| Ralph 
                      Ellison immortalized "Juneteenth," the annual 
                      celebration of the anniversary of June 19, 1865, when the 
                      enslaved Africans in Texas were actually emancipated, in 
                      his posthumous novel of the same name.   Ellison's 
                      title refers to the date when Union General Gordon Grander 
                      rode horseback into Galveston, Texas and announced to nearly 
                      250,000 slaves that President Abraham Lincoln, with a stroke 
                      of a pen on the Emancipation Proclamation, had declared 
                      them free on January 1, 1863 – more than two years earlier.    
                       Upon 
                      hearing the news, the reaction of the newly freed slaves 
                      wasn't surprising:  they dropped their plows and celebrated 
                      their freedom.    In 
                      reality, however, the Emancipation Proclamation did not 
                      free any slaves, its terms were carefully limited to those 
                      areas under the control of the Confederacy and thus beyond 
                      the reach of federal law.   Indeed, 
                      it wasn't until 2 ½ years after the signing of the 
                      Emancipation Proclamation, when a regiment of the Union 
                      military, led by Granger, arrived in Texas with the news 
                      of slavery's end, and the power to enforce the proclamation, 
                      that Lincoln's proclamation finally made slaves free.  
                      This delay, Ellison said, is a "symbolic acknowledgement 
                      that liberation is a never-ending task of self, group and 
                      nation." Today, 
                      Juneteenth is a vivid historical example that obtaining 
                      rights at law does not necessarily confer rights that have 
                      actual force.  It is for this reason that Juneteenth 
                      celebrants are often conflicted.  
 On 
                      one hand, Juneteenth marks the Republicans' critical recognition 
                      that unless action was taken to safeguard the freedmen's 
                      status, Democrats would force Blacks back into slavery, 
                      thereby sustaining the economic dispute that led to Civil 
                      War.  In recognition of the entrenched white resistance 
                      to Black emancipation, the post-Civil War Congress enacted 
                      the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which 
                      ended slavery, made former slaves citizens, and protected 
                      them from future white supremacy by granting them the right 
                      to vote free of racial discrimination.      
                       On 
                      the other hand, Juneteenth marks the time when the newly 
                      enfranchised Black population in the South met massive resistance 
                      from whites.  Among other things, this resistance took 
                      the form of a century of poll taxes, grandfather clauses, 
                      literacy requirements, and disfranchisement policies.  
                       The 
                      struggle continued with the passage of the Voting Rights 
                      Act of 1965 and now many, but not all, barriers used to 
                      prevent Blacks from the effective use of their votes are 
                      unconstitutional or illegal.  One vestige of slavery, 
                      however, endures: felon disfranchisement laws.   Felon 
                      disfranchisement laws are state statutes that prohibit people 
                      with felony convictions from voting.  In an attempt 
                      to prevent newly-freed Blacks from voting after the Civil 
                      War, many state legislators tailored their felon disfranchisement 
                      laws to require the loss of voting rights only for those 
                      offenses committed mostly by Blacks.   For 
                      example, the 1890 Mississippi constitutional convention 
                      required disfranchisement for such crimes as theft, burglary 
                      and receiving money under false pretenses, but not for robbery 
                      or murder.  These intentionally discriminatory laws 
                      were guided by the belief that Blacks engaged in crime were 
                      more likely to commit furtive offenses than the more robust 
                      crimes committed by whites.  Through the convoluted 
                      "reasoning" of this provision, one would be disfranchised 
                      for stealing a chicken, but not for killing the chicken's 
                      owner.  Many other states, from New York to Alabama, 
                      have also intentionally and effectively utilized felon disfranchisement 
                      laws to prevent  Blacks and other racial minorities 
                      from voting.    
 Not 
                      surprisingly, felon disfranchisement statutes, as intended, 
                      have served to disproportionately weaken the voting power 
                      of Black and Latino communities.  This disparate effect 
                      results largely from the disproportionate enforcement of 
                      the "war on drugs" in Black and Latino communities, 
                      which has expanded exponentially the class of persons subject 
                      to disfranchisement.    Today, 
                      with more than 2.3 million Americans incarcerated, the effects 
                      of our nation's reliance on mass incarceration as a primary 
                      means of control in the era of the "war on drugs" 
                      is more profound than ever.  As a result roughly 5 
                      million Americans nationwide – an overwhelming number of 
                      whom are Black and Latino – are disfranchised.  Nowhere 
                      are the effects of felon disfranchisement more prominent 
                      than in the Black community, where more than 1.5 million 
                      Black males, or no less than 13 percent of the adult Black 
                      population, are disfranchised.  The 
                      felon disfranchisement phenomenon is most destructive in 
                      Black and Latino neighborhoods because these communities 
                      are often disproportionately plagued with numerous socioeconomic 
                      ills – including concentrated poverty and substandard housing, 
                      healthcare and education.  As a result, people in these 
                      communities have even less of an opportunity to effect positive 
                      change through the political process.   Not 
                      only this, but felon disfranchisement laws also serve to 
                      discourage eligible and future voters from exercising the 
                      learned behavior of voting.  In doing so, these laws 
                      create a culture of political nonparticipation that erodes 
                      civic engagement and marginalizes the votes and voices of 
                      community members who remain engaged, but who are deprived 
                      of the collective power of the votes of disfranchised relatives 
                      and neighbors.      Although 
                      common in the United States, felon disfranchisement statutes 
                      are not a necessary feature of our participatory democracy.  
                      Indeed, Maine and Vermont have no such statutes and permit 
                      all people with felony convictions – including those both 
                      currently incarcerated and formerly incarcerated – to vote.  
                      Some states restore voting rights to formerly incarcerated 
                      persons once they have served their entire prison sentence.  
                      But similar to the slaves in Texas, many formerly incarcerated 
                      persons are not informed that their voting rights have been 
                      restored, and although technically free to vote, remain 
                      voteless.  In other states, the difficulty of navigating 
                      one's way through the impenetrable restoration process turns 
                      many eligible, formerly incarcerated voters away.  
                       
 Unfortunately, 
                      more than a century after General Granger announced to the 
                      slaves in Texas that they were free, and nearly 43 years 
                      after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, increasing 
                      numbers of Blacks and Latinos nationwide are losing their 
                      voting rights daily.  Today, 
                      there are new frontiers for the expansion of civil rights, 
                      and old battles that remain unfinished.  Reform of 
                      felon disfranchisement laws is long overdue.   Ellison 
                      remarked that "there've been a heap of Juneteenths 
                      gone by and there'll be a heap more before we're free."  
                      143 Juneteenth anniversaries certainly constitutes a "heap." 
                      In the spirit of Juneteenth's legacy, and in the interest 
                      of experiencing the illusive freedom that Ellison referenced, 
                      it is time for the United States to break down the walls 
                      that literally lock citizens out of the political process 
                      so that next Juneteenth we can move one step closer to truly 
                      celebrating freedom. 
 BlackCommentator.com 
                      Guest CommentatorRyan Paul Haygood is an Assistant Counsel 
                      at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). 
                       Click 
                      here to contact Mr. Haygood. 
 |