Proposed law would bar high-risk sex offenders from voting places

By John P. Kelly, GateHouse News Service
BOSTON —

Their photographs hang in police stations and on Internet sites. Towns restrict where they live. Soon, the state’s most dangerous sex offenders might find rejection elsewhere — at the polls on election day.

A proposed law that would block high-risk sex offenders from voting at polling sites in schools and libraries overcame its first hurdle on Wednesday with an endorsement from lawmakers on the Joint Committee on Election Laws.

But objections are already being raised over the constitutionality of the measure, which would force many of the most dangerous sex offenders to vote by absentee ballot or not at all. The American Civil Liberties Union, the only group to speak out against the bill, argued that it is at odds with the state constitution, which reserves absentee ballots for the physically disabled or out-of-town voters.

The proposal was not prompted by any instance where a sex offender attacked a child at a polling place. But it has taken on new urgency since the alleged rape of a 6-year-old boy in New Bedford’s public library on Jan. 30 by Level 3 sex offender Corey Saunders.

Rep. Demetrius J. Atsalis, a Barnstable Democrat who sponsored the bill, said he was trying to be “proactive instead of reactive.”

He said his goal is to protect against a rapist wandering undetected down a school hallway or into a library bathroom.

Atsalis, the father of three children, pointed out sex offenders are routinely barred from school zones, “yet on election day we allow this.”

“We all know it takes only a matter of seconds for something to happen,” said Atsalis, who sits on the election law committee.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board, which classifies and tracks sex offenders, considers the bill a “reasonable restriction” given its aim of improving public safety, spokesman Charles McDonald said.

If passed by the Legislature and signed into law, it would affect only Level 3 sex offenders, the most dangerous classification, reserved for those considered likely to reoffend.

There are 1,544 in the state, but it is unclear how many are registered voters whose precincts are at schools or libraries.

In the region, the number of Level 3 sex offenders varies widely from community to community — from 21 in Quincy and 12 in Randolph to none in Scituate and Hingham.

Atsalis’ proposal initially included Level 2 sex offenders. But constitutional privacy concerns led him to confine it only to the most dangerous offenders, who are subject to stricter reporting rules.

The ACLU claims the bill still violates the state constitution.

Gavi Wolfe, a legislative specialist for the group, testified at Wednesday’s hearing that lawmakers would be overstepping their authority by forcing sex offenders to vote absentee. The Massachusetts constitution specifies only three cases where someone may vote absentee: disabled voters; people who are out of town on Election Day; and voters whose religious belief keep them from the polls.

“We’re talking about the right to vote, which is the most sacred act of our democratic process,” Wolfe said. “We should not be in the business of carving that up.”

Illinois enacted a similar restriction last year, though it was targeted only at people convicted of sex crimes against a child. The law, which addressed only polling places at schools, requires cities and towns to establish early voting locations for sex offenders who prefer not to vote absentee. Opponents there questioned why paroled murderers and other violent criminals were not being targeted, if the purpose was heightened public safety.

Avi Green, executive director of the voting rights organization MassVote, gave lukewarm support to Atsalis’ proposal, calling it a “laudable concept.” He pointed out other states have outright voting bans on felons.

“But you could also argue, maybe we should bar them from shopping centers, parks, concerts,” Green said.

Scituate residents vote later this month on a town bylaw that would set up 2,000-foot buffers around schools, day care centers, parks, elderly housing and places of worship. Sex offenders who live within the zones would be given 30 days to move. A similar plan is under consideration in Weymouth.
[Ed: Is it possible that sex offender-voters have now grown so numerous as to pose a challenge to the reelection of those who have persecuted them? Perhaps not quite yet, but barring them from voting booths and thus depriving them of their most basic rights as citizens shows a clear contempt not just for sex offenders but for participatory democracy.]