Bernie Sanders advocates voting rights for incarcerated criminals...

[brooklynite]

...per a Town Hall today.

I'm sure some people think this is a great civil rights endeavor, but it's the kind of fringe policy that's going to make it harder for middle of the road voters to give him serious consideration if he's our nominee.

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

1. I wonder if that includes by absentee ballot so that Vermont's incarcerated

who are serving their time in for-profit hellholes in Pennsylvania and Mississippi will be able to vote as well.

[Demsrule86]

52. Probably not.

[ecstatic]

2. How would we know that the vote tally coming from a privately owned, repub backed prison

is accurate? And even if the tally were accurate, how would we know that the prisoners weren't coerced or given incentives to vote a certain way?

[watoos]

68. How do we know that the vote tally coming from Republican owned machines

with no paper trails and no independent audits is accurate?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Another good reason to support Bernie for POTUS!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Tipperary]

7. You think this is a good idea?

How many of those felons voted even before they were incarcerated? You think people convicted of felonies are not going to be the same type person who might sell their vote to the highest bidder? Or do you think felons are just poor misunderstood people? Dahmer, Peterson, Watts, Manson, men who rape children, criminals who kill their wives and kids, criminals who kill strangers? Really?

[Kentonio]

25. so we should assume everyone in prison is an immoral animal?

Who deserves no say over their countries future?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. So sad that our society looks down on our fellow human beings this way.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[qazplm135]

103. I think people in prison

are on timeout from society vice the ridiculous strawman you just created.

[sfwriter]

106. Yes!

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.


Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with pre-1999 Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans in the US.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[sfwriter]

169. Firearms are not recognized as a human right.

You don't hand out firearms to prisoners. That's basic safety. The second amendment does not promise a right to armed murder and mayhem. It is routinely abridged on safety grounds. We make exceptions to it in all sorts of institutions, buildings and businesses.

A single ballot is not a dangerous thing to the prison or other prisoners nor the state at large. It does no harm to society. Thinking it does is a paternalistic abridgment of a very basic right.

After serving their sentences, prisoners can have their right to bear arms restored. It requires a court fight, but it is sometimes done, especially in situations where firearms constitute a basic necessity or the original crime is not enhanced by firearms possession.

There was a recent Supreme Court decision related to just this, recognizing a gray area between Federal and State law, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where a state court had restored the gun ownership rights of two federally defined felons whose crimes were misdemeanors in Pennsylvania.

[LanternWaste]

139. You speak so much on that which you seem to know so very little.

Try reading 'The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons' by Elizabeth Hull. You'll have some objective information on which to form a hypothesis rather than relying on spurious correlations and anecdotal evidence to support your biases...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

158. Good advice... hopefully some will make the effort to educate themselves on this important topic.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Tipperary]

165. You always give me glee Lantern Waste.

I do thank you for that.

[qazplm135]

8. why?

Other than the fact that Bernie's for it so you are for it?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Just because someone commits a crime, and is locked in a cage like an animal, doesn't mean

they should lose all rights that come with being a member of the human race. Bernie, once again, shows his human compassion... give those behind bars - many of whom are innocent or, if guilty, have committed offenses that are hardly worthy of jail time - the right to vote in those candidates who will represent them and, hopefully, look out for their rights.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[qazplm135]

12. good lord

1. "Many" are not innocent. Some are innocent. MOST are guilty.
2. You lose rights when you are incarcerated. There is nothing special about the right to vote vice, oh, I don't know, the right to freedom of movement?
3. Are you advocating we don't incarcerate anyone since doing so would mean they were being "caged like an animal?"
4. If the offenses are hardly worthy of jail time, then advocate for criminal justice reform. That has nothing to do with whether there is something sacred about the right to vote vice the other rights all prisoners lose when they are incarcerated.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. How the hell do you think you get criminal justice reform?! You vote for those who support it!!

Even criminals deserve that much!! Thankfully, at least Bernie understands this... good for him!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[qazplm135]

23. Nonsensical reply

And nonresponsive.

[betsuni]

28. It's great that Sanders is evolving on criminal justice reform! Good for him! (!!!!!!!!)

Sanders, last year: "I'll be honest with you. I really didn't know this was happening. I had no idea hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly African Americans, were being held in jail, for months or years, even though they've never been convicted of a crime, simply because they can't afford bail. I've learned a lot."

[Demsrule86]

49. Yeah because Black people don't care about jobs and healthcare just prison stuff.(sarcasm)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. You'll also be glad to hear Bernie's not in favor of upholding wrongful convictions obtained

through misconduct by law enforcement officials and their support staff. Few can match this aspect of Bernie's criminal justice reform agenda.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

51. I thought you were kidding...no one upholds wrongful convictions.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Bernie leads the fight in opposing wrongful convictions & should be lauded for that is all Im sayin.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MrsCoffee]

67. You mean fighting for all those people he didn't even know were there?

How do you lead a fight against something you don’t even know exists?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Bernie's WELL aware of those bein held in prison under wrongful conviction due 2 official misconduct

and actually wants to do something about it... it's not just about restoring their voting rights!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

99. You mean the ones shipped from Vermont to hellish prisons in the south that

another poster referred to? If he has no interest in his own state,why believe he has it anywhere?

[lapucelle]

127. ...

Racial slurs, cold meals with small portions, and difficulty obtaining medications are among the complaints from Vermont’s 215 out-of-state inmates who were recently moved to Mississippi, according to advocates.

But advocates and officials agree that things are getting off to a far better start than they did at Camp Hill prison in Pennsylvania and previous locations for the state’s out-of-state inmates.

https://vtdigger.org/2018/11/30/vermonts-state-prisoners-settling-mississippi-facility/

https://vtdigger.org/2018/02/22/vermont-exit-prisoner-contract-camp-hill-due-severe-conditions/

[Demsrule86]

96. Link

[qazplm135]

101. He leads the fight??

How?

Link to show either that he was the first in "opposing wrongful convictions" or even the loudest.

Are you kidding me? Do you think Bernie is the first in everything??

[Docreed2003]

120. I point this out below

Apparently some are choosing to equate "holding a policy position" with "leading everyone else". That type of over the top grandiosity is totally transparent and I don't think it is a way to convince others to vote for any candidate...but clearly others don't see it that way.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

159. When a candidate is the 1st to lead out on a campaign issue, like Bernie does on a consistent basis

and, thus, bring initial attention to it, that makes him a "leader" by definition. Let's face it... Bernie is a born leader!! We should emulate his example, rather than throw shade at him!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Docreed2003]

161. I'm not throwing shade on Bernie

I'm saying there are other people who have been leading on the issue of criminal justice reform, particularly in regards to the inequalities experiences by people of color, something Bernie himself admits to just recently being made aware. Again, just because Bernie holds a particular policy opinion that does not make him the designated leader on that position.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

162. Not true.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Docreed2003]

164. Please enlighten me on what I've said that isn't true

[Buzz cook]

181. Unfortunately some do.

Many prosecutors have fought to keep people in prison even though they have been exonerated.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-our-justice-system-fight-so-hard-to-keep-innocent-people-behind-bars/

perhaps even more troubling is that even when clear, indisputable evidence emerges showing that someone has been imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit, prosecutors, police, and judges will often fight tooth and nail to keep them incarcerated.

[Demsrule86]

182. No one agrees with this.,.this is not an issue.

[Buzz cook]

183. You made an absolutist statement.

I pointed out that your statement was not absolutely factual.

[betsuni]

86. ...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. You can make light of fighting against wrongful convictions due to official misconduct...

but, I for one, am glad Bernie is taking this issue seriously!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

102. What fight. You have provided no links.I found nothing myself.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

111. Bernie's given airtime to this aspect of criminal justice reform in numerous speeches he's given...

if you've listened at all to Bernie's rallies and townhalls, you know he's leading on this issue. If you haven't been listening to Bernie, you should start... maybe then you'd be more willing to join Bernie in his fight against wrongful criminal convictions due to official misconduct... and a whole host of other criminal justice reform issues.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

163. I have heard the stump speech so the answer nothing.

[Demsrule86]

54. Vermont is horrible on prisoners. Are you aware of this?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Bernie is a CHAMPION FOR prisoner rights and AGAINST upholding wrongful convictions...

no other candidate even comes close to Bernie's sterling record in this area. He should be hailed for this... not subjected to a circular firing squad!! Speaking of which... Bernie also leads the fight against the death penalty, so, kudos to him for that as well!!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

89. I Google this and found no articles except the restoring the right to vote which just happened.

Link?

[Tipperary]

76. Only prisoners support criminal justice reform?

You might want to talk to some released felons; most will tell you that the majority of incarcerated belong where they are, even if they support improved conditions.

[Tipperary]

75. Thank you. It is clear some in this thread have never been anywhere near a prison.

And some have never had their lives touched by the tragedy of violent crime.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. YVW... yes, some here just need to be informed on this important aspect of criminal justice reform.

Once they are, I'm sure they'll come around to Bernie's way of thinking and jump on board with him.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Tipperary]

84. Good luck with that.

Your worship is something to behold.

[MrsCoffee]

113. +1

[WeekiWater]

192. I think you should read up on Jim Webb. It will help you to understand leading on this issue.

I get that you aren't being serious. But reading about Webb on this topic will still enlighten you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

193. VERY serious! Seems, perhaps, YOU'RE the one that needs enlightening, not me.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[WeekiWater]

195. The exclamation mark cleared it up for me. Thank you. NT

[sfwriter]

97. several reasons...

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.


Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes::

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[progressoid]

140. In Vermont and Maine, felons can vote even while incarcerated.

https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/#Maine

[AncientGeezer]

168. So the right to carry a gun? That's in the BoR's....voting isn't. What say you?

[George II]

15. Why?

[sfwriter]

100. I'm glad you asked.

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.


Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes::

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[Uncle Joe]

18. I agree InAbLuEsTaTe.

[MrsCoffee]

39. Of course you do.

[Demsrule86]

46. Is there anything he does that his fans don't agree with?

[MrsCoffee]

48. No.

They will always be believers.

[Demsrule86]

72. Yes. So true.

[zanana1]

62. Please, please don't let this divide us again!

The circular firing squad has got to stop so we can get a Democrat elected.

[MrsCoffee]

66. Bernie is divisive.

And is already running as an Independent again for his next senate run.

We have a plethora of great Democratic candidates. We don’t need to embrace this kind of extremism. For some, no position is too extreme. Right now is the time to talk about it and point it out.

Bernie will be vetted along with the rest of the candidates this time.

We will elect a Democrat in 2020.

[progressoid]

142. Extremism?

That's what was said during the last election about $15/hr minimum wage, medicare for all/single payer, etc. Things that a majority of people are embracing now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

160. LMFAO!!!!! Once again, you nailed it!!!! Cue the crickets... chirp, chip!!

Nice going!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

71. It already is dividing us. I would vote for anyone in a general but I see twitter stuff about how

his supporters won't...they say it.

[femmedem]

80. Thank you. n/t

[progressoid]

135. Is there anything that Biden does that his fans don't agree with?

Broad-brushing an entire group of people based on the posts of a few anonymous people on a message board? That sounds foolish doesn't it?

[Demsrule86]

53. No.

[AncientGeezer]

136. If voting for incarcerated felons is a good idea...why not ALL other rights?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

146. Because voting has the most direct effect on rights relating to criminal justice reform.

It should be pretty obvious!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[AncientGeezer]

152. If you restore ONE right for inmates...why not all...

You assume the votes will be tallied correctly....or not be coerced...
How dose Sen. Sanders propose we get felony inmates votes right when we have big questions about the vote in the general population every election...

If we can't be sure on the streets of Philly...how can we be sure in Rikers Island?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. Thought this was obvious... apparently not.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[AncientGeezer]

166. Enlighten us.....

Should convicted felons in jail have cell phones....free from searches, can they have knives or fire arms....if you give 1 right back don't you give all rights back?
Or just 1?

[Power 2 the People]

141. +1

[Skidmore]

4. How convenient he read the Des Moines Register.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/02/17/iowa-poll-felon-voting-rights-restore-prison-crime-vote-election-2020-kim-reynolds-ia-constitution/2875580002/

[NurseJackie]

5. I'll bet that paper has a "Today's Forecast" section too.

[George II]

16. "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"....

Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues:

[Docreed2003]

82. +1

But some folks here seem ok twisting themselves into knots supporting every utterance from Bernie's mouth and at the same time pushing the meme that Bernie is somehow the only one "leading the way", just because he holds a particular policy position.

Supporting restoration of voting rights after a felon has served their time, yes that should be lauded. Allowing prisoners to vote?? Yeah I'm sure no one would try to influence those votes or provide incentives for votes. That's not a "progressive" position....that leaves "progressive" in the dust and moves all the way to wonky-town all for the sake of "leading the way".

[JI7]

6. I didn't read the article but the title refers to those who have already served their sentences

most Democrats already support that.

Sanders here is saying those still in prison should be able to vote.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. Good for Bernie!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[George II]

17. Why?

[MrsCoffee]

42. Because Bernie.

There is no position too extreme apparently.

[Demsrule86]

43. Because Bernie said it is the only reason I can find.

[Demsrule86]

41. Anyyhing... bad ideas like this is applauded by Sanders voters. I don't get that...

[Demsrule86]

45. No, they can be coerced in prison and it won't play well with voters. And elections are run by the

States. Virginia has done this for example.

[oasis]

9. Try going with that come debate time and let's see where it gets you.

[Demsrule86]

55. No doubt other candidates will bring up Vermont's abysmal system.

[nolabear]

14. I can't think of an easier place to coerce votes.

And I don’t think the heartland wants it. It’s a poor idea.

[UniteFightBack]

19. Out of all the got damn problems.....this ain't one. Just what is he trying to do here? nt

[Kentonio]

26. What is he trying to do?

He’s trying to create a fairer society, what do you think he’s trying to do. And this might not be a problem to you, but it’s sure as hell a problem to the over 2 million Americans in prison.

[Demsrule86]

36. Me, I think he is trying to win a nomination...but this is a bad idea as states get to decide who

Votes...not presidents. And with our current courts that won't change. He probably thinks this helps attract Black voters.

[MH1]

150. You give him more credit than I do.

I think he's smart enough to know he won't win the nomination.

He is just trying to make waves for "our revolution". He doesn't think it's important for a Dem to actually win. At least, he didn't appear to think so in 2016, and I see no indication that has changed. He thinks the mobilization of his followers will lead ultimately to a better world (he's wrong on that) and that his followers will continue to revere him (probably true for 90%+). He is oblivious to, or completely uncaring about, the irreversible costs of losing in 2016 and then in 2020.

We should really consider the likelihood that this is his mindset and act accordingly.

[ecstatic]

186. "He probably thinks this helps attract Black voters."

I'm pretty sure that's why he said that. And I find it offensive.

[TexasTowelie]

38. So the people that commit crimes against persons, property, and society

are allowed to influence through voting which incidents are considered to be crimes against persons, property, and society? That makes it difficult to determine whether it creates a fairer society or a "get out of jail" loophole if those prisoners repeat their crimes after they are released. Would we want an embezzler to vote for a candidate that vows to eliminates punishment for embezzlement?

I certainly approve of restoring the voting rights of people after they serve their imprisonment and/or probation. I also support the rights of prisoners to be treated humanely while in prison with adequate food and clothing, a reasonable environment, and free from mental, physical, and sexual abuse while incarcerated. However, prison is supposed to be a deterrent to committing crimes so losing the privilege to vote is not an inherent human right that should be protected, particularly if it leads to a society that is less fair.

[Tipperary]

78. Well said TT. You said it much better than I.

Good post.

[Kentonio]

90. Please show me some examples of politicians running on pro-crime agendas

In any of the many countries that already allow incarcerated prisoners to vote.

[TexasTowelie]

108. You know that I can't

because it would result in immediate defeat in a civilized society. However, the same may not be true in a less than civilized or uncivilized society. It would be like opening a Pandora's box (or penitentiary door) to guarantee voting rights to prisoners. We already disqualify the mentally incompetent, people under 18 (it was 21 not that long ago), and non-citizens from voting even though they may not have committed any crimes.

If the criminals in prison are concerned about not being able to vote, then they shouldn't have committed the crimes that got them imprisoned in the first place.

[Kentonio]

117. America locks up more people per capita than any other country in the world

The loss of voting rights is also permanent in a number of states if a person is convicted of a felony. Think about that for a moment, in some states your voting right is not just lost while you're in jail, but lost permanently.

They estimate 6.1 million Americans are effected by this. And guess which community is disproportionately effected by these laws?

[TexasTowelie]

121. Then the effort should be made to change the laws in those states.

That will be much easier to accomplish and would gain more support from the people than guaranteeing voter rights to imprisoned inmates.

People are willing to give people that have served their sentences another chance and restore their eligibility to vote compared to those that are currently incarcerated. That sentiment is true on both the left and right. Bernie's suggestion isn't that popular on the left and it wouldn't even be considered as a starter on the right.

[Demsrule86]

40. You know who gave ex - convicts a chance that GM plant that closed. Yeah

Manufacturing hired felons.

[UniteFightBack]

118. Um no what he is doing is pandering. People in prison are not concerned with voting. Do you know

anyone who has went to prison. This is the last thing on their fucking mind...'voting'...give me a fucking break!

[Kentonio]

119. You think you can speak for what is important to over 2.3 MILLION people?

[UniteFightBack]

123. You obviously don't know anyone who has been to prison. OBVIOUSLY. nt

[UniteFightBack]

133. Good thing I have common sense. nt

[Cuthbert Allgood]

131. That's a bold claim.

Have any, you know, evidence/data to back that?

And, yes, I do know people that have been in prison. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

[UniteFightBack]

132. It's friggin common sense. I'm done. nt

[Cuthbert Allgood]

134. That's what people say when they don't have anything to back up their claim.

If you find something, let me know.

And, FYI, it isn't common sense to think that because you are in prison you don't care about your rights. Jesus.

[UniteFightBack]

137. I hope Sanders keeps pushing this !!!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

143. Me, too.

This is important on its face, but even more so when we realize the racial discrimination in who gets sent to prison.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

157. Me three... don't worry, Bernie will not be lettin this go anytime soon!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

37. Exactly... jobs and healthcare.

[IluvPitties]

20. Violent criminals should not vote.

They gave that away when they took someone's life.

[Kentonio]

27. Since when were all felons violent? Let alone murderers?

[Agschmid]

59. They aren't.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

194. THANK YOU!! Seems obvious, but, apparently, some here need enlightening.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[highplainsdem]

21. Links to articles about this from The Hill and the Des Moines Register:

https://thehill.com/homenews/437749-sanders-says-felons-should-be-able-to-vote-while-in-prison


https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/04/06/bernie-sanders-says-states-should-felon-voting-rights-election-2020-iowa-caucus/3388679002/



I think this is a very bad idea, but Bernie apparently is reaching for anything to set himself apart from the other candidates and make himself look more progressive.

[JI7]

22. maybe he thinks it would make up for not releasing tax returns.

[highplainsdem]

24. If so, then he's definitely not thinking very clearly.

[whathehell]

29. Probably a bridge too far, though I support restoring voting rights

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2019, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

once the sentence is served.

[Mike Nelson]

30. Bad idea...

… after serving their time, they should be allowed to vote. As a country, we are mistreating people who payed their debt and need to fully return to society. They should be allowed to get jobs! And, voting rights are included! …but those in prison do not have all their freedoms. I don't think they should be voting... this would lose Bernie votes, I think... and lose Democrats votes all over the nation... please, Bernie, rethink this...

[TexasTowelie]

31. +1

[Demsrule86]

34. I agree but it is not an issue to run on and states do this,

[MrsCoffee]

35. It's ridiculous.

Not sure how anyone can pretend this is some sort of sane “justice”. And people in this thread saying we shouldn’t even be putting criminals behind bars... in “cages”? I wonder if they feel the same about all the Trump admin criminals and Trump himself.

I’m starting to think Sanders really doesn’t want to win at all.

[betsuni]

44. He said this:

"This campaign was never just about electing a president of the United States -- as enormously important as that was. This campaign was about transforming America."

[MrsCoffee]

47. There must be a few perks.

Probably why we won’t be seeing those tax returns anytime soon.

That’s the impression he has left anyway with his words and actions.

[Demsrule86]

61. What does that even mean...and does this 'transformations' lead to electing Trump again?

I want to win an election.

[betsuni]

70. "Transformational" FDR blah blah blah.

Ridiculous.

[Demsrule86]

74. Yes it is.

[Demsrule86]

57. So what is he after...blow up our chances?

I don't get it,

[MrsCoffee]

64. Check out Old Towne Media for starters.

He and Devine have supposedly gone separate ways, but there are clues there.

At the start of his 2020 campaign, Bernie announced a goal to raise $27,000,000 from each of the 50 states.

[Demsrule86]

69. Interesting.. thanks

[sfwriter]

171. There are several reasons to do it.

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.

A few reasons.

Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[Mike Nelson]

187. I read...

.. that with interest. Thank you for presenting some arguments for the Sanders position. For me, it comes down to the question: Is voting one of the freedoms one gives up in prison. While I can see the "other side," I still say yes. When looking at different satiations, I would consider restoring voting rights under certain circumstances… in fact, voting could be part of rehabilitation process while serving one's sentence. However, I can't agree with everyone in prison voting... I can see the National Enquirer headline now: MANSON FAMILY ENDORSES _______ ... sorry, no. Trump would take this issue to the bank.

[sfwriter]

189. Possibly you are right.

It’s not a campaign issue. There is too much work required in educating and winning people to the position.

I just want folks to know that for Bernie, it’s the local norm, not some random crazy idea.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[Mike Nelson]

191. I sure hope it's...

...not a campaign issue!

[Demsrule86]

33. It is fringe and will hurt us.

[sfwriter]

172. Actually, it is not a fringe idea globally and two states already do it.

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.

A few reasons.

Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[Agschmid]

58. It's a great policy IMO.

[Demsrule86]

63. Why?

[Agschmid]

83. I would ask you why not?

People who are jailed felons are literally in the care of the state (or in some cases private prison complexes that they’ve been sent to). Shouldn’t they have some input in the process and care they receive?

I’m a big fan of allowing people to be involved in the process, rather than stripping them of that right.

Editing to add a list of things considered to be Class B felonies in NH:
-Computer fraud
-DWI – 4th offense or greater
-Theft of property – valued between $500 and $1,000
-Shoplifting
-Simple assault

[Demsrule86]

92. No. After release but we don't need votes coerced by righties...

States do this. Does Sanders think this helps him with POC? Ithe won't. Kind of insulting if he does.

[unblock]

65. fringe? government answers to "we the people", not "we the people who abide by government's rules"

the fringe idea is that government should be able to pick and choose its voters. that's *obviously* a recipe for terrible, corrupt government.

and, in fact, laws have been passed and enforced in a way that serves the interests of politicians. it's not a coincidence that republicans love the ability to disenfranchise black voters literally be the millions.

the reality is that voting rights should have *nothing* to do with the criminal justice system.

no criminal is going to be deterred by the prospect of losing voting rights if caught and found guilty and convicted.
no criminal is going to be rehabilitated by temporarily losing their voting rights.
not that i believe much in "victims' rights", but no victim is going to be made to feel better by taking away a criminal's voting rights.

the *only* people this concept serves are the politicians who decide who gets to vote and who doesn't.


now, i do get that we live in a society that likes to be vindictive when it comes to criminals, so pushing the idea that "everyone votes", by trying to be sympathetic to the plight of felons isn't going to work. fine. but if phrased as a matter of anti-corruption, of not trusting government, of "no one has the right to take away anyone's vote", i think that would work fine.


people died for the right to vote, and by the way, a lot of them broke laws in the process.

[TexasTowelie]

94. However, we do limit the right to vote among the people living in this country.

We don't let non-citizens vote. And among our citizens, we don't let people under 18 vote and we don't let the mentally incompetent vote. While voting is considered to be a right, it is also considered to be a privilege and government has that option to curtail those privileges.

I consider driving to be more of a right than voting. Not being able to drive has a larger economic impact on people (including those who may not have committed a crime or those who committed a crime many years ago) since it hinders the opportunity to be employed and the constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. However, from the first driver's education class onward the instructors emphasize that driving is a privilege. From a personal perspective, letting an unsafe driver on the highway creates a much larger danger to myself, to property, and other members of society which is why governments can limit that privilege. For the express reason of being a deterrent, I support the government limiting whether prisoners can vote. If those prisoners are concerned about losing the ability to vote, then maybe it will help prevent criminal activity.

[unblock]

116. we do but we shouldn't. the potential for abuse is great in letting government take away the vote.

denying the vote to non-citizens and minors, ok, i don't know what your point is here. of course we can perhaps argue if 18 years old is the right cutoff, but at some point kids are too young and certainly foreigners shouldn't be able to control our government so some process for acquiring the vote is fine for immigrants. but once you have the vote, it should never be taken away, period.

there is *zero* deterrent effect in taking away the right to vote. i can't even conceive of anyone every thinking "well, i'd commit this crime, and i'm not bothered by the prospect of getting arrested, going through a trial, spending time in prison, derailing my job or career, maybe losing my family, etc., but geez, if i can't vote, well, gosh, that does it, i'd better walk the straight and narrow!"

in fact, it's overall value to criminal justice is negative, as it makes felons feel further disconnected from their community, which leads to recidivism. studies have shown that ex-felons are better at reintegrating productively into society when they feel they have a stake in it, and being able to vote is a meaningful part of that.


as for the mentally incompetent not being able to vote, well, you may have a point. we'd certainly be in a better place if foxnews viewers weren't allowed to vote

[TexasTowelie]

144. The point is that governments can set conditions on rights and privileges,

and those governments can curtail both as a restriction regardless of whether a crime was committed. In dictatorships,, the powers in charge scoff at voting as an inherent human right. It was only about a century ago before citizens in this country could vote directly for their senators.

Do you feel the same way about having the right to drive as the right to vote? It can derail a job or career and cause people to lose their families. What is even more concerning is that someone may not have the right to drive even though they didn't commit any crimes.

People can lose their driving privileges very easily and it can be very difficult to regain those privileges because of the expense involved. It can cause people to get arrested, go through a trial, and spend time in prison, It can also keep people disconnected from their community and reintegrating into society. If someone is trying to find employment it will definitely cause that person to be eliminated at the beginning of the process. Most employers are not concerned about your right to vote--as a matter of fact, I've never seen that on any job applications that I've completed. The first is a deal-breaker, the latter isn't. It's a shame that our driving rights weren't enshrined in the Constitution. Think of the millions that had their pursuit of happiness disenfranchised by automatic suspensions for driving violations years earlier or failing to purchase insurance?

I think that Bernie would have a stronger case for income equality and social equality by proposing legislation guaranteeing everyone the right to drive than by worrying whether inmates can vote.

[WeekiWater]

73. Good on Sanders.

No citizen should lose their right to vote.

[AncientGeezer]

154. How about any rights? Or is it just the vote?

[WeekiWater]

155. It is impossible to incarcerate someone without removing certain rights.

I believe our government should be given the power to incarcerate. The government should be given the least power possible to suspend individual rights and still maintain the ability to incarcerate.

[BeckyDem]

77. We're suppose to consider people's civil rights based on popularity?

We have so many people incarcerated in our country this policy will not likely be considered fringe at all and should not be when you educate voters on context.

*This report offers some much needed clarity by piecing together this country’s disparate systems of confinement. The American criminal justice system holds almost 2.3 million people in 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 1,852 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,163 local jails, and 80 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories. And we go deeper to provide further detail on why people are locked up in all of those different types of facilities.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html

[brooklynite]

98. You know the BEST way to implement a progressive civil rights policy?

Get elected first.

[BeckyDem]

147. Yea, on policies that appeal to people.

As governor, Chris Christie went out on national television to speak about why he changed his mind about incarceration rates and what the true problems are, it was because it was about someone he knew and cared about that helped shape that change.

In his state there was significant change for the better, and we need to keep adding not subtracting to those policies.

Point being, this can be a bi-partisan issue, not at all fringe.

[brooklynite]

148. Judicial and criminal reform can indeed be bipartisan...

Voting rights for prisoners cannot at this point.

FWIW - remind us how Christie did in the Presidential Primary.

[BeckyDem]

149. The reasons he did so poorly had nothing to do with his criminal reform record.

Reform is a bi-partisan issue; the way forward is to be bold and not refrain from that progress.

[nycbos]

85. Talk about a losing issue. This can't gain us any votes. It will only lose votes.

[Freethinker65]

87. I am all for criminal justice reform, but not for this policy

When you are serving time in jail, you theoretically should be only separated from living in society for a good reason. This is why I am for reform. Not everyone serving time belongs there under our unfair flawed system. Change the incarceration system.

Once released, voting rights should automatically be restored.

I also acknowledge there are many people serving time that deserve to be incarcerated, separated from society, and thus should lose their right to vote while in jail.

[Agschmid]

91. What state do you live in? What are considered felonies in your state?

In NH shoplifting can be considered a class B felony.

[Freethinker65]

95. I am in Illinois. As I posted, I am for criminal justice reform

Why should shop lifting be considered a felony?that would be my question. Does such a crime deserve incarceration? If so, for how long? And once you have served your time, voting rights should be automatically restored.

[TexasTowelie]

115. If anything, that means that New Hampshire needs to amend the

laws so that petty crimes are not considered felonies. That would be easier to accomplish and receive more support from the public than getting federal oversight on an area of law that is handled by the states.

[Agschmid]

126. So then each state does their own thing, which isn't ideal IMO.

I agree the laws should be reformed but it would be state by state a federal policy change to who can vote would be more consistent.

[TexasTowelie]

130. The thing is that voter registration is conducted at the state level,

not the federal level. Bernie's proposal won't have many supporters behind it so it's DOA. It would do also likely be challenged in court as violating the separation of powers clause.

If Bernie wants to throw himself on the sword of voters rights for inmates, then he can do so. My concern is that he will take the Democratic Party with him and we will lose all of the momentum we gained in the midterms. It will be difficult enough to deal with four more years of Trump, but what makes it worse is that the effects of this election will last a decade because of the census and redistricting. If you live in a red state like I do, then that thought is terrifying because it could cost me my life.

[Agschmid]

138. I don't live in a red state so I don't get it in some ways.

I’m not supporting Sanders in the primary, but I do support his position here.

[sfwriter]

104. You should reconsider

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.


Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes::

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[Freethinker65]

112. Know about that. Thanks

[katmondoo]

93. Release your tax forms, Bernie

[cwydro]

105. What a dumb idea.

Yeah, that’ll play in Peoria.

[Agschmid]

128. Well it depends on if they have over 5 Cannabis plants, because that's a felony there.

[sfwriter]

170. There are several good reason to allow prisoners to vote

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.

A few reasons.

Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[sfwriter]

107. It is great that people are hearing about this topic.

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.


Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes::

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[ebbie15644]

109. not a good idea

people recognize that someone that has committed a crime, does lose their rights. The right to freedom is a paramount right and we recognize that is the price to pay for crimes committed against citizens of our society. I believe those rights, including the right to vote, should be returned once they have served their time. I do not believe people incarcerated should have the same rights as those not. Bernie does have some good ideas, this is not one and this makes us look extreme to normal everyday people

[sfwriter]

173. There are good reasons for it.

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.

A few reasons.

Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[Nanjeanne]

110. Prisoners in VT and ME can vote. Those states have just gone to hell in a handbag I guess

Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland. Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine prisoners can vote but those countries are as crazy as Bernie.

France and Italy have some restrictions but many prisoners can vote. Germany, Norway and Portugal allow most prisoners to vote unless they committed crimes against the state but those are such Hell holes, what do they know.

And crazy Canada — those prisoners can vote as well.

I’m sure there are other countries that are full of crap policies like Bernie supports but can’t remember off the top of my head.

[sfwriter]

174. Where would Bernie have gotten such a nutty idea... oh, right.

[Pope George Ringo II]

180. Ireland doesn't let its citizens vote while overseas. Ask me how I know this.

Also, Britain puts a time limit on its citizens voting overseas. That one hits me too.

Be careful about reading too much into models of enfranchisement.

[Nanjeanne]

185. Only since 2006.

The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 provides procedures that enable prisoners to vote by post. If you are in prison, you can register for a postal vote in the area that you would otherwise be living in. If you are already registered to vote in that area and wish to be able to vote from prison then you should fill out a form called Form RFG. If you are not already on the register then you should complete Form RFA4 as well. These application forms are available in all prisons and should be sent to the local authority for your area. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/prison_system/prisoners_rights.html

But thanks for the warning about reading too much into models of enfranchisement. Always appreciate warnings like that!

[LuvLoogie]

114. He's doing trump's bidding. Trying to make the Democrats look extreme.

I mean why doesn't he push this when he's running for Senator in Vermont? He doesn't want to be President.

[Historic NY]

122. Really I think people should take on the housing and feeding of inmates in their own homes.

What is the purpose of having a prison?

Bernie & Jane have several homes that they can move in a few.

[UniteFightBack]

124. Obvious pandering ploy. nt

[ucrdem]

125. There are better goals, like helping ex-offenders get their vote back.

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2019, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

That's one area where we're bleeding votes and something we need to work on right now.

[sfwriter]

175. The two ideas are linked. You don't have to "restore" what was never lost.

I'm glad you are learning about this. It is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.

A few reasons.

Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[MineralMan]

145. And there's another unpopular idea with the hoi polloi.

He just lost a few more voters with that. Incarcerated felons? It's difficult enough to get support for voting rights for those who have served their sentences and have been released.

Careful, Bernie...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

153. "It's difficult enough to get support for voting rights for those who have served their sentences"

Yeah, maybe not so hard. Florida just voted 65% in favor of restoring voting rights.

Red Florida. 65%

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/florida-felons-voting-rights.html

The measure known as Amendment 4 was approved in November by nearly 65 percent of Florida voters, leaving just two other states — Kentucky and Iowa — with laws in place that prevent people with felony records from voting.

[totodeinhere]

151. First things first. I would rather see a national push to give voting rights to ex-felons who have

served their time nationwide. As we know they do not have voting rights in many states. Then after we get to that point we can start talking about extending those rights to those who are presently incarcerated. I'm afraid that if we try to get everything at once we will have bit off more than we can chew and the entire idea will be set back.

[sfwriter]

176. Eliminate the removal of rights in the first place and yer done on both counts.

I'm glad you are learning about this. Retaining prisoner voting rights is not an uncommon argument in US prison reform circles.

A few reasons.

Precedent and lack of controversial outcomes:

Vermont and Maine already do. It has done no harm.

Racist Context:

This policy of prisoner disenfranchisement puts us in line with Aparthied South Africa, for much the same reason. It is a policy that disproportionately disenfranchises African Americans.

Racist origins: (this is closely related to felon disenfranchisement, for historical reasons):

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html

"The white supremacists who championed such measures were very clear on their reasons. In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that voting laws needed to be amended, lest whites be swept away at the polls by the black vote. In 1901 Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — a vague term that was applied to misdemeanors and even acts not punishable by law. The president of the constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude blacks was warranted, because they were inferior to whites and because the state needed to avert the “menace of Negro domination.”

and

"The debate looks a lot different in Maine and Vermont, states where there are no black populations to speak of and racial demonization does not come into the equation. Both states place no restrictions on voting rights for people convicted of even serious crimes and have steadfastly resisted efforts to revoke a system that allows inmates to vote from prison.

Maine residents vigorously debated the issue last year, when the Legislature took up — and declined to pass — a bill that would have stripped the vote from some inmates, whose crimes included murder and other major felonies. Families of murder victims argued that the killers had denied their loved ones the right to vote and therefore should suffer the same fate.

Those who opposed the bill made several arguments: That the franchise is enshrined in the state Constitution and too important to withdraw on a whim; that voting rights keep inmates connected to civic life and make it easier for them to rejoin society; that the notion of restricting rights for people in prison was inconsistent with the values of the state."


International norms:

"Many countries fully recognize the right of incarcerated citizens to vote. Today, 26 European nations at least partially protect their incarcerated citizens’ right to vote, while 18 countries grant prisoners the vote regardless of the offense. In Germany, Norway, and Portugal, only crimes that specifically target the “integrity of the state” or “constitutionally protected democratic order” result in disenfranchisement. The European Court of Human Rights has forcefully defended the voter franchise, going so far as to condemn in 2005 Britain’s blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, calling it a violation of human rights. In December of last year, after 12 years of resistance to the ECHR’s decision, the UK partially relented by allowing prisoners on temporary release and at home under curfew to cast their ballots."

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/prisoner-voting/

[totodeinhere]

188. I'm glad you are learning about this. I already knew about it.

n/t

[sfwriter]

190. Great!

[itsrobert]

177. Just dumb

Is Bernie trying to get Trump elected to a 2nd term?

[Buzz cook]

178. Not that out there of an idea.

And in some states convicted felons retain the right to vote while in prison.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

Considering that convictions have historically been used to disenfranchise minorities, it seems morally just to end that practice.

[Pope George Ringo II]

179. I wish him well in this endeavour.

I hope he has the courage to follow through on this idea by dropping out of the Presidential race and running for state office in Vermont, where such things as voting rights are actually decided.

[LongtimeAZDem]

184. That way Trump can get the Aryan Brotherhood vote