The Rap Sheet

In 1996, Congress expanded an existing law so that people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence could not own guns. In November of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of United States v. Hayes, which requires the Court to interpret the expanded law.

As it happens, only a few states (including California, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio) have laws that specifically criminalize domestic violence. In other states, domestic violence is illegal under their general laws outlawing assault and battery. Under such a law, Randy Hayes was convicted only of misdemeanor battery in 1994 after beating up his then-wife. A decade later, the police came to Hayes' home after receiving another domestic violence call. When the police found out that Hayes owned guns, Hayes was charged with and convicted of violating the 1996 law forbidding perpetrators of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning guns.

Hayes argues that the 1996 law does not apply to him, because he was convicted of misdemeanor battery, not of "domestic violence". A federal court of appeals in Virginia accepted this argument and set aside Hayes' conviction. The correctness of that ruling is now before the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department, seeking to uphold Hayes' conviction, argues that Congress clearly intended to prevent people like Hayes from owning guns. Furthermore, the Court shouldn't be swayed by the fact that Hayes was convicted only of a misdemeanor. He seriously beat his then-wife, but as in many domestic violence cases was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. (Prosecutors are often forced to allow domestic violence perpetrators to plead guilty to reduced charges because the victims refuse to cooperate.)

If the Court upholds Hayes' argument that the 1996 law's gun ban does not apply to him, Congress might re-write the law. A re-written law might outlaw gun ownership by all persons convicted of misdemeanors based on acts of domestic violence. Or, states that do not currently have such laws on their books might enact laws specifically outlawing domestic violence. In either event, the politicians will probably face opposition from the Gun Lobby. For example, the 2nd Amendment Foundation argues that "the right to own a gun shouldn't be taken away over a misdemeanor". I'm sure that thousands of domestic violence victims, as well as the families of the many cops who have been shot and killed while answering domestic violence calls, would disagree.

Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican Senator since 1968, was convicted by a jury of seven felony charges on Oct. 27, 2008. The felonies all involved corruption.  Stevens accepted huge gifts from oil corporations, but never bothered to report them.

Echoing the reactions of multitudes of convicted felons, Stevens immediately proclaimed his innocence and called the jury's verdict unjust. He blamed the verdict on prosecutorial misconduct and vowed that he would get it overturned on appeal. Blah, blah, blah -- so say all the powerful hypocrites like Stevens when they finally get caught.

What's particularly delicious about Stevens' professed faith in the appellate process is its newness. In fact, Stevens wasn't always such a big fan of appeals. Back in the mid-1990s, Stevens voted to limit the right of state court prisoners sentenced to death to appeal their convictions. Isn't it too bad that prisoners sentenced to death don't have the right to vote on Stevens' right to appeal?

Prior to his conviction, Stevens had gained notoriety for championing fiscal conservatism while earmarking huge sums of taxpayer money for pet projects that would benefit big Alaska donors. The most famous of these earmarks was the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," a ridiculously expensive project that would have reduced the travel time between two sparsely populated villages in Alaska.

Stevens' conviction may indicate that he never quite got that earmark fiasco out of his mind. When he comes up for sentencing in January of 2009, Stevens may find that he has built a Bridge to Prison.

Proposition 6 is a California ballot initiative that deserves overwhelming rejection on November 4, 2008.  While a few of its provisions toughen penalties for some types of violent crime, the main effect of the initiative would be to redirect billions of dollars in increasingly scarce state resources to its backers.  

Here are six reasons to say no to Prop. 6 on election day in California:

1. During a period when the state lacks money for basic services, Prop. 6 would require the state to spend a half billion dollars more than it already does for prison space. 
2. The state would have to hire hundreds of additoinal parole agents at a cost of about $125,000 per agent per year. (That figure would be sure to rise.)
3. Reeking of Hypocrisy Part 1: Henry Nicholas III, the initiative's primary financial supporter, is under indictment for a variety of federal crimes, including backdating stock options and providing drugs and prostitutes for clients.
4. Reeking of Hypocrisy Part 2: The initiative's legislative sponsors routinely attack and vote against state spending measures, but manage to keep a straight face while pushing for a law that would commit billions of dollars of state money to their pet projects.   
5. Prop. 6 is absurdly anti-democratic.  A virtually impossible-to-attain majority of at least 75% of the legislature would be required to alter any of its provisions.  The upshot is that legislators who regularly rail against "entitlements" are trying to cement them into state law.  I suppose it just depends on whose ox is entitled.
6. The initiative names Appriss Inc., a single private maker of VINE, a victim notification device, and rewards counties that use VINE. (For information about the company, go to http://www.appriss.com/)  Would you be surprised to learn that Appriss is lobbying hard for the initiative's passage?    

While Proposition 6 would be a terrible idea at any time, it is a partilcularly terrible in 2008 as the state faces one financial crisis after another.  This initiative is a crime, and the best anti-crime message the voters can send is to reject it overwhelmingly.

According to a common criminal justice aphorism, "If you do the crime, you'll do the time." In many states, however, the more accurate version of this aphorism is, "If you do the crime, you'll do the time -- and never vote again." In over 30 states, "ex-felon" is a label that bars people from voting even if they've fully paid their debt to society. Nationwide, over 4 million ex-felons have lost the right to vote. This is a lot of disenfranchised people in a country that has taken up arms and shortened lives in an effort to spread the blessings of liberty to less enlightened countries.

Since members of ethnic minority groups are over-represented in prison populations as compared to their numbers in the general population, the denial of voting rights to ex-felons has racial consequences. Estimates are that in some states, as many as 25% of African-American men of voting age are unable to vote because they are ex-felons.

State-to-state differences with respect to voting rights for ex-felons are an example of how much power states have to develop their own criminal justice practices. In Oregon and Utah, for example, felons can register to vote as soon as they are released from state custody -- even if they remain on parole or probation. In Washington state, by contrast, ex-felons can never vote. Thus, the happenstance of where people commit crimes can greatly alter their post-conviction rights.   

Community groups such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and The Western Prison Project are actively involved in efforts to restore voting rights to ex-felons, and their efforts are beginning to pay off. For example, a 2008 change in Florida law restored voting rights to more than 100,000 former felons.

Of course, the fact that greater numbers of ex-felons may be able to register to vote does not necessarily mean that they will. Laws granting voting rights to ex-felons are not self-executing. Ex-felons must be aware that they retain the right to vote and then must follow what may be complex registration requirements. Nevada, for example, recently restored voting rights to a limited number of ex-felons, but ex-felons who want to register to vote must petition the Nevada Board of Pardon and Parole to do so. Thus, community groups that hope to translate the right to vote into actual votes must work not only with state legislatures, but must find ways to inform ex-felons of their right to vote and then encourage them to register and show up at the polls.