California Gives In, Will Allow 60,000 Persons Convicted of Felonies Who are in Community Supervision to Register to Vote

In 2011, California created a new category of persons who have been convicted of a felony but are no longer in prison. The new classification is called “community supervision.” Unlike parole, people on community supervision are no longer subject to jurisdiction of the state prison system. Instead they are under the jurisdiction of county law enforcement. Persons convicted of the most serious felonies can not qualify for community supervision.

The California Constitution denies the right to vote to felons in prison and it also denies the right to vote to persons on parole. After the new community supervision program was launched, the California Secretary of State ruled that community supervision is the functional equivalent of parole, and said persons in community supervision can’t register. In 2012 a lawsuit was filed against that ruling directly with California higher courts, but they refused to hear the case. On February 4, 2014, a new lawsuit was filed in Superior Court in Alameda County. On May 7, 2014, the Alameda County Superior Court ruled that community supervision is not the same as parole, and struck down the ban on registering to vote for people on community supervision.

The state appealed, but on August 4, 2015, the state changed its mind and dropped its appeal. The California voter registration forms must now all be reprinted. The existing form says, under the applicant’s signature under penalty of perjury, “I am a U.S. citizen and will be at least 18 years old on election day. I am not in prison, on parole, serving a state prison sentence in county jail, serving a sentence for a felony pursuant to subdivision (h) of the Penal Code section 1170, or on post release community supervision.” The last few words must now be deleted. The case, which is now terminated, was Michael Scott v Padilla, A142139.

Sixth Circuit Refuses to Rehear Michigan Socialist Party Ballot Access Case

On August 12, the Sixth Circuit refused to hear Erard v Michigan Secretary of State, 14-1873. This is the case in which the Socialist Party, which is not ballot-qualified in Michigan, argues that Michigan discriminates against new parties, relative to old parties. Michigan requires approximately twice as many signatures for a newly-qualifying party to get on the ballot as it requires votes for an already-qualified party to remain on.