DescentBB

Seems that felons are more likely to be democrat voters than law abiding citizens- otherwise Democrats wouldn't be jumping all over existing law trying to get felons the privilege to vote in elections.

So Democrats want felons, convicts and illegal immigrants to vote. Anyone else see a pattern here?

Anyway, the Democratic Party has suffered a setback in Virginia:

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday ruled against Gov. Terry McAuliffe's executive order seeking to reinstate the right to vote to approximately 206,000 Virginians who had been convicted of a felony but had completed their sentences.

Writing for a 4-3 court, Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons held that the "assertion that a Virginia governor has the power to grant blanket, group pardons" is "irreconcilable" with the Constitution of Virginia.
The ruling is a political setback to Democrats and was issued in the critical state about an hour before Hillary Clinton announced she would choose former Virginia governor and current Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate. The court's opinion actually mentions Kaine, noting that when he was governor he contemplated a similar executive order but in the end was advised that he couldn't issue such a sweeping action.
"Never before," Lemons wrote, "have any of the prior 71 Virginia governors" issued such a clemency order of any kind, "whether to restore civil rights or grant a pardon, to an entire class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/ ... ts-felons/

was down there when the ruling came down. I was surprised it was that close. It has nothing to really do with voting patterns,but unequal disenfranchisement due to longstanding institutional racism in arrests and especially plea bargains before sentencing. Still, I was surprised he went the clemency route, but understand the frustration of trying to get the Senate there to agree to fair franchise for all. I see no reason why someone done with any sentence shouldn't be able to vote.

callmeslick wrote:I see no reason why someone done with any sentence shouldn't be able to vote.

I see no reason why anyone is prison should lose the right to vote, and I've never heard a good argument for stripping that right away from a person.

I see the theory, but might not be that comfortable with that, Vision.

I always said if you're on welfare you shouldn't be able to vote. Certainly would change a lot of dynamics.

nice attitude. Disenfranchise the poor. That isn't America. Never was.

Frankly if you're looking to take the vote from everyone getting a handout, start with the people paying 15% for capital gains income.

callmeslick wrote:nice attitude. Disenfranchise the poor. That isn't America. Never was.

Frankly if you're looking to take the vote from everyone getting a handout, start with the people paying 15% for capital gains income.

Sorry slick, I suggest you read up on your history. There was a time you had to be a landowner to vote.

perfectly well aware of that. My people helped write the rule book. Still, as we've evolved(another Virginian noted that ongoing evolution of our government was absolutely imperative), we've opened the process massively. By the later 1800s, to vote, one merely had to be a legal resident, and essentially, if you were here, you were legal. Of course, men only until the early 20th century, and black people have faced MASSIVE hurdles since Reconstruction. That last part, in Virginia is manifest as follows: if you are black, you generally will not be granted the opportunity to plea bargain a low-level Felony down to a misdemeanor. A white person will, if he or she even is convicted for the exact same offense. The result is an outlandish overage of felons among the black populace, resulting in disenfranchisement that was more than likely planned that way.

"Your" people? Self aggrandizing much? Why explain the progression of voting rights now? Trying to cover for a prior ignorant statement?

callmeslick wrote:...resulting in disenfranchisement that was more than likely planned that way.

It was planned, by the Nixon administration who enacted the loss of voting rights for felons, and to combat the danger of the civil rights movement. People in power don't want the lower class to have rights.

no, vision, that plan has been in effect since I was a kid(sadly, far pre-dating the Nixon administraton).

callmeslick wrote:no, vision, that plan has been in effect since I was a kid(sadly, far pre-dating the Nixon administraton).

True. I didn't make my statement clear, which was before Goldwater and Nixon, incarceration rates were steady throughout the early 20th Century. Afterwards, there was a huge spike that continues to this day. It was the birth or the prison industry, which as we all know disproportionately affects poor people and minorities. If we aren't going to overhaul the prison system maybe we can at least return rights to the people who need them most?

Both of you guys are off track. The real incarceration was the welfare system. The black American family was held hostage and disenfranchised by a system that kept the Black father from living with his family with the end resul that 70% of black families are single parent run by the mother. If the welfare system allowed the father to live with his family I suspect black crime would be far different and black incarceration rates far lower. Young black men not having a father in their lives led to what you see today...high crime, low education and general despair.

Shush…you know that slick and others don’t believe that.

I mean the devastation of the family coincides with the age of the social program simply by coincidence.

Yea….that’s the ticket.

The racial breakdown of incarceration rates should be completely irrelevant to whether nor not felons should retain the right to vote.

I thoroughly believe once you've served your sentence, voting rights should be restored. I also lean toward not taking the right away in the first place. I can see it as a part of the punishment, but I don't really see it as any kind of extra deterrent. I think retaining the right to vote may help to reinforce some sense of civic responsibility during a sentence, which could be conducive to rehabilitation. I also think you should be able to vote to change a law you've been found to have broken.

Though, large prisons in the middle of nowhere would probably have a pretty fucked up local government.

I think the entire point of prison is the suspension of civil rights, although I think once you serve your time you should have ALL of them reinstated.

Yep, including the rights to own a gun and to serve in a jury. Prepare for ★■◆● storm, 3..2..1..

Wait….jury duty is a right, I always thought that was some kind of perverse punishment for having the gall of registering to vote…

KID…D…ING

Spidey wrote:I think the entire point of prison is the suspension of civil rights

There are plenty of rights that can't be suspended just because you are in prison. It's typically anything that isn't inconsistent with incarceration. I'm not sure voting falls within this.

Yes, and most of those rights fall into the basic human rights category, not “civil” rights.

Incarceration is a deliberate action removing a person from the “civil” environment.

I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm just saying the case to do it isn't a no-brainer.

Nightshade wrote:So Democrats want felons, convicts and illegal immigrants to vote. Anyone else see a pattern here?

I think our lefty buddies here are ignoring that fact.

Nightshade wrote:I think our lefty buddies here are ignoring that fact.

I'm not sure what I'm ignoring. I've just freely admitted that I think felons and convicts should be allowed to vote. (I think illegal immigrants should have an easy path to citizenship, and then they can vote, too!)

I guess I'm ignoring whatever pattern you have recognized?

Nightshade wrote:I think our lefty buddies here are ignoring that fact.

I'm not a "lefty" and I think felons should be able to vote. It's not a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. Find me a good argument for civic death and I'll consider it.