DES MOINES, Iowa – Nearly a year after a legal defeat, voting-rights advocates are continuing their fight to end Iowa's lifetime voting ban for felons.

In Iowa, along with Kentucky and Florida, people with felony convictions are constitutionally prohibited from voting, but can appeal to the governor after serving their sentence.

Mike Cervantes is executive director of InsideOut Reentry, an organization serving individuals returning from incarceration. He says there are many challenges as one reintegrates into society after serving time, and the inability to cast a ballot makes it harder to feel like part of the community.

"The biggest part of our democracy is just having a say - whether it's for president or who's running the school board," says Cervantes. "We like to think of it as the simplest way to welcome someone back. It doesn't cost anything. It doesn't put anyone in any danger."

He adds there's evidence that people who return from prison and become voters have lower recidivism rates.

InsideOut Reentry is among nearly two dozen organizations with "Restore Iowa Votes," a coalition that supports legislation and a state constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to Iowans convicted of felonies. More than 50,000 Iowans are said to be unable to vote due to a prior felony.

Cervantes notes Iowa's laws on the matter have been difficult to follow. In 2005, Gov. Tom Vilsack provided automatic restoration of voting rights to people who completed their sentences for felony convictions.

But in 2011, Gov. Terry Branstad reinstated procedures for people with felony convictions to apply to have their voting rights restored. Last June, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the state's felony voting ban.

Cervantes contends the process of appealing to the governor is stressful, involving proof of payments for court costs and a criminal background check.

"That process is very difficult for many people," he explains. "In fact, of the thousands of people who become eligible every year, maybe 15 or 20 a year are able to complete the application and get their voting rights back."

Last year, the governor reduced the number of application questions from 29 to 13.

Meanwhile, Florida's Supreme Court recently approved language for a 2018 ballot initiative that, if approved, would restore voting rights to felons.




get more stories like this via email

More testimony was heard yesterday about term limit reforms in North Dakota, an issue voters around the state might have to decide again.

In 2022, North Dakota voters approved imposing term limits for state lawmakers and the governor. Legislators can no longer serve more than eight years in the House and Senate.

But a handful of bills this session call for another ballot question, to raise state lawmakers' term limit to 12 years.

Sen. Justin Gerhardt, R-Mandan, sponsor of one bill, said the new framework threatens the value of experience at the State Capitol.

"Our citizen-led Legislature meets for only 80 days every two years," Gerhardt pointed out. "By the time a new legislator gets a handle on the budget process, legislative rules and the needs of their district, they're already on their way out the door."

He added his bill also addresses the issue of lawmakers who are appointed to fill a seat. Opponents said the moves undermine the will of the voters.

A separate bill proposing a new statewide vote on the prospective changes will be heard this morning. If one of the measures advances to the ballot, it likely would come up in the 2026 general election.

Those who want term limits said they foster fresh voices in policymaking.

Kevin Herrmann, a resident of Beulah, is one of the many people to testify against the new reform efforts.

"This resolution is a way for legislators to get back their legislative power over the citizens of North Dakota," Herrmann contended.

Another thorny element to this debate is, the 2022 ballot question included language prohibiting state lawmakers from trying to force the issue down the road. One of the bills in question repeals the language in trying to get the question back on the ballot. Backers of the proposals acknowledge they are likely to draw court challenges over constitutional arguments.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

A coalition of rural, progressive Democratic organizations is urging the new chair of the national party to invest more in rural and working-class communities in Nevada and around the country.

Anthony Flaccavento, executive director of the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative, said it's time for the party to start prioritizing these often forgotten groups, especially after the party's lackluster performance in November in which large portions of these groups rejected Democrats.

"If we don't begin to win back a significant part of these rural and working-class people, then Trump will more than likely survive these four years intact in the sense of getting his policies enacted," he said.

Flaccavento called the opposition reignited by Trump being back in the White House "promising," but adds it has to reach beyond highly educated, liberal folks. Nevada's rural voters make up a small fraction of the state's electorate, the majority being held within Clark and Washoe counties. That's where Democrats have focused their efforts and have stayed competitive. But Flaccavento pointed out that now more than ever, his party needs to regroup, restrategize and reinvest in rural, working-class America.

The new DNC chair, Ken Martin, the longtime leader of Minnesota's Democratic Party organization, recently wrapped up a multi-state tour in which he aimed to appeal to the working class. He has publicly acknowledged that the party has lost ground with working-class and rural voters. Flaccavento said time is of the essence which is why his coalition of groups is urging action now.

"How about we start with a focus on the DNC, with new leadership coming up, and try to get them on board with this and then work with the DNC to work with Democratic donors and the party in general to shift the focus and start investing in these two communities," he continued.

Flaccavento said many Democrats need to make long-term investments in "abandoned" counties where party leaders feel alone and locals feel like their requests and priorities are falling on deaf ears.

"We will not see results in one or two election cycles, but we might see results in a decade. And then in the battleground states do the same thing, but with more expectation that it'll actually yield election results in 2026 and in 2028," he concluded.

A South Dakota Senate committee considers several bills today to overhaul rules for getting citizen-led measures on the ballot.

The proposals are drawing sharp debate about the future of direct democracy. Republican lawmakers want stricter requirements for ballot questions when South Dakota residents or affiliated organizations seek things like a constitutional amendment. One bill calls for raising the approval threshold to 60% of the vote when a measure gets onto the ballot.

Stacy Roberts, board co-chair for the advocacy group Dakota Rural Action, said the attempt appears to undermine voters' intelligence.

"They're basically telling the population of South Dakota that they don't know what they're voting for, and I think that's very untrue," Roberts asserted.

Whether it is signing a petition or deciding a ballot measure on Election Day, Roberts feels voters are well-informed. She likens the bills to "sour grapes" following the success of recent initiatives, like Medicaid expansion. Bill sponsors said the ballots have been cluttered with too many citizen-led initiatives and higher standards are needed for constitutional changes.

Roberts countered the process has enough safeguards to ensure the integrity of South Dakota's Constitution. Bill sponsors argued some measures are driven by well-funded, out-of-state groups. But Roberts contended making it harder to approve them actually puts more power in the hands of wealthy influencers, not the people.

"Large funders get a more disproportionate voice and a seat at the table when you make these changes," Roberts emphasized.

She pointed to a grassroots-led ballot question last fall, when South Dakota voters overturned a controversial law dealing with carbon pipeline projects.

Historians noted South Dakota has been a trailblazer, as the first state to embrace this form of democracy. Roberts added the ballot initiative process has benefited both sides of the political aisle and those unhappy with recent results should take it up with the voters, not change the rules.

"We all can work on it and change it," Roberts underscored. "That makes for a much more engaged general population."

The measures have already cleared the House. If the Senate advances them, the two proposals would go on the 2026 ballot, with voters having the final say on updating requirements.