Gov. Kim Reynolds' proposal to amend the Iowa Constitution to automatically restore voting rights to convicted felons will face opposition from lawmakers who insist criminals must first repay all court-ordered restitution, legal and civil rights advocacy groups said.

The proposal as currently written would restore voter rights to felons after they complete their sentence. More than 50,000 people would be affected.

But some lawmakers have said felons should additionally be required to complete repayment of their court-ordered restitution before being allowed to cast ballots.

No groups have registered in opposition to her plan. A legislative subcommittee will meet to discuss the issue for the first time Thursday at noon.

"As I hear that idea, it says: Rich felons could vote, poor felons could not," said Gary Dickey, a Des Moines attorney who in 2016 represented Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald in support of Kelli Jo Griffin, a mother who — with the help of the ACLU — unsuccessfully challenged the state's policy before the Iowa Supreme Court.

Some felons make incremental restitution payments for the rest of their lives, Dickey noted.

"The distinction is not your crime, it's your ability to pay," Dickey said. "It feels like a poll tax."

Iowa and Kentucky are the only states that permanently ban felons from voting unless the governor or president individually restores their rights.

Critics contend that the Iowa ban runs counter to societal goals to reform, forgive and reintegrate criminals into society.

They also contend confusion or database errors associated with the ban frequently misidentify felons and prevents qualified voters from casting ballots.

►MORE: A Des Moines Register investigation found systemic and longtime inaccuracies in Iowa’s database of more than 69,000 felons

Reynolds called on lawmakers to launch a constitutional amendment process during her Jan. 15 Condition of the State address, saying: "There are few things as powerful as the joy of someone who got a second chance and found their purpose."

Lawmakers must approve legislation creating a constitutional amendment in two consecutive two-year general assemblies, and then Iowans must approve it in a statewide vote.

If the measure is adopted, it could be reversed only through a second constitutional amendment.

Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the governor's proposal might hinge on the details. He noted a desire from himself and others in his party to consider how restitution and a possible time delay should play into the issue.

Reynolds last week emphasized that payment of restitution is not a part of the current process by which felons can apply to the governor's office to have their rights restored.

"I want to make sure that we’re not making it stricter than what we already have," she said.

Officials from the ACLU of Iowa and the Iowa Voters Rights Project said they share the governor's concern and would drop their support of the constitutional amendment if completion of restitution were made a requirement.

Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, is on the three-person subcommittee that on Thursday will consider the proposal, House Study Bill 68.

He told the Register this week that he couldn't support a constitutional amendment unless completion of victim restitution was a factor. But he later said he was reconsidering that position based on concerns such as those expressed by Dickey.

"I'm not afraid to learn and then have a different thought based on that," Kaufmann said. "Having restitution completed would be my initial reaction, but that is a good point also and that is the point of the subcommittee."

TALK ABOUT IT: A House subcommittee will review House Study Bill Thursday at noon in room 102 of the Iowa State Capitol.