,
at NYU — that were constantly calling me and having regular conversations with me about what was going on
When you’re thinking about what people are surviving and going through, the reality that you’re sitting
down, reading, that you’re really following. And so it became very discouraging. Our media doesn’t always
give us just an accurate point-blank, you know, perception of what’s going on. And so, again, seeing
some of, you know, the issues that have happened with incarceration, that have happened for some people
around, you know, voter disenfranchisement, and then going to the ballots and registering to vote, a lot of us
didn’t know what it was. We didn’t know, like, what the final standpoint, you know, would be.
And so also, you know, not every county is the same. I live in Alachua County, where it’s definitely, you know,
progressive. And we had a supervisor of elections and just a community of leadership that didn’t just
want to figure this out, but they wanted to figure it out in favor to the community residents, you know,
who were directly impacted. And so while that didn’t provide all the answers, it at least, you know, gave us an
opportunity to create some type of bridge, you know, around [inaudible] where in the communities
because there was no final decision. You know, your supervisor of elections, you know, your leadership
in smaller counties could have just not cared, you know, to share information. And so really, again, keeping people
inspired and keeping people, you know, encouraged, but we definitely had to also make sure that we were
engaging people — to not just have a flyer or a pamphlet and more information about what was going on, but
really, like, how are we having conversations, you know, about what’s going on in a way, because it was key for
us, specifically after Amendment 4 was passed, on how do we encourage and how do we really bring, you know,
voting as a strategy to our local isolated neighborhoods.  We had to really do that work of connecting voting
to the issues that we were seeing inside of our neighborhoods. And so now we are thoughtfully,
you know, having these conversations with jailhouse lawyers in libraries in prison before people,
you know, even come home. Even we recognize that probation officers — because of just, like, the confusion,
we have probation officers that were not sharing accurate, you know, information and not — sometimes
because they didn’t want to, but because it was so changing, so moving. It was like, who knew? And so
it was more so like, you know, a theory. And so we definitely had to expand access, keeping folks
encouraged. But again, when you’re part of a system that just never acknowledged you or you never knew it
was there, with all this political back and forth, it feels sometimes like it’s getting further and further away
from people. So we literally have to, you know, reach out with hands, you know, and try to hold it as close to the
ground until we can start seeing some of the victories, you know, and also just encouraging more of those
conversations around the realities in Florida, as well as the visions and next steps in Florida.
Thank you for that. So, first, I just want to mention, because I’m not sure — I’m sure there are some people
watching that know some of what’s going on in Florida, but to give a little bit of context for some of what Jhody
and I are talking about here, after Amendment 4 passed, a law was passed by the Florida legislature that said
that — Amendment 4 said you'd have your rights restored upon completion of all terms of sentence,
including probation and parole. And then a law was passed by the Florida legislature that said: completion of
all terms of sentence requires you to pay off all the fines, and fees, and restitution, and costs that you owe.
And in Florida — like in many states, Florida heaps debt on people involved in the criminal justice system
and, you know, levies over a billion dollars every few years in fines and fees, et cetera. Billion with a "b," if
that’s not clear. And the Brennan Center and others have been suing Florida over that law now for over a year.
And we’ve had a number of victories, but our victory is currently on hold while we’re up on appeal in the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals.  And I can just say that as a lawyer who is actively litigating this case, I am not
entirely clear on who is eligible and who is not. The state of Florida, there ... the director of elections
testified in our trial she doesn’t know who’s eligible and who’s not. So the confusion is very real in Florida.
And hopefully we’ll have some resolution of that. But a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that it’s frankly
impossible for many people to figure out whether they owe money or not. Even though we know lots of people
owe money, Florida doesn’t have, like, a one-stop shop where you can look up what you owe. And so there’s
a lot of confusion that comes, whether or not we know what the rules are, we also — people just don’t even
know what it is that they owe. So I just wanted to give some of that context, because I feel like some of what
we’re talking about might be — you know, people might not be fully following. Taina, I want to turn to you now
again, last but not least, in my series of questions here. But a lot of what Jhody was just speaking to reminded
me of the phrase often used by the campaign in California, first for ACA 6, now Proposition 17 on the
ballot, which is “democracy needs everyone.” And I’m wondering if you can speak for a minute about what
that phrase means to you, and what it means about the need for rights restoration.
Sure. Thank you, Sean. And, you know, thanks, y’all, for having me on this panel. I’m so honored to be
here with such an amazing group of advocates from across the country. So the phrase "democracy needs
everyone” came from one of our currently incarcerated members by the name of Juan Haines. Initiate Justice
conducted a survey about a year and a half ago now asking people in prison and on parole, like, if you had
your voting rights restored, would you actually vote? What would your policy priorities be? Because the
opposition will often use the argument that people impacted by incarceration don’t care about voting, or
somehow will vote for scary, dangerous things. And that’s why we shouldn’t allow people to have the right to
vote. So when we conducted this survey we put together a report that analyzed the results. And Juan wrote
in his response — you know, the question was, "Why do you want to have the right to vote?" And he said,
"Because democracy needs everyone. " And that is something that became the title of our report. So folks
can, you know, check it out on our website. There’s a lot of really good analysis about, you know, how people
impacted by incarceration view themselves as participants in the political system. But what that phrase
means to me is, you know, just what it says. Like, this is a democracy. Unfortunately, it’s also a democracy
that has been rooted in historical racism, and sexism, and, you know, systemic disenfranchisement
for different categories of people. So it started off as, you know, saying that enslaved people could not vote,
that, you know, indigenous people could not vote, that women could not vote. You know, during the Jim Crow
era there were, you know, poll taxes and literacy tests and other ways to keep marginalized people out of
the political process. And now the age of mass incarceration is our new, you know, systemic way of
keeping people out of the political process. And I believe that in a democracy this is, you know, something that
is just absolutely unacceptable. It’s not rooted in any interest in public safety. You know, studies actually show
that when people have their rights to vote either in prison, like they do in Maine and Vermont, or, you know,
as soon as they’re released from prison, as is the case in I think 19 other states now, that the rates of recidivism
go, like, way down. And, you know, the rates of violent offenses are also reduced. So if we’re talking about
creating a safe system, if we’re talking about creating a just and fair system in a modern democracy, in a
democracy that likes to be considered, you know, a beacon of freedom around the world, then how is it that
we have some of the harshest disenfranchisement laws out of any democracy in the world? Most other countries
in the world never take — most democracies in the world don’t take away a person’s right to vote, period.
And in the United States, I believe that it’s, you know, purely based on our addiction to punishment
and punitive justice.
And I want to follow up real quick on that with a question for you about — you know, I think Jhody was
speaking earlier to the fact that within Florida the way that this is being handled varies from county to county,
depends on the politics. There are places that are more progressive. There are places that are more
conservative, et cetera. I think most of us probably think of California as a relatively progressive part of the
country. And yet, you know, California, as you said, is behind 19 other states and Washington, D.C. here, right?
And New York, another place that, you know, I think people think of as a progressive place, also — at least on
the books — denies people the right to vote while on parole, like in California. The governor there has been
taking some action, kind of similar to the ones we’ve been talking about with other folks today. But why
do you think it is that we have this problem in a place like California, that’s progressive, and this, as you put it,
addiction to incarceration that is so closely linked with this? If you could speak to how that’s playing out
in a progressive place like California, I’d appreciate that.
Yeah, well, California is progressive in many ways, and unfortunately, the justice system is not one of those
places where we are very progressive. We have the largest prison population out of any state in the country.
Actually, now we have the lowest population in over 30 years because of the Covid pandemic, and some folks
are starting to be released. But we still have about 100,000 people currently incarcerated in state prisons,
and about 80,000 people in county jails. The L.A. County Jail, where I’m — where I live, is the largest mental health
provider in the country. So I think that, you know, we also just have a history of treating prisons and jails as our
one-stop shop for social services. And, you know, because we have, like, built up this legacy, and that in
conjunction with our addiction to punishment, is where it becomes really difficult for us to move on
CJ issues and, you know, to — it seems like it would be very straightforward to say, you know, citizens in a
modern democracy should be able to have the right to vote. But when we connect voting rights with
punishment, and we see, like, the removal of the right to vote as part of that punishment, that is a way of thinking
that is very difficult to challenge.
And then I think I want to pose this maybe to all the rest of the panelists, but I was thinking Jhody and Daniel.
You know, what we’ve seen in Iowa and in Florida, states that are dominated — or, you know, to varying degrees —
but by a much more conservative brand of politics than in California, that this is an issue where there is —
you know, there’s actually, despite the struggles that Taina was talking about in California, this is an issue
where we see support across political lines. The ballot initiative in Florida, it required 60 percent of the vote
for Amendment 4 to pass, and 64.5 percent of Floridians voted for it. And then in Iowa we see a Republican
governor come out and go further than the people of Florida went. And so I’m curious what both of you think
about why — what it means, first of all, that at a time when we see so much polarization we’re seeing that
kind of agreement on this issue. And also, why you think we’re seeing that kind of agreement on this issue.
To either one of you. I know I’ve made it awkward now because you have to —
You know, and I have to say, so that was one of the first times — if Amendment 4 didn’t do anything
for me, because I’ll never forget — I would have never known about Amendment 4. I wanted to go
to law school. I was just interested in getting to law school. I found a formerly incarcerated lawyer that knew
Desmond Meade to introduce me. And I was reaching out to Desmond. And, you know, I learned about
Amendment 4, you know, through that way. And so when then becoming a part of the campaign
and working on the campaign, it was the first time in my life, you know, that I felt community in a big sense
in Florida. I’d always felt it in my local neighborhood, but I have to say Amendment 4 was the first time
as a Floridian that I ever felt that, you know, we were an entire community. And I’ll never forget because we didn’t
have a lot of bumps. I mean, it was almost like it went through that last year, you know, before the challenges
really started to come. And I’ll never forget it was like, you know, when the governor put out that first appeal and
it was just like — for me it was like, you know, we could have expected that. And I’ll never forget, like, the week
and, you know, other partners and people saying, "No. We said no." Even partners from out of state, you know,
like the Brennan Center saying, "No. We said yes and we meant yes." And so that was the second time I was like,
okay, we really have a community. I’ll never forget working on the campaign, which I have to say is the first
time I learned about the 13th Amendment. It was the first time I even knew what that meant, the first time I
learned about it — working on a campaign to restore voting rights in Florida. And then I also learned that 70
percent of the people who were, you know, directly impacted in that 1.4, you know, million people who
could — who were disenfranchised were not even, you know, people of color. And just so like, for the first time
I was like, whoa. You imagine, you know, that it’s always the same people — the criminalized, it’s the Black people,
it’s those poor Black people. It’s like, for the first time in my life I realized that incarceration impacted people
beyond Black people, beyond people in my neighborhood that look like me that were formerly
incarcerated people. I’ll never forget, because I was the Central Florida organizer, traveling between multiple
counties having conversations to encourage voters, and how many people that did not look like me, not in my age
range, that was like, me too. Or how many people shared a story about a child or shared a story, you know,
about a son. So it was amazing that when the lid came off that, you know, for so many people, and also so many
people that whispered it. You know, whether they supported it out loud or not I got a chance to see that it
really impacted all of us or a family member in some type of way. And so I can’t help but, you know, think
about — I love the way Taina, you know, stated that, this addiction to punishment. And so when you get caught in
that cycle, you know, sometimes it’s easy to imagine who it impacts. But it impacts, you know, a lot of us.
And again, for Florida, you know, that other hidden truth of it was a whole community that existed outside
of our local neighborhood. So those were two kind of personal impacts that I realized in Florida.
Yeah, similar, similar to what Jhody —
Sorry, before you start, Daniel, I just want to give one more plug to everyone watching to get your questions in
because we’re going to switch to Q&A in a second. But, sorry, go ahead, Daniel.
Similar to what Jhody said, I mean, there was polling done in 2019 and in 2020 in Iowa that showed more
than 50 percent of people across the political spectrum supported ending lifetime disenfranchisement.
In my — in my work traveling around the state talking with legislators and talking with people across the
state — so before the executive order on August 5th, 2020, Iowa disenfranchised every person convicted of
every felony. So what that actually means in real terms is if you damage property worth $1,501 or more,
that’s a felony in Iowa, right? And so when you really begin to talk about it that way, kind of what Jhody said,
that interconnectedness. You really hear from people who say, oh yeah, my cousin, my brother, my
family member, my community member. And it’s not just Black people in urban areas. Iowa is a very, very white
state. But it’s rural white people who were convicted of a felony when they were 22 and have never voted for 20
years. And so it really, I think — as we did the work, it really started to connect those dots. People began to
see, wait, this actually is about people in every county across the entire state. And if we re-enfranchise people
and help people be able to participate, to vote for the mayor of their small town where everybody knows
everybody, right, that actually starts to make communities and families and individuals better. And so
it — I think it was — that’s part of — part of the excitement we have, is when the governor signed the
executive order on August 5th she said, "I’m signing this order but I still want to work on a constitutional
amendment." Because we know that we got to make this permanent so that we no longer have to worry about
who’s in the governor’s seat, but we know every Iowan will be — every eligible voter in Iowa will be able to vote.
Thank you so much to everybody. I’m gonna try to — gonna try to switch to audience questions here now,
and one of those questions — I think this panel is a great example, demonstrates how much these efforts across
the country are led by people who have been directly impacted by these laws and I think that’s part of what
we were thinking with the name here, “This is What Democracy Looks Like,” right, that, you know, here we
have efforts, democratic efforts, true democracy happening in practice led by people who are formerly
locked out of the democratic system, right, not allowed to cast a vote but still leading these efforts to actually
achieve true democracy. And so one of the questions we had here is about how allies of these efforts support and
advocate alongside and in support of directly-impacted people. But I think I want to ask that — I want to sort of
add to that question and say, you know, for each of you, and for anyone who wants to take this, what is the
significance to you of the role that directly-impacted people play in these movements and then, also, how
does that interact with the role of others of us who are, you know, allied and working alongside and supporting
and lifting up the voices of directly-impacted people and how does that work best?
And, Tayna, it’s been the the longest since you spoke so if you want to take that.
So you know what? I want to share a story about impacted people standing strong and showing up.
Here in Kentucky, when the Kentuckians for the Commonwealth have — we have mass phone banking
across the state. So as we are being empowered, I reach out and others reach out to other impacted people
and we get on the phones and we call folks when it’s time to vote and thereafter, and impacted people really —
what we used to say — put to shame folks who have the right to vote that don’t vote. You know, we always
raise up our voice, said, "Here we are. We’re struggling. We’re fighting for the democratic process and that we
really, really want to vote." You know, our state constitution that does not allow us to vote, I worked on
the campaign for 14 years and it was House Bill 70, trying to change the constitution just like Florida is
working on and Iowa is working on. It is great to see folks who are impacted with the fact that we have lost
our right to — if you asked me when Judge Overstreet gave me those ten years and said, "Complete this term,"
that’s exactly what that means. My behavior should not have anything to do with how my mother taught me
how to vote and how we go out and try to stand up for what is right. And so I think it’s a great effort
on everybody’s part to show up, be loud. We practice — you know, sometimes we have to get radical. But we
try to do it peacefully and we let people know we made a mistake but we’re not a mistake, and that our voices
should be heard, and that our behavior went with our misconduct. And usually, all we’re trying to do is get back
to the dream, and the dream is to sit here and decide who’s going to be on that school board for my children
and my grandchildren. Voting is everything, and that’s all I really want to say so other panelists can have a part in
this.
Thank you, Tayna.
Yeah, and if I could just add to that. You know, something that we often say at Initiate Justice is that
impacted people are the experts of our own experiences. You know, my loved one was in prison for
seven years and spent two years on parole, so total, you know, spent nine years without the right to vote.
And I think often, you know, folks like my loved one or myself or the other people who we organize with are
kind of viewed as people who are valuable for sharing our stories, but maybe not being thought leaders
or, you know, lead organizers. So I think that, you know, some things that allies can do is, you know, trust our
leadership, invest in our leadership, and help us, you know, to develop skills where they are necessary.
I’m learning on the job right now with this Prop 17 campaign. I have never run a ballot initiative before,
but I’m very grateful for allies who have, you know, leveraged their skills and experience and say, "Here, you
are the expert in this because you’re directly impacted by this, so here are some tools that you can have. Here's
some advice. Here’s some funding." Donate to grassroots organizations. There’s plenty of ways that you
can do that. I think, you know, now, in the age of the pandemic and Zoom, get creative. Have a Zoom party.
You know, do something and, you know, contribute to your favorite local organization, because when we’re
doing this work, like, from the bottom up, every dollar helps. Every — you know, there are so many ways that
folks can extend a hand to, you know, really, like, trust us and invest in our leadership.
And be prepared to do it it outside of your office hours.  I have to just say, people who are living real life are living
life. Be prepared to do it after 6 o'clock, after 7 o'clock. Be prepared to break it down. Don’t just send an email.
Do not just, you know, call our phone. I mean, really, you know, be prepared to go the distance. It’s about
relationships, you know, and partnerships in addition to just [inaudible].
And I also just have to say that when we think of directly impacted people, it’s not just formerly incarcerated
people. It’s incarcerated people, as well. We do some of the most amazing work in and through the prisons and
and the jails. I mean, we are organized. And so be prepared to go beyond the box and beyond the time
commitments and recognize that we are the translators, you know, advocates and, you know, supporters.
I’m thankful for the knowledge and, you know, privilege and power and all those words, you know, that people
put to it. But at the same time, we’re the translator. Like you said, Taina, we’re the leaders. So come in a way
that you know is true partnership.
And I’d just quickly add — look, meet people where they are and listen, because I think often what happens
is those of us that are allies, those of us who are in organizations that have power, resources, access, we
show up and say, "Here’s what we can do for you. How can you fit into that thing?" I think you show up and you
listen and you hear, "Oh, so you think this is the thing we should do?" And then you work on that thing, right,
because I think that’s where you really begin to build relationships and not just use people for your goals, but
you’re actually listening and helping give — using your power to help other people achieve the goals that
they’ve set out. I mean, that’s a really, really important part. And it’s ongoing work. It’s work that I continue to
try to do every day, working inside the ACLU. And so it’s not a one-time thing. It’s something you’ve got to keep
working on.
Yeah, I think that’s a great point, Daniel. Thank you, everybody. I’ll just say, I find — this is not really a
response to that question, but it’s something that I want to say — I find what’s so powerful — I appreciate what
you said, thinking about believing in people’s leadership and supporting it and that it’s — that folks aren’t just
here to tell their story but to actually do the democratic work and lead the work. And I think to me what’s so
powerful about that is that it kind of proves the point along the way, right, like whatever people think, whatever
sense people think there is to criminal disenfranchisement laws — and I don’t think there is
much — but whatever sense they think that there is to denying people the opportunity to participate, I think
seeing these movements led by the people who are locked out of democracy, seeing them perform
democracy that way and engage in ways that your average citizen never dreams of engaging with
democracy, really just proves the point that we’re all trying to make about the importance of rights restoration
and what it means when we say democracy needs everyone. And so I — you know, this is why democracy
needs everyone. Look at the way that folks are actually being democratic and engaging in democracy in
ways that your typical citizen just doesn’t, because it takes all of that work outside of business hours,
et cetera. So I find it really powerful for that reason. Another question we got from the audience is how you
all have worked to build the type of bipartisan support we were just talking about, and more generally how
advocates can learn from your experience to build stronger coalitions, to bring more people to the table to
have this conversation and move the rights restoration forward.
Again, I know this is weird on Zoom with —
So for me, two amazing strategies — and I have to say, there are so many — but what I’ve realized for me
is that community peacebuilding and legal empowerment are just two strategies, I mean,
hands down for me, that really helps people to not just choose whether you’re a Democrat, or a Republican, or
choose a side, or choose an option. But it helps people to have their legal identity, to have identified, you know,
what are those, you know, barriers, those triggers? I mean, I’m traumatized every time, you know, I’m in one
of these spaces or I’m going into the court. I mean, that never goes away, you know, either. And so the
peacebuilding practices really gives people the opportunity to just, you know, self-own this process for
them, so that it doesn’t matter how the politics and everything else is moving. It’s personalized for you. And
then in legal empowerment, you know, recognizing that before a person can become a shaper of the law, you
have to be a knower and a user. So really making sure that you don’t just have the right answers, but we’re
asking the right questions and making sure that people can understand, and people can practice, so that then
people will be inspired and naturally shapers of the laws where they fit in, you know, that meets their needs.
I think similar to the points that Jhody and Daniel were making earlier on the strategy that we used in California,
because we had to move the legislature to pass the constitutional amendment, and now we’re moving to the
ballot in November. We really just built connections between policymakers and, you know, people directly
impacted by incarceration. You know, we were in the capitol all of the time with, you know, people on parole,
sitting in their offices and, you know, talking about how they’ve been contributing to their communities,
and not just since they’ve been home, but the work that they did when they were in prison as well.
There’s this idea that people in prison or, you know, formerly incarcerated people are somehow less than
human and are not contributing members of society. But in my opinion, especially, like, being close to
someone in prison for seven years, folks in prison are doing a lot more work on themselves than the average
person is out here. They are reading a lot more books. They are much more educated than the average voter.
So when they come home, like, they're very well equipped to talk about what policies are a priority for
them. So it has been really important for us to — you know, just show the humanity of people impacted
by incarceration and, like, debunking a lot of these, like, really horrible and inaccurate myths that we have.
And so I’d like to say plus-one to the speakers that went before me. And absolutely, relationship building.
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth is member-led all the way across Kentucky. And so as we work
with other coalitions, especially the new coalition, From the Hood to the Holler, and we embrace each other,
issue-based is what is really helping us. The poor health care in Kentucky — we have a man that is a
U.S. senator that is just sitting there. And so that is affecting everybody across the state, especially people
who are just reentering in the community, trying to get a new start. So relationship-building and
issue-building is what we — those are just a few of the strategic things that we’re doing, other than going down
to the capitol. In our old normal we would always be in the capitol. We would be in legislature’s face,
demanding to speak to them, demanding that they listen. And so those are some of the strategic ways that
we move around in Kentucky.
And, look, I’ll just plus-one on focusing on issues. So the ACLU, we’re nonpartisan. We show up. And in Iowa,
Republicans run the House, the Senate, and the governor’s office. And there is a big-picture narrative that
is true that, generally speaking, Republicans are not the party that generally does positive voting rights things.
And yet, in this — on this specific issue, the constitutional amendment that was introduced in Iowa
was a governor’s bill — the Republican governor introduced the bill, right? And so showing up and saying,
"Look, we can disagree on all kinds of other stuff, but I think we actually agree on this one thing. Let’s figure out
how to work on it. Let’s figure out how to make it better." And so really just focusing in on that — on those
specific issues.
Thank you, everybody. We’re just about out of time. I’m going to ask another question that I think, hopefully,
we can get a quick answer from everyone, but it’s not going to be — you know, we’re not going to get as much
from everyone as we’d like. But that’s — you know, we’ve seen a lot of progress on this issue, as all of you
are living examples of, in just the past couple of years around the country and in all of your states. Or maybe
we’re about to see that progress in California. So I’m wondering what you all think is the future of this
movement, whether that means the legal future or, you know, we’ve heard from some of you about turning the
the rights on paper into actual civic engagement. And also, I want to leave it open, like, the future of the
movement very broadly speaking or in your state, like you know, getting Proposition 17 passed or whatever
that is. So, leave that to each of you and maybe we can start with Taina.
So in California right now the only folks who don’t have the right to vote are people who are currently
incarcerated in state or federal prison or on parole. So Prop 17 will remove those restrictions for people on
parole. So I think the next step for us after that is removing all voting restrictions. I’m ready for California
to join Maine and Vermont and be the next state where — or I guess now D.C., as well — and be the next state
where you never lose your voting rights because of a conviction.
And also more immediately, people should vote "yes" on Prop 17 in November.
And in Kentucky, removing the carveouts that the governor has under the executive order is what I
would say, so that everyone will be able to vote.
Yeah. And in Iowa, I think we are focusing on educating people from the executive order that was issued last
week so they can vote in November, and then already starting the work so that in 2021 we’re working on the
constitutional amendment again.
All right, Jhody, take us out —
Yeah. So the immediate statewide goal is that there be no confusion and that we also join that list of just, you
know, your rights is your rights — (inaudible, technical difficulties) — a goal in the future for Florida is that your
civil rights completely are restored. Voting rights is just one small right that I’m trying to get back. I want to see
all my rights back.
Right.
Right. Thank you so much to everybody. Our huge thanks to Tayna Fogle, Jhody Polk, Taina
Vargas-Edmond, and Daniel Zeno. We wish you all the very best of luck with all of your work, and hope to
continue to partner with all of you on this work. We’re so grateful for your partnership. We’re also grateful for the
partnership of the NYU Brademas Center and NYU Votes for collaboration on this particular program. We
encourage all students to vote. We really encourage everyone to vote, but since we’re working with NYU
Votes, we’re going to focus right now on we encourage all you students to vote. A few more notes to bolster our
democracy before we leave you. If you haven’t already, please go complete your Census form online at
My2020Census.gov. It is quick and the most efficient way to get the Census done, despite the challenges of
the coronavirus pandemic. Tell everyone you know to make sure they get counted in 2020. If you can sign up
to vote by mail or participate in early voting in your state, please do so and tell your friends and family to do so.
If you can’t vote by mail and participate early in your state, call your local member of Congress and let them
know you want those options to protect your vote and you want them to fund a safe, sanitary, free, fair, open
election in November, despite the fact that we have a pandemic going on right now. I am Sean Morales-Doyle.
I’m the deputy director of Voting Rights and Elections at the Brennan Center. I thank you all so much for coming
and supporting the work of the Brennan Center for Justice. Please attend more of our events in the future.
Thanks again to all of our panelists. Take care, everybody.
