States have a wide range of laws governing the right of felons and ex-felons to vote. Some prohibit felons in prison, on parole, or on probation from casting ballots, but restore their voting rights once their sentences are complete. Others let them vote once their prison time is served even if they are on parole or probation. Two states—Vermont and Maine—allow felons to vote while they are incarcerated. Iowa and Florida permanently and automatically disenfranchise felons and make individuals petition the governor for reinstatement of their voting rights. Bevin’s reversal has returned Kentucky’s ex-felons to the same status. In making the move, he said:

“While I have been a vocal supporter of the restoration of rights, for example, it is an issue that must be addressed through the legislature and by the will of the people," Bevin said. "As we move into the new year and upcoming session, I look forward to working with legislators and stakeholders to build consensus and drive policy that makes a meaningful impact on the lives of all Kentuckians.”

We’ll see about that. The legislature has previously taken up the matter restoring rights with a constitutional amendment that voters would have to approve. But the differences among lawmakers over the issue made it impossible for them to come up with amendment wording they could all agree on. Similar problems have blocked reform for the past decade. So Bevin’s “look forward” is more than a bit disingenuous.

Before Beshear came into office, ex-felons in Kentucky had to personally persuade the governor to restore rights to them individually. That effort included requiring ex-felons to submit an essay, three character references and a fee when applying to get their right to vote back. Beshear removed those requirements as soon as he came into office. It’s unclear whether Bevin will overrule those changes, too.

Michael Aldridge, executive director of the ACLU of Kentucky, said this when the prospect of Beshear’s executive order became known:

“By continuing to deny Kentuckians the right to vote based on a past criminal conviction, the government endorses a system that expects these citizens to contribute to the community, but denies them participation in our democracy. We know this has impacted families and communities of those who are disfranchised by reducing their collective political voice.”

There are legitimate reasons for maintaining some restrictions on some ex-felons after they serve their time. But if we want people who have completed their incarceration to become good citizens, which is at least the claim we as a society often make despite the obstacles we put in their way, it’s counterproductive to bar ex-felons from exercising one of the most basic rights of citizenship in a democracy.

Over the past 15 years, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 20 states from Nebraska to New Mexico have—by referendum vote, changes passed by the legislature or executive orders issued by the governor—reformed their process governing voting rights of those convicted of felonies. Almost all the changes have been in the direction of making things easier for ex-felons who have served their time to get back their voting rights.

Just as Iowa and now Kentucky have returned to the old way of doing things, so has Florida. In 2007, Gov. Crist, then a moderate Republican, changed the rules in that state by automatically restoring the voting rights of ex-felons who had completed their sentences. But his successor, hard-nosed Republican Gov. Scott, reversed this policy. Ex-felons in Florida must again apply individually for reinstatement of their voting rights, and they have to wait years to do it. The state’s 1.5 million disenfranchised citizens make up more than 10 perent of the state’s voting age population.