Restored voter’s rights in Missouri: not so automatic
By Ronald . . . Like every other inmate being released at Missouri’s Farmington Correctional Center, I received a voter registration card and instructions on how to restore voting rights as a felon. The instructions said, “The right to vote is automatically restored upon release” unless convicted of a crime connected to the exercise of the right to vote.
Being released in June of 2024, I knew there was plenty of time to re-register to vote before the November presidential election. But when I began the process later in the summer, things took a decidedly different course.
I showed up to vote in the August primary with my ID and voter registration card
from before I was incarcerated, but the election clerk could not find my name on the voter rolls. A phone call to the election commission offices verified that my voting status was suspended because I had been incarcerated as a felon. I would need to come to the main election board with my discharge papers to renew my voting status.
When I appeared at the St. Louis County Board of Elections office, the clerk was courteous and efficient in reviewing my discharge papers and verifying my identity. But one thing caught her attention: the “lifetime supervision” notation on my discharge. She was hesitant to register me on the spot and said she would make copies of all my documentation and give it to her supervisor (who was out of the office at the time) to review. They would call me with their decision.
This was the first indication of a problem with registering to vote.
Two days later, Cindy, the election board office supervisor, called and told me I could not be registered to vote because I was disqualified since I was on lifetime supervision. (In Missouri, lifetime supervision is applicable only to those with sexual offense convictions.) I explained to her that Missouri law was quite clear in stating the only disqualifications in restoring the right to vote for felons was “probation, parole, or a crime connected with voting.” But she was firm in her decision: I could not register to vote.
The next day I called my attorney’s office and explained my dilemma. The receptionist assured me that one of the attorneys in the office would get back to me with an opinion. Some time went by and I heard nothing from my attorney. Periodic follow-up calls and reminders—even a letter—did not engender a response.
When I re-read the paperwork on restoring voting rights, I noticed a paragraph at the bottom that said, “If you believe you are eligible to vote and encounter difficulty registering, please contact the Election Division of the Missouri Secretary of State” with the contact information included. I called.
In this day of “press one for …” I was surprised to be immediately connected to a live person. I explained my situation and received a sympathetic response. I was told definitively that I was in the right, and that “lifetime supervision” was not a disqualification for a felon to register to vote. They would call Cindy, the St. Louis Board of Elections supervisor, and instruct her to register me to vote.
The next day I received a call from Eric, the Election Board chair, who reviewed my situation with me and then cited RSMo 559.106 as the basis for his decision that I could not be registered to vote. When I questioned him further, he stated that, in the opinion of the board’s attorney, “lifetime supervision” was a form of probation—thereby a disqualification to being registered to vote. Even though he got a direct order from the office of the Secretary of State, he said, he was going to abide by the decision of their own attorney.
Not so automatic!
So, at the time of this writing, here I sit, four days from the registration deadline, caught between two interpretations of the law. What it shows is that restoration of
voting rights for a felon may not only vary state-by-state, but within a state like Missouri, may even vary from county to county.
The only way to resolve this problem is the hard way—through legal action—by suing the county election commission. And that is exactly what I will be doing, not only for my case, but for all those who come after me or who are currently facing the same challenge in Missouri.
Ronald is a registrant in the state of Missouri. He has filed a petition with the Missouri Probation and Parole Board to be removed from lifetime supervision.
Again Smith V Doe was a wrong decision. The court noted the registration system was not like probation or parole and they listed a couple of reasons why. Nevertheless, today the administrative branch recognizes ” lifetime supervision ” as intended to impose affirmative restraint upon voting rights contrary to Smith V Doe. Therefore their ( MO) decision could be substantive grounds to again (for the Nth time) to challenge the sex offender registration regime as punitive in effect.
Perhaps you might want to contact your state representative and senator as well as the governor’s office and the state attorney general.
Not surprising for Missouri. ACSOL is still fighting the stupid Halloween sign issue there, even though it’s been settled almost everywhere else.
As usual, they make it up as they go along knit-picking, hemming and hawing making you jump through hoops to pass their over-zealous purity test
“Lifetime supervision is a form of probation.”
If that’s the hill they’re willing to die on then so is the registry!
If lifetime supervision due to the registry is a form of probation and probation is a form of punishment given the rules related to it, both according to the state of Misery thinking, then the registry is punishment and should be challenged on this ground (as well as others). No wonder the sign case is still ongoing with how they think there in Misery.
The sex offender registry had collateral consequences which cleared a path to unfettered use of the database. I mean, if you can constitutionally enslave the citizenry to its maintenance, what else can you do? Which brings me here today to point out that SMARTMATIC, the database driven voting machine enterprise, has just had three top executives indicted for money laundering, racketeering, bribery and other felony charges involved LA County voting machines contacts ( over charging) and a international banks and foreign shell companies. You see Sandy, the sex offender was only the first to be exploited. Some there at NARSOL claimed my posts about those machines were irrelevant to NARSOLs mission, and the bulldog was wrong on that score. The registry was the cracking of the proverbial door. ” There is something else arbor here.” J. P. Stevens, Smith V Doe 2001.
Sorry but lifetime supervision is indeed considered parole/ probation. The law cited in the article regarding lifetime supervision states, “The court shall order that the offender be supervised by the division of probation and parole for the duration of his or her natural life.”
Missouri’s voter law says, you “Cannot be on probation or parole after conviction of a felony”.
Thus, a Registered Person on Lifetime Supervision can’t vote in MO if you’re on lifetime supervision. It would take a change to the voter law and/or lifetime supervision itself to change that rule.
But I can see how it could be interpreted differently. It isn’t parole or probation. It is lifetime supervision. If the court, or the DOC, wanted him to be on parole or probation for a lengthy time, that is what he would have been given–but he wasn’t. The court can extend a probation period beyond the normal, and the law allows for lifetime parole. Under Missouri law, lifetime parole is not the same thing as lifetime supervision.