Disenfranchised Felons

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:26 pm

I think both sides raise some interesting and valid points. Ask yourself this though, didnâ??t we (Americans) claim our independence and start a revolution in large part because of â??taxation without representationâ?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:12 pm

Dedman wrote:Issuing a blanket denial of voting RIGHTS, and they are a right as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is against the very fabric of what this Nation was founded on.

There's no nationwide denial of voting rights.

There are only state-level regulations that abridge voting rights (after due process of law, for participating in crime, as allowed by the 14th amendment sections 1 and 2.) Individual states have different laws about felons, who are incorrectly called "ex-felons" (the only way to be an ex-felon is to be innocent, be convicted, and then have it overturned.) The laws differ in how those felons have their voting rights restored -- mostly in the amount of time needed for restoration of those rights based on the type of crime committed.

the restoration of those rights after demonstration of good and productive citizenship is also a reasonable act

So, let's put partisanship aside and look for a moment at the reality:

FACT: 2 states allow all felons to vote, even while in jail. Of the 48 that restrict felons from voting sometimes, 40 already have laws that automatically restore voting rights after some period of time (typically, the end of parole.) The other 8 require a special petition for voting rights to be restored. In all cases, voting rights *can* be restored. There are no blanket denials here.

So, what would this provision of the cleverly but improperly named "count every vote act" actually accomplish? It would force all states to adopt the same standard. Instead of allowing individual states to determine what "demonstration of good and productive citizenship" is, it would force all states to conform to a federally mandated standard. And not just any federally mandated standard, but a federally mandated standard that's pretty lenient.

To quote John Fund, "it is the states that should make such decisions, based on local circumstances and debate.... [but] Careful and considered deliberation at the state level isn't enough for Sens. Clinton and Kerry. They insist on a one-size-fits-all policy." They're advocating a bad policy for partisan motives, and they've put a clever-sounding name on it.

I like John Fund's conclusion: "Leaving the matter to the states probably will mean more felons regaining the right to vote than Republicans would like but fewer than Democrats desire. And that's probably about the right solution."

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:43 pm

Dedman wrote: However, the restoration of those rights after demonstration of good and productive citizenship is also a reasonable act.

Ah yes, but how much disagreement do you think you will get over what metrics you use to determine how or if a felon has been so restored? If you could just give them a CAT scan of their brain and so see it, then that would be great, albeit expensive (Who's gonna pay for this test, etc., opening yet another can of worms). Some cases of reformed individuals will be obvious, as will some cases of the irreformable. The problem is the vast spectrum of felonious individuals in the middle.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:26 pm

Lothar wrote: clevely

That be spelled "cleverly" Mr word Nazi.

Just enjoying the pay back

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:20 am

Lothar wrote:So, what would this provision of the cleverly but improperly named "count every vote act" actually accomplish? It would force all states to adopt the same standard. Instead of allowing individual states to determine what "demonstration of good and productive citizenship" is, it would force all states to conform to a federally mandated standard. And not just any federally mandated standard, but a federally mandated standard that's pretty lenient.

I still think that allowing felons to vote is not only a good idea in principal. However, on the basis of this quote alone, I can not support the bill. We don't need the Feds telling the States how to run their election process.

This is yet another reason why I have left the Democratic party.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:31 am

so if a generous amount are not going to vote anyways, like the rest of the demographs, i say let them vote. Woody, it's not quite the same as giving them a job at the NSA don't ya think?

Besides, I'd take Cops up on that whiskey. He's got fun stories, but be careful, give him some wild turkey and you've got a madman on your hands.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:06 am

i say let them vote.

I say let them vote when they've convinced their state government that they're rehabilitated. Whether this means finishing parole, going a certain length of time without getting into trouble, or something else should really depend on the crime they committed and the judgement of the state.

I seriously doubt any of the states have truly *bad* policies. Some are probably a bit stricter than they should be, and some are a bit more lenient than they should be, but for the most part they're pretty reasonable. I could see pushing the few strictest states into making some changes, but it seems senseless to me to push all of the states into being significantly more lenient.

A federal mandate is the wrong way to go about this. Let the debate and discussion happen, and let society work it out.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:07 am

if you get done for cannabis possesion, can you vote?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:25 am

roid wrote:if you get done for cannabis possesion, can you vote?

Yes. If you choose to break the rules then you don't get to make the rules.
That's the underlying theory behind the practice.

Although it seems harsh, in general it's a lot better than sending the message Ahh go ahead, break the rules, it won't have any long term consequences.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:55 am

Zuruck wrote: Woody, it's not quite the same as giving them a job at the NSA don't ya think?

True to a point. It also, as others have said, depends on the nature of the crime.

Zuruck wrote:Besides, I'd take Cops up on that whiskey. He's got fun stories, but be careful, give him some wild turkey and you've got a madman on your hands.

I'll have to see about attending the next chicago lan and find out.

If the right to vote is a constitutional right, then why did it take so long for women suffrage?

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:00 am

rules are not ment to be respected.

they are ment to make sense on their own merit.

some laws are stupid and should be repealed - everyone agrees yes?
who's left to vote for that law to be repealed?

the territory is such that those who disagree with the establishment, are prevented from changing it to better suit them.

right and wrong are relative terms, relative to the society. laws are not designed to control the masses. if enough people want something - then the laws change.
felons are people.

if it were made illegal to not wear a hat. then all ppl who don't want to wear hats would be arrested and charged. all of those FELONS would then not be able to vote to change that law, even though they are the most likely to vote against it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:30 am

roid wrote:...rules are not ment to be respected.
they are ment to make sense on their own merit.

...if it were made illegal to not wear a hat. then all ppl who don't want to wear hats would be arrested and charged. all of those FELONS would then not be able to vote to change that law, even though they are the most likely to vote against it.

And all people who have been jailed for murder would no doubt like to vote to repeal the murder laws...
Should we pursue letting that happen because the law doesn't "make sense" to the murderers?!?! After all, they are people too

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:01 pm

Side note/digression: There currently is no chicago LAN scheduled due to venue issues. See the multi forum for details. Your help is needed!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:01 pm

WarAdvocat wrote:Side note/digression: There currently is no chicago LAN scheduled due to venue issues. See the multi forum for details. Your help is needed!

Sorry Copsey, no regaling me with sexy ballads

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:45 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
roid wrote:...rules are not ment to be respected.
they are ment to make sense on their own merit.

...if it were made illegal to not wear a hat. then all ppl who don't want to wear hats would be arrested and charged. all of those FELONS would then not be able to vote to change that law, even though they are the most likely to vote against it.
And all people who have been jailed for murder would no doubt like to vote to repeal the murder laws...
Should we pursue letting that happen because the law doesn't "make sense" to the murderers?!?! After all, they are people too

if the people want it to be so - then murder should be legal.

but we both know that the people DON'T want murders to be legalised, there's no need to be afraid of that. is there? why are you rolling your eyes?

you can trust that people will want what's right,
felons arn't souless monsters as soon as they break the law (remember: no hats). with a few extreme exceptions, if you asked a murderer - she would say that murder is wrong.
she didn't murder because she thought it was ok to.

some people think that laws are the only thing holding society together, and as soon as a law is repealed everyone is going to rush to experience it.
mate, if murder were legalised, i wouldn't be going out and murdering someone.
murder is wrong - is common sense. i don't need a law to guide my actions on that.

you didn't really think before posting that did you, it was just a knee jerk yeah? coz:

And all people who have been jailed for murder would no doubt like to vote to repeal the murder laws...

no, murders know murder is wrong.

Should we pursue letting that happen because the law doesn't "make sense" to the murderers?!?! After all, they are people too

if as you say murderers DO want murder to be legal: do you really think it'd be a majority? what are you worried about?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:01 pm

What really bothers me is that we allow the white supremacist and white separatists to vote. We have such a painful history in the United States regarding race relations. There are entire towns in the South that would like us to turn back the clock 50 years. And with their vote they could create more subtle Jim Crow laws.

We also have all these new immigrants voting. They take up the majority of several small towns here in my state. Their effects can already be felt on the federal voting level. Do you remember all the election candy Bush offered to them before the last election, amnesty, etc? Predictably that disappeared, but it was offered because we let them vote. Hispanics are the only minority group that have a significant republican percentage, and can do major damage with it.

That is the reason most republicans in office are voting in the favor of soft boarder laws. We could shut the boarder down in a second if we wanted too. But because we allow them to vote, the politicians are scared to do whatâ??s in Americaâ??s best interest.

Citizens that want America to be communist can vote, which is ridiculous. Socialists vote, even fascists are allowed to vote! WTF are we thinking? We allow them to use our system, who openly claim to desire the destruction of our system! No no, take away that vote tooâ?¦.

.......................................

At some point you just have to believe in democracy. Will, if the majority want soft murder laws then we should have soft murder laws. That being said, it is counter humanity for the majority to ever want such a thing. If the majority wants soft drug lawsâ?¦.well...lets not give them felonies to prevent them from casting such a voice.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:34 am

Goob, Democracy is three men and two woman...the three men vote rape is legal and the two women do not. So this is the society you would like to live in?

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:07 am

woodchip wrote:Goob, Democracy is three men and two woman...the three men vote rape is legal and the two women do not. So this is the society you would like to live in?

Another winner of an analogy. You should write for the SAT exam!

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:37 am

woodchip wrote:Goob, Democracy is three men and two woman...the three men vote rape is legal and the two women do not. So this is the society you would like to live in?

hell no. i don't want to live on that planet.

woodchip, your analogy is suggesting these things as fact:
1- Felons consider their crimes to not be crimes.
2- Those same felons outnumber us non-felons 3 to 2.

both of which are completely FALSE.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:37 am

Gooberman wrote:What really bothers me is that we allow the white supremacist and white separatists to vote. We have such a painful history in the United States regarding race relations. There are entire towns in the South that would like us to turn back the clock 50 years. And with their vote they could create more subtle Jim Crow laws....

Allow me to paraphrase you and then you might see my point:

'At some point you just have to believe in democracy. Gooberman, if the majority want white supremecy laws then we should have white supremecy.'

Do you see your own logic doesn't sound so great when it helps the 'wrong' kind of person shape our society?

Democracy itself is not the source of great law. We have a representative republic where great ideas become law and that system is resistant to the mob mentality that a pure democracy would foster.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:53 pm

80% of the white south was against Brown vs. the board of education, and it went on to pass. We never denied them the right to vote. What I am saying is that we already allow that wrong kind of person to try and shape our society. We would still have a supreme court to tell people to stfu. We would still have laws.

When I said believe in democracy, perhaps I should have said believe in our democracy and the system we have in place.

Also, when discussing majority rule: You are on a another playing field when you argue for different rules for separate groups, then when you argue for different rules for all the groups.

The majority should have significant influence and impact on the latter, not the former.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:26 pm

The difference for me though, is, people with differing opinions don't necessarily pose a threat to our society. ie; a Racist who wants to have white only rule isn't breaking the law by holding or voicing an opinion. So there is no punishment due him nor any reason to revoke his voting "rights".

A criminal who is a threat, who is actually breaking the law is open to punishment and the punishment was established before he broke the law that he would forfeit his "right" to vote. He is a practicing anti-social where the racist is merely voicing opinions that are largely believed to be anti-social. As soon as the racist lynches someone he too will lose his "right to vote".

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:53 pm

If a kid steals a car at age 19, goes to prison, does his time, made a mistake, we're telling him that he cannot have a stake in his country ever again. He made a mistake as a young kid and now he pays his whole life.

What can be done? I'm not sure, but it seems like it's a little unfair, if someone does their time they should be sent back to society. I thought our rights were un-revokable?? (is that a word?)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:32 pm

Zuruck wrote:If a kid steals a car at age 19, goes to prison, does his time, made a mistake, we're telling him that he cannot have a stake in his country ever again. He made a mistake as a young kid and now he pays his whole life.

What can be done? I'm not sure, but it seems like it's a little unfair, if someone does their time they should be sent back to society. I thought our rights were un-revokable?? (is that a word?)

There is no right to vote, check your copy of the constitution.
There already is a means to restore his voting privalage without letting Hillary buy votes from felons.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:02 pm

but you only replied to the second half of my post...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:20 pm

Zuruck wrote:If a kid steals a car at age 19, goes to prison, does his time, made a mistake, we're telling him that he cannot have a stake in his country ever again.

No, we're not. Go back and read my response to Dedman -- I covered this in detail.

Essentially... there is no federal mandate, only state mandates, on this topic... and every state has *some* way for felons to get their voting rights back (more quickly for less violent crimes, in general.) Most states already restore voting rights for non-violent felons once they're no longer doing time or on probation.

We're not telling him he can never vote again. We're telling him he can vote as soon as he passes whatever requirement his state has set (most of which are pretty reasonable.)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:16 am

When they catch this guy he should be allowed to vote from prison a la Hillary's plan.

Or...

Each state should decide if and when someone like that is ready to participate in shaping our laws.

From the link:

******************
A judge, court reporter and deputy were killed and another deputy was wounded Friday in a shooting at the Fulton County Courthouse in downtown Atlanta. Authorities were hunting for the gunmen.

Fulton County Sheriff's Lt. Clarence Huber identified the suspect as 33-year-old Brian Nichols, who was on trial on rape charges stemming from an incident in August. It was not immediately known how the suspect got a gun.

James Bailey, a juror in the trial, said the jury was not in the courtroom at the time of the shooting. Nichols, who also faced charges of sodomy, possession of a machine gun, possession of a handgun, and possession of a large quantity of marijuana, had not taken the stand yet in the trial, which started Tuesday.

Bailey said Nichols made him and other jurors nervous. "Every time he looked up, he was staring at you," Bailey said.
************************

You decide.