changing, but movies like this may still be harder to come by for sometime yet. thank you for watching al jazeera america. i'm del walters in new york. "inside story" is next, and check us out 24 hours a day at aljazeera.com. ♪ in many places in america, once you are convicted of a felony, you can't vote. now the attorney general of the united states is calling that unnecessary and unjust, and calling for the vote to be restored to nearly 6 million americans. that's the inside story. ♪ >> hello i'm ray suarez.

maybe you have heard that the united states imprisons more of its citizens than any wealthy industrial country, that at any given time a larger percentage of americans are behind bars than anywhere else on the planet. when they are free in many places they find themselves barred from voting for good. again, not just while they are doing time, but permanently. those denied vote include more than 2 million black adults. u.s. attorney general eric holder told the legal conference, once you have done your time, once you are no longer on probation, you should be able to vote. he called on states to change their laws. that's our focus for this edition of the program. >> across this country today, 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. >> eric holder this week said america was falling short of its full promise of equal opportunity and justice. >> states use these measures to strip african-americans of their most fundamental right. the impact of felony disenfranment remains disproportionate and unacceptable. >> the nation's top law enforcement officer gave voice to president obama's games of bringing issues surrounding criminal justice and race to the floor. holder said it was time for states to repeal the laws that

disenfranchise millions of ex-cons. >> these restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive. by perpetuating the still ma and isolation imposed on formal incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit new crimes. >> the attorney general said barring those who have 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 effort on the part of the attorney general to reform criminal justice policies, and call attention to the heavier impact of the system on african-americans. >> out there america, 2.2 million black citizens, or

nearly 1 in 13 are banned from voting because of these laws. in three states, florida, kentucky, and virginia, the ratio climbs to 1 in 5. these individuals and many others of all races, backgrounds and walks of life are routinely denied the chance to participate in the most fundamental and important act of self governance. they are prevented from exercising an essential right. they are locked out even after they have served the time and paid the fines that they owe. >> reporter: he talks in lofty terms of right and wrong, truth and justice, but when you are talking about voting rights, and disenfranchisement, there are other issues, florida might have gone for al gore instead of president bush in 2000 if excons

had retained their right to vote. the call for reform is part of the department's new smart on crime initiative. there are 1.5 million americans behind bars, the attorney general has been pushing the country to rethink mandatory sentences. in august the justice department instructed federal prosecutors to stop charging offenderings with crimes that carried mandatory minimum sentences. >> restoring the franchise on this "inside story." joining us to discuss the barriers to voting and the downstream effects are the president and general counsel for the center for equal tune 2i, director of the american civil liberty unions voting

rights problg, and executive director of the sentencing project. and mark was it ever so? is there a history to these restrictions? have they ebbed and flowed through our history? >> well, there is a long history. in some respects it goes back to the time of the founding of this country. the laws were tailored in many cases, but in the last four decades, as the criminal justice population exploded so too has the number of disenfranchised people. >> when we were putting more people behind bars in response to a really scary run up in violent crime in this country, were stating laying on more penalties, or rejiggering them, as they were also changing the penalties over all.

>> what did happen largely in the 1980s, and '90s, were additional restrictions were placed on people with felony convictions so in terms of access to education, housing, employment, severe restrictions on many exoffenders. >> roger, you heard attorney general holder in no uncertain terms really criticize this policy and the effect it has had on communities across the country. do you think it has worked? >> i think it has worked in the sense that i don't think everybody should vote. we don't let children vote, non-citizens vote, and mentally incompetent people vote, and people who have committed serious crimes against their

fellow citizens vote. we have responsibility and commitment to the laws we have, before we entrust people with a role in the solemn enterprise of self government, and i think that when a serious crime is committed, it makes sense to take that right away until the person has shown that he or she has turned over a new leaf, and i don't think that it can be presumed that just because somebody has walked out of prison that they have turned over a new leaf. attorney general holder acknowledged that recidivism rates are very high. so i don't think it makes sense to assume, you know, automatically that these people should have the right to 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, and having a ceremony sort of like a naturalization ceremony. where you appear before the judge and the judge congratulates you on the new turn your life has taken, and then giving your, your right to vote back. i think that's the way to achieve this end that attorney general holder spoke about. but just to have it be automatic without any showing that the person has turned over a new leaf i think doesn't make sense. >> dale how about that? the ideas that someone should take affirmative steps to rein-tait grate themselves into a, for wan of a better term, decent society? >> i think someone has completed their sentence, we have already

decided this person has done their time, so to speak, they -- people who have been released are our neighbors, our friends, they live in our communities and if we're comfortable with that, why aren't we comfortable with them fully participating in our society. this is a major issue, and i think it really bares out recognizing this. senator rand paul says 5.8 million people in this country are disenfranchised. that would constitute our 20th most populous state. they would have ten votes in our electoral college. this is no small matter. it's the largest source of disenfranchisementment in our country. >> what has the trend been dale?

are there states looking at their laws on felony disenfranchisement? have states put a process for restoring your vote in place. >> the trend over -- over the last new decades has been one towards greater liberalization with respect to voting rights for people who have committed offenses. now there are always ebbs and flows, and in the last few years, you have had some steps forward and some steps back. the governor in florida issued an executive order which restored the voting rights for most people who committed non-violent offenses automatically after completing their sentences. when we left office, governor scott rescinded that. 50 years ago more than half the states in the country has

lifetime disenfranchisement for people who committed felonies, today it's fewer than 5. i think people understand these are not good policies. as attorney general holder noted, recidivism increases if you don't let people vote. >> as in the florida example, doing something by executive order may get something done, but it is also reversible. >> very much so. in virginia the outcoming governor said anyone convicted of a non-violent crime would have almost an automatic restoration process a even though it was a vigorous campaign, some 8,000 people had their rights restored, this is out of a population of about

300,000 people who have completed their sentences and can't vote. so any time we do this on a piecemeal basis it will never get to the level of what this is all about. and we have to decide is this reasonable? and if it's not we should change policy, not just depend on a case by case remedy. >> when we come back we'll talk about federalism and how this is done on a state by state basis, and also about what it would take to get the vote back for so many people who have had it taken away. this is "inside story." ♪ 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

real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. 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-imposed penalty, but are still barred from voting. in a speech at georgetown

university law school, attorney general holder called this profoundly outdated. roger, whether it is as he says rooted in anmouse and fear, there is no doubt it has been hard to undo it in a lot of states, and it's not just as easy as filing a piece of paper or even keeping your nose clean for a specified length of time. >> well, of course, the first thing to do is don't commit a crime. >> that's a good idea, yes, absolutely. >> and of course, that's the -- you know, where this problem, you know, is rooted. i think attorney general holder was quite wrong to suggest that there is any kind of a racial angle to the way these laws have been designed and -- and written. the practice of disenfranchising

felons has roots in ancient greece and ancient roam. it was in england and came over to the colonies. all states have for a long time -- except for two -- have policies of disenfranchising felons to one degree or another. if there were any evidence that a law in a state was written with the idea of disenfranchising african-americans it would be instruct down. >> but aren't there cases where the law as written ends up having differential effects. there is one study that says in the years after the civil war, 95% of the people who had their vote removed through felony conviction were black. >> well, those states -- but those statutes were designed that way, and were

unconstitutional. but those laws are not on the books anymore. and i think that to say that because a law has a disproportion at it effect, that it is rooted in racism or something like that is just not true. the laws have a pronounced differential impact with respect to sex there are lots more men in prison than women, but i don't think anybody would say these laws are sexist. >> dale what do you think? is there a racial dimension to these laws? >> one thing i definitely agree with roger on, is a lot of these laws that were enacted after reconstruction were explicitly racist. roger referred to one case where alabama's disenfranchisement law has stayed on the books since the 1900s, and legislators said the reason they wanted to adopt

these laws was to disenfranchise as many african-americans as possible. that's obviously not the term they used. and the supreme court ruled that that was unconstitutional. the question i have, if you have a law that was enacted in the 1900s, with the express intent of disenfranchising african-americans, and years later you reenacted the same law, and it has the same effect, i think that should raise some flags. it's not dispositive evidence, but if you know a law has that effect and you choose to reenact it, i think there are legitimate questions there. >> the problem with that is, first of all if you can show,

bring a lawsuit. they don't have the evidence, and the reason they don't have the evidence is because it isn't there. states disenfranchise felons across the board. slave states -- the former confederate states did it, but so did the northern states and many states during reconstruction passed laws like this when the carpet baggers were in charge. the yale law journal had a recent article about how the framers of the 14th amendment were all in favor of ensuring that people could vote without regard to race and were all in favor of ensuring that people not vote if they were felons. it was quite consistent to have that point of view, and so just because a law has a disparate

impact on the basis of race is no evidence that it was passed with discriminatory intent. >> mark these laws has written are they sensitive enough to the differents in crimes? are all felonies created equal. if you were check-kiting is that the same as being an armed robber of a convenience store? >> well, roger says if you have a felony, you are somehow not a good character. and when i registered to vote at the age of 18, nobody asked me about my character or did a worthwhile test to see what i was doing. in democracy we take the bad with the good. so i think there are legitimate punishments for people who break the law, and we should distinguish that from your

fundamental rights as a citizen. not all things change just because you have a felony conviction. >> quick response? >> mark, whom i think very highly of, thinks that people who are still in prison should be able to vote. >> as do many countries in their policies. >> and i think that's just ludicrous. and i don't think it makes sense. it's one thing for the government to have a quiz about what your character is. it's something else for them to say, 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 have shown you have turned over a new leaf. >> time for us to take a short back. when we come back, we'll talk about eric holder taking the lead on this issue. what impact will his words have when he doesn't have the authority to change the law?

only on al jazeera

♪ 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 exconvicts in america. attorney general eric holder wants to restore those rights, but doesn't have the authority to do it. and dale i'm wondering what difference does it make if you are sitting in a state that does do disenfranchisement, and the toattorney general says it is a bad idea? >> well, i think 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. and i think minds are changing on this across both sides of the aisle.

i think i mentioned earlier senator rand paul is someone who has come 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. >> does it have an effect on the debate inside the legal community to know that the chief law enforcement officer of the country is shifting the access of the conversation a little bit? >> i think it helps to focus our attention. the legal community has increasingly become engaged on this issue in the last couple of years, and this can only encourage this kind of debate taking place. >> in a place like kentucky, rand paul being probably more persuasive than attorney general holder, am i right? >> i think that's right.

i don't think attorney general holder has a contract of credibility in a lot of places. but the dog that didn't bark was he did not say there should be federal legislation in this area, which has been pushed. i think there is recognition that this is something that has to be addressed by the states. and he said there are only 11 states where he thinks the balance is being instruct in the wrong place versus 48 states the way mark thinks. so that's good. i think it's not as bad as t speech might have been. >> is this an aspect of a wider conversation 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? >> yeah. well, we're seeing this debate take place in all sorts of ways in ring cent years. i guess what is different here is these laws have been in effect for a long time. some of the other campaigns around voter id and things like that, much of that is relatively new, and i think coming from a somewhat different direction, but i can't presume to see what is in the minds of people promoting some of those policies. i think in this area, the facts are quite clear they have been for quite sometime, the rich shall dynamics are just dramatic. so i think the failure to address this in those states that haven't is very telling of how they view the electorate. >> dale 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 -- this argument will get a brood hearing and maybe

get people engaged on the topic? >> there's not a lot of litigation on this issue right now. this issue is primarily a policy issue that is being -- i think as roger noted -- primarily resolved in the states, but there is a lot of question whether the federal government has the authority to issue guidelines as to whether or not people ought to be able to vote in federal elections after they have completed their sentences. so it's mainly a policy issue, but i think only time will tell whether or not this issue gets resolved in the courthouse or the legislature. >> roger, quickly before we go, do you see anything changing in the near term? >> no, i don't. and in terms of the same lairties between this and voter id, i think they are quite different. when somebody votes that is not qualified to vote, that's a very different problem, and

legitimate voter rights are being stopped. >> thanks, roger. i have got to go. thanks for joining us for this education of "inside story." i'm ray suarez. welcome to al jazeera america, i'm del walters. these are the stories we are following for you. the major winter storm landing on the eastern seaboard, shutting down power, flights, and schools for thousands of americans. time-warner and comcast announcing they will join forces. a cointreau -- controversial euan