Baby Steps with Eric Holder

Eric Holder’s Justice Department has been a disappointment more often than not. The reefer madness, an absurd and abusive political foray into sensitive academic archives, that ghoulish speech about the power of the federal government to kill U.S. citizens overseas in drone strikes. I am not prepared for the sensation of thinking about Holder and his department without a vague sense of disgust. I mean, really.

So I’m a little confused this week. In a February 11 speech at Georgetown University, Holder ran through entire sentences and paragraphs that suggested a capacity for well-considered mercy and decency.

In particular, the attorney general argued against the continuing disfranchisement of convicted felons in nearly a dozen states:

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,” Holder said. “That’s more than the individual populations of 31 U.S. states . . . Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens—or nearly one in 13 African-American adults—are banned from voting because of these laws. In three states—Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia—that ratio climbs to one in five.

This assault on the most fundamental right of citizenship is particularly excessive in the ham sandwich nation (“ham sandwich nation” being a reference to the old saying that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich), where everyone with a pulse reliably commits three felonies a day. In the contemporary criminal justice environment, a raft of felony charges may mean that you’re a depraved murderer, or it may mean that you dragged some blubber on a rope. (Though in the latter case a plea bargain may save you from multiple blubber-dragging felonies, in the end.) To disfranchise felons is to ensure that some dude who used drugs in his own home doesn’t get to sully the election for county assessor with his degraded ballot; it’s an assault on citizenship over something that may or may not be picayune bullshit. Here’s more from Holder’s remarks:

And so today, I call upon state leaders and other elected officials across the country to pass clear and consistent reforms to restore the voting rights of all who have served their terms in prison or jail, completed their parole or probation, and paid their fines.

That seems unlikely to happen, except for a couple of things. First, note this extraordinary thing that Holder said, with what must have been grudging respect: “Later today, this conference will hear from Senator Rand Paul, who has been a leader on this matter. His vocal support for restoring voting rights for former inmates shows that this issue need not break down along partisan lines.” An emerging libertarian wing of the Republican Party actually isn’t totally crazy, and is willing to consider the possibility of restraint in the Nixonian arena of law and order.

Second, while at least some Republicans climb on board, Democrats must also notice the politics of the effort. As the Washington Post concluded in a story on Holder’s speech, recent research has shown that “former vice president Al Gore might have prevailed in the 2000 presidential election had felons been allowed to vote nationwide.” A shame that it’s too late for Gore to make that “I would have won with the felons” t-shirt, but still.

An America with somewhat less punishment and exclusion? That would be a proud legacy for any attorney general. And it may be kind of a real possibility.