Activism

Lawmakers Push Bill to Grant Prisoners Right to Vote

Last week, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) the chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Elections introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 (ACA-4). The legislation proposes amending the California Constitution to allow felons serving time in state and federal prisons to vote.

Published

3 years ago

February 16, 2023

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan announces ACA 4 the Bill will restore the voting rights of people who are incarcerated across the state alongside advocates and supporters. Feb. 8, 2023. Screenshot photo.

By Maxim Elramsisy

California Black Media

Proposition 17, approved in 2020 by California voters, enabled persons convicted of felonies on parole to vote.

If the bill passes the Assembly and Senate, and the governor approves it, voters in California could vote to join Vermont, Maine, and Washington, D.C. in allowing incarcerated individuals to vote.

“After the 13th Amendment liberated the slaves, we started to see different types of voter disenfranchisement occurring,” Bryan explained in an interview with California Black Media (CBM).

“We saw Black codes, we saw Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, felony disenfranchisement, becoming more commonplace in statewide constitutions and so it’s through that legacy that we’ve been trying to roll back all of these years and make sure that our democracy is inclusive of everybody,” Bryan commented on the systemic discrimination and disenfranchisement African Americans have endured over centuries.

Lawmakers opposing the legislation say allowing incarcerated felons to vote is a slap in the face to victims of the crimes they committed.

“I believe that it discounts the impact that this will have on people who have suffered being a victim of a very violent offense,” Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) told CBM.

“Part of rehabilitation is going through a process of recognizing the seriousness of what has been done, and I think when we allow someone to exercise the most sacred privilege that we have in this country, that people have died so that we can exercise that privilege, that is an affront against those who have suffered ill, and a lot of times eternal pain,” Lackey said.

Responding to Lackey’s objection, Bryan said, “That’s like saying allowing incarcerated persons to breathe is an affront to their victims, allowing incarcerated persons to drink water, allowing incarcerated persons to hold conversations with one another.”

“There is no reason that that should be coupled with disenfranchisement and the expelling of individuals as citizens of this country.”

“There’s a difference between suspending a privilege and dehumanizing someone,” Lackey said. “Certainly no one expects someone to go through inappropriate suffering. That is not part of justice. That’s not part of our judicial process.”

David Liamsi Cruz, an advocate from Initiate Justice, was released in September after serving 13 years in prison.

“One problem that I constantly came across was that people serving their sentences alongside me felt that they didn’t have the means to improve their environment that controlled their lives or to contribute to their families’ wellness outside. Despite what many people assume, people in prison care about the same political issues that we outside do,” Cruz said.

“Those who were willing to become civically engaged with me were diligent in their work, they even brought me bill ideas that could have solved issues that were longstanding in their communities. I was honored to witness their passion for change, for an opportunity to grow, and to contribute to something way bigger than themselves. Even though I am home [from] prison now, I have not forgotten the ten thousand voices of people who are still inside and have so much to contribute. I want their voices to be heard.”

Supporters of the plan say that reducing recidivism — or the reincarceration of persons less than three years after they are released from prison — is one of the primary benefits of this plan.

“We already know a lot of the facts, and the facts are that the more someone is engaged in their democracy, they are 50% less likely to reoffend,” said Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) who is a co-sponsor of the bill.

“So, if we already know this, then the policy not allowing those who are incarcerated to vote has nothing to do with public safety.”

Kalra said when he was a public defender it was “plain as day” to see who was given second chances.

“Those who were given probation versus prison, and it was so connected to race and class and the same communities who have been fighting to be free since the inception, and before the inception of this nation,” he said.

Another concern is the ability for those who are incarcerated to hold public officials accountable. “Those who are incarcerated and their families are some of the most educated people in our state, far more educated than the average voter,” said Kalra. “And they will hold us accountable, and maybe that’s what people are afraid of. They don’t want that accountability from those who are suffering the most from decisions that are made traditionally in [the Capital].”

The legislation is backed by a coalition of lawmakers, including California Legislative Black Caucus members — Assemblymembers Lori Wilson (D–Suisun City), Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), Tina McKinnor (D–Inglewood), Mia Bonta (D-Oakland), Dr. Akilah Weber (D–San Diego) and Senators Steven Bradford (D-Inglewood) and Lola Smallwood Cuevas (D–Ladera Heights).

“There was a time where women couldn’t vote,” Jones-Sawyer said at the press conference held last week to announce the bill. “There was a time when African Americans couldn’t vote, and just recently we tried to get slavery out of the California state constitution and it failed, because of Democrats.”

“An American citizen’s right to vote is the most powerful right in our nation,” McKinnor said. “Let’s be clear, an incarcerated American citizen is an American citizen, and no law should ever restrict an American citizen’s right to vote. Too many Americans have died, too many Americans have sacrificed, too many Americans have been denied the right to vote for too long.”

Lackey and others who oppose the legislation, however, insist that denying a felon to vote is appropriate punishment.

“There has to be a period of reflection and a period of suspension of certain what I would call privileges or rights in order for the judicial process to be effective,” Lackey said to CBM.

Bryan said the protection of citizens’ rights is paramount.

“There are some basic human rights, and then there are some basic American rights that have to be preserved, even in the systems of accountability,” he emphasized.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Memphis Police Murder Case Puts Spotlight on California Legislation

Don't Miss

California Black Legislators Host Black History Month Activities

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 13 – 19, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 13 – 19, 2026

Published

42 minutes ago

May 15, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

5 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”