State high court hears voting-rights case of Everett felon

Published 9:00 pm Tuesday, June 27, 2006

OLYMPIA – When Dannielle Garner of Everett was convicted of forgery in 2003, she lost her right to vote.

She served her time and now wants to vote again. But state law bars her from casting a ballot until she pays off nearly $400 in outstanding fines.

On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in a case testing the constitutionality of that law, which requires felons to complete all terms of their sentence – including paying their fines – before they can vote again.

A King County Superior Court judge struck down the law in March, ruling that one’s ability to pay should not be used to deny them the right to vote. The state appealed.

If the state loses, Garner and thousands of other felons could have their voting rights restored immediately.

“I’ve done my time. I’d like to feel like an American again and be able to vote,” Garner said in a recent interview. She is one of three people named in the legal challenge filed in King County by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Garner, 28, was convicted of forgery in Skagit County and served 14 days in the county’s jail. A onetime drug user, she said she suffers from mental illness and lives off Social Security disability payments. She was fined $610 and she’s making monthly payments of $10.

“I understand what the law is, sort of,” she said. “I don’t feel it’s right. I’m a good person. I’m not a problem. For people on a low income who can’t afford to pay it off, it’s unfair.”

Felons can have their voting rights removed, even permanently, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue in this case is the conditions the state can impose before restoring voting rights.

Attorney General Rob McKenna argued that fines are a consequence of a felony conviction. They are one piece of the obligation that must be paid, along with prison, parole and probation, regardless of a felon’s economic well-being, he said.

“The state does not distinguish between the different terms of a sentence,” he said. “They (felons) are required to complete all the terms of their sentence just as a rich person would have to serve all his term in jail even if he paid all his legal financial obligations immediately upon conviction.”

The ACLU argues that a lack of money should not be used to keep felons who have completed their sentences from voting. That turns fines into the equivalent of a poll tax on the poor, the ACLU contends.

“This case is not about whether the state can disenfranchise felons; it can,” attorney Peter Danelo said.

“What this case is about is whether the state, once it decides to restore the vote to former felons, can make the right to vote turn on whether particular felons are wealthy enough to pay their legal financial obligation immediately. The answer is no,” he told justices.

If the law is tossed out, the state estimates 46,000 felons could be affected. The Brennan Center for Justice, which filed a brief in support of the ACLU’s position, pins the number at 167,000. The ACLU puts the total closer to 200,000.

Garner said she’s not trailblazing for them.

“I don’t think of it like I’m doing anything to change society,” Garner said. “I’m just trying to be able to vote.”

Reporter Jerry Cornfield: 360-352-8623 or jcornfield@ heraldnet.com.