Speak up, Martha

She could host a lawn party for 600 with three loaves of bread, two fish and a rusty butter knife. \nBut once she serves her prison sentence, could domestic goddess Martha Stewart change the law books when it comes to restoring ex-felons' right to vote?\nIt's one of those "what if's" a professor posed to my class.\nI responded "yes."\nLet's make things clear, though. As far as I know, Stewart's campaign for ex-felon voting rights is totally hypothetical. This was just one prof's way of getting his students to dig into the issue of ex-felon disenfranchisement.\nAnd second, nobody ever said Martha would want her ballot-casting rights restored in the first place; it's only an assumption, considering her previous political involvement.\nBut the idea, despite its hypothetical nature, still intrigues me.\nWe live in a world where the system either treats you like a Martha or like any other felon, as is the case for rapper Jamal "Shyne" Barrows.\nBarrows must serve a 10-year sentence for his 2001 involvement in a New York club shooting, which landed him on Riker's Island. \nStewart's serving a 10-month sentence, which included five months in a West Virginia day spa ... I mean, minimum-security prison.\nF.Y.I., she's serving the second five months of her bid and just received word that judges could rethink the decision requiring her to don a parole bracelet during house arrest. \nBarrows, on the other hand, can just look forward to parole in 2009.\nSure, the comparison between white-collared crimes and violent offenses is unfair, but the undeniable truth is that money and fame's power over the judicial system aren't prevalent.\nRace, however, has immeasurable influence on the way prisoners and ex-convicts are treated.\nAccording to the law, former felons -- a group that includes Martha -- are stripped of their voting rights as punishment for their crimes. \nIn some cases, "rehabilitated" ex-felons who have served their time may regain their right to suffrage. \nSo let's say Stewart does, in fact, desire her right to vote.\nAfter analyzing the way she's being coddled by the courts, there's little chance anybody's going to deny her right to vote, should she request it.\nStewart's multi-million-dollar history of cookie-baking, potpourri-mixing and green-thumbing will help her rise above the rigors of law.\nBut what about the voting rights of cats like Barrows, or the 1.5 million convicted felons, according to an article in the Village Voice, who are less wealthy, less powerful, less known and less supported than Martha? \nThey're left to deal with a system built to frustrate their enfranchisement efforts with requirements for character references, applications, special hearings and so on.\nUnsurprisingly, black men comprise 35 percent of all Americans who have been disenfranchised. It's an easy tool for discounting the votes of poor folks and minorities.\nAnd if anybody needs to vote, it's those two groups. They've experienced the judicial system and have the most urgent need to vote for changes.\nLike Rev. Jesse Jackson said in a www.mindfully.org article, "Whether you're black, white or brown, once you serve your sentence to society, you should have your vote restored." And, "If you don't have your vote restored, it's a life sentence." \nSo yes, Martha deserves her right to vote. \nI just hope she'll have to fight for it and then use her popularity to restore that right for other ex-felons.\nMaybe then, when America finally sees a felon who doesn't fit the perverted image of "barbaric black criminal," they'll actually recognize ex-felon disenfranchisement as injustice.\nUnfortunately, the media spotlight would probably have to shine on the struggle of one rich, white woman from New Jersey before folks would recognize the need for changes.