Wyoming is one of toughest states for ex-felon voting rights

2012-09-23T10:00:00Z 2012-09-24T10:58:03Z Wyoming is one of toughest states for ex-felon voting rightsBy MEGAN CASSIDY Star-Tribune staff writer Casper Star-Tribune Online
September 23, 2012 10:00 am  • 

Scott Stinson became his own statistic.

When Stinson was enrolled in Casper College’s paralegal program, he used to joke with classmate Craig Silva that felony drug charges were going to be part of the government’s scheme to create a large, nonvoting population.

“The ironic thing was, I ended up going to prison; he went to law school,” Stinson said of the Casper attorney.

Now 15 years away from a methamphetamine conviction, with his old friend’s help, Stinson will be voting in a general election for the first time since Bill Clinton was president.

In 2003, the Wyoming Legislature passed a modestly progressive law that enabled certain ex-felons to have their voting rights restored. It was the first glimpse of light that could be seen since 1907, when the original voting disenfranchisement law was put on the books.

However, in the nine years since the law passed, Stinson is one of only 58 people who have taken advantage of the act, according to the Wyoming Board of Parole. A recent study by the Sentencing Project found that nearly six percent of Wyoming citizens of voting age are disenfranchised because of a previous felony conviction.

Despite the 2003 reform, Wyoming remains one of the most burdensome states in which to regain voting rights, say experts. All but 11 states permit ex-felons to vote with no restrictions.

Conditions for Wyoming are strict and absolute. The applicant must have only been convicted of one nonviolent felony and must additionally wait five years from the completion of his or her sentence.

The effect of Wyoming’s law is something Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, has encountered countless times during his door-to-door campaigns. He said often citizens will immediately brush him off, offering only “I’m a felon,” as an explanation.

“It’s a very disenfranchised district,” he said of his own District 43.

Zwonitzer said that many citizens were unaware that they are now eligible to regain their voting rights after a previous felony conviction. Others just don’t want to talk about it.

“[The current laws] are contradictory to the whole concept that, ‘Once you pay your dues, we let you back into society,’” said Dan Fetsco, deputy director of the Board of Parole.

Fetsco agrees, both on theoretical and pragmatic levels, that the law should encourage reintegration.

“Every time there is an election, they are shut out, and it’s a reminder that can be very disheartening,” he said. “If we want to keep people from re-offending, we should help them assimilate back into society as much as possible.”

For the past several legislative sessions, Zwonitzer has attempted to introduce a bill that would ease the burden of recovering voting rights, albeit to no avail. Zwonitzer proposes to cut the five-year waiting period down to a one-year minimum, and to provide ex-felons with an application for the restoration of voting rights upon release.

Critics of felon disenfranchisement say the laws are a cheap play out of the same conservative handbook as the controversial voter identification laws. Many believe both are ploys to keep statistically Democratic voters away from the polls.

Zwonitzer, a Republican, said the concept of losing your rights as a felon is archaic, with roots dating back to English Common Law.

“We’ve evolved as a society,” he said.

Zwonitzer said he’ll give it another go in 2013.

“I think its [support is] growing every year,” he said. “We never got it to the Senate, but I think we’ll have a good version in the House.”

The bill’s opposition rests on a simple, yet powerful concept in a state as red as Wyoming: If you want to maintain your rights, don’t commit a felony.

“There are a lot of people in the Legislature that don’t want to give ex-felons the right to vote under any circumstances,” said Rep. Kermit Brown. “They are not crimes to be taken lightly, and that is the price you pay for being dysfunctional in society.”

Brown said he leans toward this sentiment and feels the current stipulations are appropriate. He said many feel easing the burden on ex-felons would be a slippery slope to clemency for violent offenders.

“What will be the next step? We’ll pardon them all?” he asked.

Stinson celebrated his 13th year of sobriety this month. In those years, Stinson went on to get his addictionology degree and has worked in the field as a counselor ever since. With his 3-year-old’s turtle sandbox in the front yard, his thick-rimmed glasses and careful mannerisms, Stinson said many are surprised to hear of his colorful past.

Although he has been denied a complete pardon, Stinson holds his certificate of reinstated voting rights with pride.

“I’ll never miss a general election again,” he said.

Stinson said he hopes more of his fellow ex-felons take advantage of the law, and wants them to know how important of a step it can be in fully regaining their life.

“Somewhere down the line, I started to believe in myself again,” he said. “There are a lot of people who think we can’t change. We most certainly can, and do.”

Reach crime reporter Megan Cassidy at 307-266-0534 or Follow her on Twitter @meganrcassidy.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(7) Comments

  1. motoboy
    Report Abuse
    motoboy - September 24, 2012 10:25 pm
    Panhead, I believe you are right. I'm just saying that the prison term should be enough punishment. Punishment should not go on for life.
  2. ozwald
    Report Abuse
    ozwald - September 24, 2012 6:40 pm
    Can Kevin Meenan vote ? How about people with similar crimes ? These rights Clegg are claiming have something to do with Rome or whatever is a crock . It is all abut Keeping the upper hand . Jesus was a felon . Does anyone out there go to church and worship the greatest felon of all ?
  3. Panhead
    Report Abuse
    Panhead - September 24, 2012 8:06 am
    motoboy I hate to inform you but prison is not rehabilitation, some would like to think so. But the fact is that prison is punishment or retribution for a crime.
  4. EagleWing
    Report Abuse
    EagleWing - September 24, 2012 6:09 am
    I agree with RogerClegg,the right to vote can be restored ans should be done carefully, not automatically on the day they walk out of prision (sadly, some of those who walk out will be walking back in). I also believe once a felon has established themselves into society as a productive citizen for a significant period of time and pay their taxes, adhere to the law as most citizens do, then their right to vote should be restored regardless of their crime or number of convictions. Anything less would be what I dub to be "legal discrimination".
  5. motoboy
    Report Abuse
    motoboy - September 23, 2012 4:04 pm
    Once you've repaid your debt to society you should get all your rights back. Anything else is simply an admission by our society that prison is just retribution, rather than rehabilitation.
  6. RogerClegg
    Report Abuse
    RogerClegg - September 23, 2012 1:47 pm
    These laws have roots in ancient Greece and Rome: They are not some ploy. The idea is simple: If you're not willing to follow the law, then you can't claim a right to make the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored, but it should be done carefully and on a case-by-case basis, not automatically on the day you walk out of prison (sadly, most of those who walk out will be walking back in before long). Read more about the issue in this congressional testimony:
  7. cikgc
    Report Abuse
    cikgc - September 23, 2012 12:14 pm
    Scott you have earned the right to vote. I'm glad you will be voting this election. :)
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Businesses

Latest Offers