The Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday failed to advance a bill that would increase penalties for crimes against election officials. HB 100, sponsored by state Rep. Adline Clark (D-Mobile),

“I have House Bill 100, which proposes to amend Alabama's felony voter disqualification law,” Clark said. “The bill does two things. First, it provides for enhanced penalties for felonies committed against election officials motivated by their role as election officials. Second, it provides that felonies committed against election officials motivated by their role as election officials are crimes of moral turpitude. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the nation's election officials are facing unprecedented levels of safety and security following the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”

Being convicted of a felony for moral turpitude generally results in a lifetime loss of both the right to vote and the right to own a gun.

“I'm OK with adding moral turpitude, maybe not with the other items, but if someone goes into a prison and puts their finger in the middle of a person's chest and says they should do this and that, I don't know that that person gets 15 years in prison,” said state Sen. Sam Givhan (R-Huntsville). “Where's that sliding scale? If someone gets annoyed and says something mean, is that a felony? Or is it a misdemeanor?”

“It's up to the judge to make that decision,” Clark said.

“That sounds pretty scary,” Givhan replied.

“[Sen.] “Gerald Allen and I did the same thing to the umpires,” said Sen. Roger Smitherman (D-Birmingham). “It's the same thing. If you step out of the stands right now and stick your finger at the umpire like I just said, you can be prosecuted and go to jail. If you do that to the umpires, you should do it to yourself too. This has been the law for over 10 years.”

The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Sen. Will Burfoot (R-Pike Road).

“As I understand it and as I've read it, it doesn't create a new crime,” Chairman Barfoot said. “For example, if the element of harassment is met by me sticking my finger in your face or making physical contact with you with the intent to harass, annoy or frighten you, then that is harassment and it's already a misdemeanor. I think this bill proposes that minimum if the person is an elected official. That's how I interpret it. I don't think it creates a new crime, but it just says that it is a crime and that is the minimum if the person is an elected official. Senator Smitherman, I thought you would be against minimums.”

Senator Smitherman seemed to think the bill was about elected officials.

“But this isn't about us. As far as I understand it, this is for election officials, not elected officials. It's the people who are at the polls. I think this bill would be great to use as a deterrent, because it's hard enough to get people to work at the polls right now, we have to make them feel scared. All they should have is fear that someone is going to come after them. And they shouldn't have to work under those conditions,” said Sen. Vivian Figures (D-Mobile).

RELATED: Governor Ivey signs ballot harvesting ban bill

“I see people getting frustrated, and I get frustrated pretty often with my phone, my iPad, my computer, and I want to throw them out the window,” said Sen. Lance Bell (R-Pell City). “It can be frustrating when you go to vote and the new technology doesn't work or has issues. It can be frustrating even though you know you're there. You can see your name and who's voting. What can I say? And you want to reach out and touch the iPad for them. How are they going to interpret that? I know the law is already there, but are they going to make what I'm trying to fix a felony? That's what I'm worried about.”

Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, said he has been arrested before for altercations with poll workers.

“In 1996 I was arrested at a polling station for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duties,” Singleton said.

“This is a simple story. The polling place was about to close. This official saw people coming in and decided to keep them out. As he tried to close the door, I grabbed the door and opened it. I was arrested for obstructing an elected official in his duties. The issue in court was whether the polling place was closed, whether they performed their duties, and whether I as a citizen had a right to ensure these people had their right to vote. The charges against me were dropped because they proved that I was voting until 6 o'clock at the time, which was not 6 o'clock at the time. I could have been charged with a Class A misdemeanor, which would have carried a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. This law elevated it to moral turpitude and I would have lost the right to vote for the rest of my life.”

“This is only for felony offenses,” Clark said.

“I've seen how we've dealt with moral turpitude over the last 30 years, and I'm wondering, should this be part of this law?,” Figures said. “I think there will be more penalties, maybe more jail time and more fines, but as long as this doesn't go any further than this, it will be covered anyway by murder charges and so on. This is just my thinking before the bill is debated.”

“If someone is trying to deny someone the right to vote, they don't deserve it,” Clark responded. “It depends on each situation and they'd have to prove intent.”

“If you're going to do something like this, you need something to let people know,” Smitherman said. “I would like you to think about some kind of notification going forward. I don't know where or how you'd notify them. I don't know the answer. The simplest thing would be to put up a little sign on the back door that says, 'No smoking here.'”

Councilman Figures made a motion to report the bill favorably, and Councilman Smitherman seconded.

With four votes in favour, four against and three abstentions, the bill failed to receive a favourable report.

“The bill did not receive a favorable report. We will postpone the bill and bring it back on the agenda to give lawmakers a chance to consider it.”

HB 100 passed the House 95-0 but will not be considered in the Senate unless the Senate Judiciary Committee votes to issue a favorable report on the bill next week, likely in the committee's final meeting this legislative session.

To contact the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected]