edna-mahan-womens-prison-njjpg-899559f446d30a3f_large.jpg

The Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women in Union Township is shown in this 2004 file photo. State Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Essex) has introduced a bill that would allow veterans who are in prison, parole or probation to vote.

(Jerry McCrea/The Star-Ledger)

TRENTON — Prisoners serving their sentences as well as parolees and probationers would be allowed to vote in New Jersey under newly introduced legislation, but only if they had served in the military.

State Sen. Ronald Rice, a Vietnam War veteran, introduced the bill on Monday, saying those who sacrificed for their country should get special consideration in getting back their civic rights.

"Those of us who fought in wars, we make mistakes like everyone else," Rice (D-Essex) said. "But we fought for the country, too, and that should count for something."

Currently, convicted felons in New Jersey aren’t allowed to vote until they have served their full sentences, including prison time, parole and probation.

The bill (S2050) comes three months after the nation’s top law-enforcement official, Attorney General Eric Holder, called on states to repeal laws that restrict voting for felons once they leave prison.

A study by the nonprofit Sentencing Project found that 5.85 million Americans weren’t allowed to vote because of felony convictions as of 2010.

States have varying degrees of voting restrictions for those convicted of serious crimes, according to Nonprofit VOTE — an organization that advocates increasing voter participation.

On one extreme, four states — Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia — bar felons from voting for life unless they successfully petition the government. On the other extreme, in Maine and Vermont, felons can vote while serving time in prison. Twenty-one states — including Maryland, North Carolina and Louisiana — have laws similar to those in New Jersey.

Rice’s bill would apply to all veterans convicted of all crimes except sex offenses.

The Essex County Democrat said he chose to exempt sex crimes because perpetrators are often "habitual" and it’s a "crime that no one can tolerate." And, Rice said, some veterans suffer mental trauma that contributes to their crimes.

"Some of these veterans have other conditions that are being treated, that they committed crimes because of the conditions," he said.

Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative research organization, said he was sympathetic to the idea of considering military service in restoring voting rights to felons after they have been released from prison. But he said cases should be considered individually, not automatically, and that under Rice’s bill, members of the military and veterans could vote even if they had committed treason.

"Once any felon’s sentence has been served, it makes sense for the right to vote to be restored on a case-by-case basis where the individual has shown that he or she has turned over a new leaf — and in that review other facts about the individual, including his or her service to the country, can be taken into account," Clegg said. "But this bill goes too far."

State Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) questioned why only those convicted of sex crimes would be prevented from voting.

"I don’t understand the distinction between sex crimes and maybe others," Cardinale said. "Suppose a guy is convicted of murder. You’re going to let a murderer vote? Suppose you’re convicted of voter fraud. Are you going to be allowed to vote?"

Even advocates in favor of allowing felons to vote saw potential problems with the legislation.

Ari Rosmarin, public policy director for the ACLU of New Jersey, said the bill should go further.

"The ACLU-NJ strongly supports efforts in the Legislature to strengthen our democracy by ensuring that all New Jerseyans have a say in choosing their representatives," Rosmarin said. "While we believe Senator Rice’s bill to expand voting rights is a well-intentioned step in the right direction, we must not leave behind the thousands of other New Jerseyans who are kept from voting because of outdated and racially discriminatory disenfranchisement laws."

Bob Brandon, president of the Fair Elections Legal Network, a liberal organization, said Rice’s bill would lead to some thorny constitutional questions by affording privileges to veterans.

"I would say the senator is trying to do the general right thing, but making the distinction just on veterans doesn’t make sense, and probably is not constitutional," Brandon said.

The fate of Rice’s bill is uncertain, and a companion bill has not yet been introduced in the Assembly. A spokesman for Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who decides the fate of legislation in the upper house, declined to comment.

RELATED COVERAGE

• Editorial: New Jersey denies too many felons the right to vote

• More Politics







FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+