flood-affected areas. and derek jeter has announced that he will retire after this season. he said his injury-plagued season in part led him to realize it's time to retire. i'm tony harris. "inside story" is next. >> in many places in america once you're convicted of a felony you can't vote. many are calling that unnecessary and unjust, and calling for the vote to be restored to nearly 6 million americans. that's the inside story.

>> hi, i'm ray suarez. maybe you've heard, that at any given time a percentage of americans are behind bars than people anywhere else on the planet. most of those prisoners are eventually released, and when they're free in many places find themselves barred from voting for good bylaws denying the franchise to the convicted felons. again, not just while they're doing time, but permanently. those denied the vote include more than 2 million black adults, in florida, kentucky, and virginia, it's one out of every five black adults. u.s. attorney general erik holder told a legal conference once you've done your time, once you're no longer on probation or court supervision, you should be able to vote. he's calling on states to change their laws. that is the focus of this program. >> an estimated 5.8 million

americans, 5.8 million of our fellow citizens are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions. now that's more than the individual populations of 31 united states. >> attorney general erik holder this week said america is falling short of its full promise of equal opportunity and justice. >> the impact of felony di disenfranchisement remains disproportionate and unacceptable. >> reporter: speaking at georgetown university the nation's top law enforcement officer gave voice to president obama's aims of bringing issues surrounding criminal justice and race to the foreground in his second term.

to restore constitutional rights to vote. >> these restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they're also counterproductive by perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed by formerly incarcerated individuals, it increases the likelihood that they'll commit crimes. >> the attorney general said barring those who served their time from the polls makes it harder for them to reintegrate into society. the justice department cannot force states to change their laws, but this call from the top is another attempt to call attention to the heavier impact of the system on african-americans. >> in america 2.2 black citizens, nearly one in 13

african-american adults are banned from voting because of these laws. in three states, florida, kentucky, virginia, the ratio climbs to one in five. now these individuals and many others of all races, backgrounds and walks of life are routinely the chance to participate in the most fundamental and important act of self governance. they're prevented from exercising an extension righ es, and they're locked out even after they've served the time and paid the fines that they owe. >> reporter: attorney general erik holder speaks in lofty terms, right and wrong, truth and justice, but there are political realities as well. studies show felons denied the float, florida might have gone for al gore instead of president

bush in 2000 if ex-cons retained their right to vote. it's part of the department's smart on crime initiative. there are 1.5 million americans behind bars, attorney general helder has been pushing the country to rethink mandatory minimum sentences. in august the justice department instructed federal prosecutors to stop charging non-violent drug offenders with sentences that carry mandatory sentences. what should society ask of people convicted of a felony crime before they return to society. here to discuss this with us, is

there a history to these restrictions. have they ebbed and flowed through our history? >> there is a long history, and in some respects it goes back to the founding of this country, the post reconstruction period, the laws were tailored with the specifics intent to exclude black voters. but in the last four decades as the criminal justice population has exploded, so, too, have the number of disenfranchised people where we now have record numbers of people who are excluded. >> during the time when we were putting more people behind bars, in response to a really scary run up in crime, violent crime in this country, were states either laying on more penalties or re-jiggering them as they were changing pents for crimes over all? >> many of the penalties had been in place for a long time, and they rarely were even

addressed. what did happen largely in the 1980's and 90's were additional restrictions were placed on people with felony convictions. in terms of access to education, employment, housing, other government benefits, severe restrictions make it much more difficult for them to reenter the community successfully. >> now roger clegg, you heard attorney general holder in no uncertain terms really criticize this policy and the effect it has had on specific communities around the country. do you think its worked? >> i think its worked in the sense that i don't believe that everybody should vote. we don't let children vote. we don't let non-citizens vote. we don't let mentally incompetent people vote, and we don't let people who are have committed crimes against fellow citizens vote. we have standards of

responsibility, and commitment total laws that we have before we entrust people in a role in the enterprise of self government. i think when a serious crime has been committed, i think it makes sense to take rights away until they have shown that they have turned a new leave. i don't think it can be presumed that just because someone walks out of prison that they have turned over a new leave. attorney general erik holder said recidivism rate is very high, so i don't think that it makes sense to assume automatically people should have the right to have the vote restored. i would be all in favor of having the right to vote restored at some point after the

individual has shown that they are a positive force in the community rather than a negative force. where you appear before the judge, the judge congratulates you on the new turn your life has taken, and then giving you your right to vote back. i think that's the way to achieve this reintegrative end that attorney general holder spoke about. but just to have it be automatic without any showing that the person has really turned over a new leaf really doesn't make sense. >> dale, how about that? the idea that someone should take affirmative steps to reintegrate themselves, and for want of a better term, decent society? >> i think once a person has

completed their sentence, we've already decided this person is going to reenter tatintegrate ir system. they've done their time, they're our neighbors, our friends, they live in our communities. we're comfortable with that. why aren't we comfortable with them fully participating in our society. this is a big issue and it bears out how many people this this really effects. there are 5.8 million people in the country disenfranchised. if you lump it together, they would be the 20th most populous state. this is no small matter. it's a large source of disenfranchisement in our country and something we need to look at carefully. >> what is the trend here? are there states looking at

their laws on felony disenfranchisement? have some states put in a process of restoring your vote in place? >> well, the trend over the last two decades has been against those who have committed offenses. it ebbs and flows. you have steps forward and it steps back. governor chris restored the voting rights for most people who committed non-violence offenses automatically. when he left office he was replaced by governor rick scott who rescinded that policy. so we've had back and forth on this issue over the last few years. but over time people recognize this blanket disenfranchisement does not make sense.

50 years ago people had lifetime disenfranchisement for those who have committed a felony. now it is 5%. recidivism increases if you don't let people vote. over time we're seeing greater liberalization, and i expect that to happen. >> in the florida example, doing something by executive order may have some appeal, because you get it done right away, but it becomes reversible once someone else becomes governor. >> yes, i think so. where governor mcdonald said anyone convicted of a non-violent crime would almost have an automatic restoration process. the problem is even though it was a vigorous campaign, 8,000 people had their rights restored, this is a population of 300,000 people who completed

their sentences and can't vote. any time we do this on a piecemeal basis it's never going to get to the level of what the problem is all about. we have to decide if this is reasonable to disenfranchising that many people, and if not, we need to change our policy, and not just a case-by-case remedy. >> we'll look at federalism, how this is done on a state by state basis, and what it would take to get the vote back for so many people who had it taken away. this is "inside story."

>> i'm joie chen, i'm the host of america tonight, we're revolutionary because we're going back to doing best of storytelling.

we have an ouportunity to really reach out and really talk to voices that we haven't heard before... i think al jazeera america is a watershed moment for american journalism >> fault lines, hard hitting... >> they're blocking the door... >> ground breaking... >> we have to get out of here. >> truth seeking... al jazeera america's breakthrough instigative documentary series. over a year after the bengazi attacks, chaos in the streets... unspeakable horrors... >> this is a crime against humanity >> is libya unraveling? >> there's coffin after coffin being carried into the cemetery. >> fault lines libya: state of insecurity only on al jazeera america >> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. there are nearly 6 million americans who have committed crimes, completed their court-appointed penalty, and still barred from from voting. attorney general erik holder

called this profoundly outdated and a practice rooted in exclusion, animus and fear. whether it is as he said, rooted in animos and fear, it's hard to undo in a number of states, and if you're a person caught in this situation it's not as easy as filing a piece of paper or keeping your nose clean for a specified length of time. >> the first thing to do is don't commit a crime. >> that's a good idea. >> don't commit a felony. that's where this problem. i think attorney general holder was quite wrong to suggest there was a racial angle in the way these laws from designed and written.

it has roots in ancient greece, rome, the english and the colonies. there have been policies to di disenfranchising felons to one degree or another. if there were any evidence that the law was written to disenfranchise african-americans, it would be struck down. >> aren't there case where is the law as written has different actual respects. in a year after the civil war 95% of the people who had their vote removed through felony conviction from black in the states of-- >> but those statutes were designed that way. and were unconstitutional, and

those laws are not on the books any more. just to say that a law has a disproportional affect, therefore it's rooted in racism is not true. the laws have a pronounced differential impact with respect to sex. lots more men in prison than women. but i don't think anybody would say that these laws are sexist. >> dale, what do you think? is there a racial dimension to these penalties and the way they're imposed, or is it just a function of who is convicted in crimes. >> one thing that i agree with roger on, a lot of these laws were enacted were explicitly racist. roger referred to one case in the supreme court in the 1980's where alabama's di disinfranchisement law stated on the books. and at that legislature on the state board said the reason why they wanted to adopt these laws

was to disenfranchise as many african-americans as possible. those laws are not on the books any more. but the question i have if you have a law enacted in 1900 with the express intent of disenfranchising african-americans, and you go back and enact the same law and it lo and behold has the affect of disenfranchising people of color, it should raise some flags. if you know that a law was initially adopted for that purpose, has that affec effect,d then you choose to reenact it, there are questions there. >> let me give roger a chance to respond. >> but the problem with that is, first of all, if you can show discriminatory intent bring a lawsuit, and there are lots of

well-funded organizations that would do so if they had the evidence. the reason why they don't have the evidence is because it's not there. states disenfranchised felons across the board, slave states, the confederacy states did it, and so did the northern states did it. states during reconstruction passed laws like this when the carpet baggers were in charge. the yale law journal had a recent law where they could not vote if they were felons. it was quite consistent to have that point of view. just because a law has a disparate impact on the basis of race is no evidence that it was

passed with discriminatory intent. >> these laws as written, are they sensitive enough to the differences in crimes? are all felonies created equal? if you're check kiting is that the same thing as being an armed robber of a convenience store. >> roger almost suggested by virtue of a felony you're suddenly not of good character, and you have to prove yourself worthy of voting in the community. when i register to vote at the age of 18 no one asked me about my character, no one did a worthwhile test to see what i was doing. in democracy we take the bad with the good. we don't impose personality test or anything like that. i think there are legitimate punishments for people who break the law. sometimes that includes prison. we should distinguish that from

other rights, the right to be married and divorced, not all those things change because you have a felony conviction. >> mark, whom i think very highly of, thinks that people who are still in prison should be able to vote. >> as do many countries and their policies. >> i think that's ludicrous. i don't think that it makes sense. it's one thing for the government to say--to have a quiz about what your character is. it's something else to say well, we see here that you have committed a felony, a serious crime against your fellow citizens, and we think that people who are not willing to follow the law cannot claim a right to make the law for everyone else. until you've shown that you've turned over a new leave. >> time for us to tur take a br, and we'll look at the affect of the attorney general of the united states making a pronouncement over which he has no authority to follow through. you're watching "inside story."

♪

what is this place? where are we? this is where we bring together the fastest internet and the best in entertainment. we call it the x1 entertainment operating system. it looks like the future! we must have encountered a temporal vortex. further analytics are necessary. beam us up. ♪ that's my phone. hey. [ female announcer ] the x1 entertainment operating system, only from xfinity. tv and internet together like never before.

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. on this edition of our program we're talking about the lack of voting rights for millions of ex-convicts in america. attorney general erik holder wants to restore those rights, but he doesn't have the explicit authority to do it, and dale, i'm wondering what difference does it make if you're sitting in one of the states that does do felony disenfranchisement if the attorney general of the united states says it's a bad idea, but you live in a state where a lot of people approve of it. >> well, obviously the attorney general does not have power over state's voting qualifications, but it says something really powerful when the nation's top law enforcement officer comes out and says this is something that doesn't make a lot of sense. it doesn't make a lot of sense for democracy, and it doesn't make a lot of sense for justice

policy. i mentioned senator rand paul came out in favor of ending the outlying practice of states like kentucky that ban people from voting for life for any felony offense. so i think it's very significant even if it doesn't have policy implications. >> does it have an affect on the debate on the legal community to know that chief law enforcement officer of the country is shifting the access to the country a little bit. >> i think its no question and helps us to focus our attention. the legal community has increasingly become engaged on this issue in recent years. by showing this is an issue of national significance it can only encourage more of this debate taking place and trickling down the policy circles as well. >> rand paul being more persuasive than attorney gener general. >> i don't think that attorney general holder has a lot of credibility generally in a lot

of places that he is weather he's trying to change people's minds. i will say two positive things about what he had to say, though. the dog that didn't bark was he did not say there should be federal legislation in this area, which is something that is pushed for a long time and something that i find unconstitutional. this has to be addressed by the states and not by congress. the other thing he said there are only 11 states where he thinks the balance is being struck in the wrong place versus 48 states the way mark thinks. that's good. i think he's wrong about those 11 states, it's not as bad as the speech might have been. >> mark, is this really just an aspect of a wider conversation that is going on in a lot of deficient ways between those people who think there should be very few encumbrances on the right to vote versus those who think there should be more to keep people with various kinds of flaws in their life from

voting? >> well, we're seeing this debate take place in all sorts of ways in recent years. what is different here these laws have been in affect for a long time. the impact is much greater than ever before. some of the campaigns around voter i.d. debates and things like that in much of that is relatively new, and i think coming from a somewhat different direction i can presume to see what is in the minds of people promoting some of those policies. i think in this area of felony disenfranchisement the fax are quite clear, they have been quite some time. the racial dynamics are quite dramatidramatic. >> dale, quickly before we go, are there any cases of working their way up the legal food chain, getting to some critical decision point in certain states or others where this argument will get a broad hearing and

maybe get people engaged on the topic? >> there's not a lot of litigation on this issue right now. this issue is really political a policy issue. as roger noted primarily resolved in the states but there is a lot of question whether or not the federal government has the authority to, in fact, issue guidelines if people should be able to vote in federal elections after they completed their sentences. it's mainly a policy issue but there is not a lot of litigation over this question. but i think only time will tell whether or not this gets resolved in the legislature. >> do you see any of this being changed in the near term? >> no, i don't. in firm terms of the similaritys their quite different. when somebody votes who is not qualified to vote, that's a very different problem, and

legitimate voters rights are being stopped. >> thanks a lot, roger, i got to go. thank you for joining us on this edition of inside stir.in washington, i'm ray suarez. just go ahead and shop with these two guys here. >> lea. >> yeah, i'm all right. >> you see what? >> no. ♪ ♪ ♪