In New York, convicted felons are not allowed to vote until they have served their sentence. Voting rights are automatically restored after the sentence is completed. Whether the conviction is for homicide, rape, assault, or grand larceny, the conventional thought is that because the criminal broke the social contract that all citizens have with their community, they should lose their right to vote. However, in light of the shift of political power in the state, and under the guise of social justice, Democrats in Albany have now made a renewed push to provide incarcerated felons the right to vote.

Last month, legislators introduced a bill that, if passed and signed by Gov. Cuomo, would allow convicted felons in county jails and state prisons to vote via absentee ballot. In addition, the bill proposes to establish an inmate voter-registration program, provide access and assistance with voter-registration forms, and a mechanism for voting, including but not limited to, absentee ballots. 

This legislative push to provide voting rights to criminals is on par with actions taken by Cuomo. As some may recall, in May 2018, the governor issued 24,000 conditional voting pardons for convicted felons who were on parole. Traditionally, restoring voting privileges for parolees was considered on a case-by-case basis. However, Gov. Cuomo, without legislative input, has broadly restored the right to vote for parolees through the use of pardons. In the past year and a half, Cuomo has periodically conditionally pardoned large numbers of parolees at once in order to allow them to vote and ensured that each is provided with a voter-registration form. At last count in August, more than 44,000 parolees have been conditionally pardoned to vote.

As if providing conditional pardons to all parolees and proposing to allow incarcerated felons to vote isn’t enough, last year legislators introduced a bill that would allow inmates, 55 years of age or older and who have served at least 15 years of their prison sentence, to be automatically eligible for early release on parole. The early release would come, according to this bill, even if the inmates have not served the minimum sentence imposed and regardless of the crime they have committed. This bill, dubbed the Elder Parole Bill, did not move in either house of the state legislature, but there is little doubt that there will be a renewed effort to enact it during this upcoming legislative session.

You can find previous columns of mine that attempt to explain more on this trend to protect criminals here: https://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/William-A-Barclay/story/87422 and here: https://nyassembly.gov/mem/William-A-Barclay/story/82866. Ultimately, with any criminal-justice reform there needs to be acknowledgment of the victims of the crime, protection of the public, and then lastly help for the criminal. Sadly, too many of the criminal-justice reforms that continue to be introduced and enacted in this state focus solely on expanding criminal rights. 

William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us or (315) 598-5185.

One of the not-so-small gifts of living in a representative democracy is that you can’t accomplish things alone. Whether you’re trying to get a stop sign put up on a dangerous corner or to change U.S. policy on greenhouse-gas emissions, you have to reach out to others. And learning how to persuade, motivate, and involve them — learning the skills of active citizenship, in other words — makes this a stronger, more resilient country.

 So, I want to make a case for building and using those skills by tackling the issues right in front of us. We all live in communities that we know better than anyone who doesn’t live there — including the policy makers who every day make decisions on larger issues that affect our lives there. Who better than those who live in a particular community to step up, identify its problems, and then work to solve them?

As a member of Congress, I was constantly impressed by the issues that constituents wanted addressed: they were usually linked in some way to the larger issues we took up on Capitol Hill, but always approached with the unique perspective of the particular community. 

 These approaches ranged widely. One group’s purpose was to upgrade railroad warning lights, after too many accidents at crossings spurred them on. In a drought-stricken community, residents came together to manage the use of water in their watershed. Schools were a constant concern, as parents struggled to make sure that bright kids could be challenged while kids who were struggling or in some other way disadvantaged got opportunities to find a path to success. Hospital emergency rooms, roads and bridges, community centers and programs for the elderly — all of these commanded attention from ordinary people who identified the problem, gathered allies, debated tactics, and found a way to make their communities better.

Often, these were people who were not closely connected with politics or government. They just wanted to improve something in their community, so they learned how the system works, and then learned how to make it work to help them accomplish their goals. Some of them, over time, became community leaders and moved on to school boards, city councils, and state legislatures after honing their democratic skills by working on problems of immediate concern. Others went back to their lives, pleased that they’d improved one aspect of their neighbors’ lives. 

 I came to see these examples as the wellspring of representative democracy.

 To be sure, even at the local level, things can get complicated. It used to puzzle me when someone would come forward with an idea to improve a water system or a sewer system, and just as quickly opposition would pop up. Often, this was because improvement required change — including, sometimes, a tax increase. And there will always be voices for leaving things be. But that’s the nature of the democratic process: change deserves debate, and learning to marshal facts, find and work with allies, and ultimately sway public opinion is part and parcel of living in the system we enjoy.

 The more people are willing to do this, the more confident we can be that the answer to Lincoln’s question at Gettysburg — can this nation “long endure” — is Yes. It works if citizens step up to address the needs and conditions they face. Participating in the process challenges us to make our case, develop our skills of persuasion, and become better at speaking, listening, building consensus, and being an engaged member of a community. 

 These are the bedrock skills on which democracy rests, and the more of us who possess them, the stronger our system will be. Nothing in public life gave me greater pleasure than to see citizens in action.      

 Lee Hamilton, 88, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south central Indiana.