I think Daniel's take on this is right. Vilsack, who
is approaching the end of his second term (and vows
not to seek a third), is simply introducing an
expedited procedure that the law would always have
permitted but his office always lacked (and was much
criticised for lacking). I suspect he is thinking
about establishing a profile beyond Iowa and is trying
to leave office with as much to show for himself as a
Democrat dealing with a hostile state assembly can. He
may also be trying to avoid Howard Dean's problem of
being the governor of an ultra-white state by building
up a track record of sensitivity to the concerns of
minorities. This will be a football in next year's
gubernatorial election and the Republican candidate
will probably run on a pledge to rescind the executive
order.
Kieran Williams
--- "Lowenstein, Daniel" <lowenstein@law.ucla.edu>
wrote:
Rick's headline--"Iowa Governor Will Give Felons
the Right to Vote"--might be slightly misleading.
As I understand the NY Times article, the governor
of Iowa has the power within his discretion to
restore voting rights to former felons. The
governor has said he will exercise his discretion to
restore the rights of all former felons who have
completed their sentences. But this does not mean
that former felons have received the right to vote
in Iowa. That is, this would not be binding on any
future governors, who could withhold restoration in
as many cases as they see fit. It is possible,
though I don't think inevitable, that the move will
be popular enough that future governors will be
likely to continue in the same mode.
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Best,
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Daniel Lowenstein
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ UCLA Law School
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 405 Hilgard
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 310-825-5148
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com