DEMOCRACY 101: should ex-cons lose the vote?

[ulTRAX]

This is one of those underreported stories... nationwide some 3.9 MILLION felons have lost their right to vote.
Source: http://www.aclu-wa.org/issues/criminal/FelonsbyState.html

The logic behind depriving anyone of the vote seems specious at best... racist at worst. It also distorts our already flawed electoral system.... to the disadvantage of Democrats. One study reports that "By removing those with Democratic preferences from the pool of eligible voters, felon disenfranchisement has provided a small but clear advantage to Republican candidates in every presidential and senatorial election from 1972 to 2000,” http://www.asanet.org/media/felons.html

One wonders why this practice is not unconstitutional? Perhaps it is.

Amendment XIII reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In this amendment the concept of involuntary servitude is SEPARATE from slavery. One subset of involuntary servitude is punishment for a crime. I'm not sure what else would be included in the definition... indentured servants?

Amendment XV states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Since there is NO exclusion for those convicted of a crime one has to wonder whether this amendment would apply to ex-cons. Does the 15th amendment make it illegal under ANY circumstances to deprive a former convict of the vote?

The authors of these 15th amendment had a chance to use the identical phasing of the 13 amendment but chose not to. There is NO statement that this amendment only applies to ex-slaves or racial minorities.

It's just another sign of the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat Party that it refuses to fight for the rights of these citizens.

edit to rename thread.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. I have wondered about this

but it's a little late to do anything before November.

[ulTRAX]

2. long range plan

This can be fought on a number of fronts... state by state... maybe a federal law or constitutional amendment... or though a legal challenge to expand the scope of the existing 15th amendment. I don't think any course would do any good for this election. But it SHOULD be a seen as a long term goal for making the US more democratic.

[ulysses]

3. absolutely not.

[leyton]

4. Forgetting the fourteenth amendment, aren't we?

Section one: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

This clearly implies that there is the expectation that with due process of law (which can result with a felony conviction) rights can be restricted.

As for your interpretation of the thirteenth and fifteenth amendments, I think you are saying that involuntary servitude can be punishment for a crime, and as such cannot be used to discriminate. There's an error in this argument, and that's that you're mixing up the conviction and the punishment. It does not matter whether the punishment is probation or fifty years in prison, a felon is still a felon. It was by conviction and not punishment that his or her right to vote was taken away.

[dpbrown]

11. The amendments have to be read in harmony

One does not trump the other one.

I think that there is a case, for the right plaintiff, to bring a case to clarify whether or not its constitutional to continue to deny voting rights to a person who has completed his or her imprisonment, parole, or probation.

As things currently stand, most ex-felons have to petition the state in some form or another or ask for a pardon to have their voting rights restored, in states that allow restoration.

I'd like to see that case result in a holding that the Constitution requires an automatic restoration of rights once a felon has completed the sentence.

[leyton]

14. Precedence of amendments

I think that the Fourteenth Amendment is much clearer in what it states regarding revocation of voting rights, as opposed to drawing a conclusion (which I still say is based on faulty logic) by tying together wording from the thirteenth and fifteenth amendments.

[dpbrown]

28. They don't trump each other

And it's just as likely from a Constitutional interpretation perspective that the more general can restrict the more specific as it is that the "more clear" one can restrict the "less clear" one.

It's not faulty if it's a Constitutional argument. Most of the problems we have today with corporations in politics arises from a misinterpretation of a footnote in dicta of a mention that in the one possible place in the Constitution where "person" isn't crystal clear that it refers to living breathing people. Now that's a faulty argument.

Interpreting the Constitution to find an inherent protection of voting rights is not only synonymous with the very bedrock concepts upon which this nation was based in coming up with an idea of a workable representative democracy, it's also in harmony with both previous unconstitutional bans on discrimination based on "status" and it's in harmony with the spirit of preserving the voting rights of other classes of people.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Amendments are tied together all the time to figure out what the vibe of the thing means. There's not much in there that would support the concept that the "status" of being an "ex-felon" would brand a person for life and work to keep that person from full participation in society, including suffrage. On the other hand, there's plenty to support the idea that the right of suffrage, like each and every other right that reattaches upon completion of sentence, should work automatically instead of forcing a person who no longer is a felon to bear the "taint" of bearing the status of ex-felon.

Trying to keep whole classes of people from the polls is worthy of "poll-testers" like Rehnquist, who spent his early years trying to keep people from voting in Arizona by quizzing them on the Constitution - it's the kind of "letter not spirit" deprivation of citizenship to our fellow travelers that shouldn't even be the topic of polite conversation, much less a possible means by which whole classes of people are discriminated against.

[MMP]

27. 14th amendment precedents

Section 1 of the 14th amendment was interpreted out of existance by the Supreme Court. The supreme court has long held that it was not intended to transfer to the fed govt enforcement of all civil rights.

Just imagine the combination of the 14th with the second amendments. No state can deprive anyone from firearms. What a happy decision that would be.

[Tactical Progressive]

62. Your analysis is flawed

Section one: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

>> This clearly implies that there is the expectation that with due process of law (which can result with a felony conviction) rights can be restricted.

You mixed up the rights being restricted in the amendment clauses. The right to vote isn't a life. It isn't liberty. And it isn't property, whether done with or without due process...

The voting right is in the first clause. The right to vote is a 'privilege of citizenship', which looks to me to be invoilate regardless of qualification according to that language. Those words seem to indicate that convicts should retain the right to vote.

[sweetheart]

5. The right to universal sufferage

is a human right that should never be deprived. Its a form of
lingering apartheid left over from slavery to deny black voting
rights. It should be ended by the supreme court overturning the
state laws which are really wrong about this stuff.

[loftycity]

6. No they have served their time....but, of course the Repukes know

they would vote for Dem's and that's why ex-cons can't vote.

[ulTRAX]

10. I don't know if there's any correlation....

While at least that one study indicates that these disenfranchised felons would vote 70% Democratic I don't know if there's any correlation between the GOP having political control of a state and such disenfranchisement. There are a lot of unenlightened Democrats out there that might buy into this practice.

[LiberalFighter]

12. They would use that argument but...

I'm sure there are plenty of repugs with felonies.

[PATRICK]

7. Absolutely not

This has already been shown as a disenfranchisement strategy against the rights of all of us, thereby demonstrating the danger that in "normal" times the average citizen might scoff at.

IF there would be an exception it would be for crimes against the nation involving government service, those who have denied others the validity of their own vote. That is the punishment fits the crime mode, but really there should be no exceptions. Barring them from public jobs or service would be enough.

[linazelle]

8. What purpose does it serve to deny felons a vote?

If I recall correctly, even bankruptcy laws state that men should be given a chance to redeem themselves, to become whole again and to regain their creditworthiness, after a period of ten years. Why should felons be denied the right to become whole again after they have served time for their offenses? Not fair or balanced IMHO.

[ulTRAX]

16. Any law that exceeds LEGITIMATE intent is an abuse of power

I suspect it's just politics at its worst. Remember how dolts in Congress competed to raise the cocaine penalties in the middle of the 80's crack "epidemic"? It's always good politics to be tough on criminals and to try to paint your opposition as weak on crime. Soon no one is left to stand up for criminal rights.

I propose there an amendment to prohibit such political malpractice:

"Any law that exceeds LEGITIMATE intent is an abuse of power."

Finally there would be some protection for citizens against bad laws.

[MMP]

30. solution to criminal rights

Rather than decrease criminal rights, I would increase citizen rights, to permit all citizens to carry concealed firearms. That way criminals would be either very very polite, or very very careful. Certainly it would decrease the money spend on lawyers.

Perhaps, some of the more clever criminals would go straight? Nah. Never happen!

[MMP]

31. Bankruptcy doesnt include back taxes.

The victim of a felony may be forever unable to exercise his vote. The perpetrator should be punished proportionately. Decide if you like the punishment before you commit the crime.

[LoZoccolo]

52. I think Republican voters should be denied the right to vote.

Decide if you like the punishment before you punch the chad.

[LoZoccolo]

59. Never mind...

...trying to trip him up...he's since been TOMBSTONED!

[Bridget Burke]

9. No, of course not.

Even in Texas, the right to vote is recovered two years after the end of imprisonment, probation or parole.

One of the many problems with Florida's "Felons Purge" was that they used names from other states--including Texas, where ex-felons regain the vote.

[rucky]

13. Funny how our penal system has given up on any pretense of rehabilitation

nobody even tries for it anymore.

[ulTRAX]

21. being tough on crime...

Being tough on crime is good politics. Remember that rabid sheriff in the SW that took pride in punishing inmates as much as he could? Man did he get a lot of free press a few years back when there was a move to strip prisons of recreational items. Add to that mentality those states with 3 strike laws... and it paints those who favor rehab into a corner.

[Pobeka]

15. Yes, for a while. Restore their vote after a long period of good behavior

I don't know for how long though. But I don't want felons voting until they've proven they're rehabilitated. I think a fully rehabilitated person deserved all the rights they had before committing the crime.

[Woodstock]

17. No

I never did see the logic of this.

[kaitykaity]

18. I guess their claim to being federalist truly is dead.

Felon voting is a state's rights issue--each state makes that decision, it doesn't come from the federal government.

:eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

19. Federal law doesn't let states use poll taxes or literacy tests, so

Federal law doesn't let states use poll taxes or literacy tests, so why shouldn't we have a federal law preventing states from barring felons from voting.

[kaitykaity]

20. As a felon who paid my debt, I take exception to

losing the vote.

At this moment, the states get to decide. My point was that the people who want to strip people like me of the vote are the same people who want the states to have more power over their own destinies, i.e., bussing, etc.

Sniff, sniff, is that hypocrisy I smell?

[kiahzero]

22. I don't normally agree with you

This is one case where I do. The inability to vote after commiting a felony should be defined as a "cruel and unusual punishment", since it denies the full rights of citizenship to a citizen, after their sentence has been fully served.

On Edit:
It's just another sign of the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat Party that it refuses to fight for the rights of these citizens.

I trust this sentence will be corrected?

[ulTRAX]

23. oops

kiahzero wrote: "I trust this sentence will be corrected?"
"It's just another sign of the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat Party that it refuses to fight for the rights of these citizens."

You're correct. I was, again, careless. Here goes:
"It's just another sign of the moral bankruptcy of the DemocratIC Party that it refuses to fight for the rights of these citizens."

Unless you're suggesting the DemocratIC Party IS turning this into a national issue?

[kiahzero]

25. Some members are

It's hard for the Democratic Party to bring up this issue and not consign itself to the electoral abyss, where it can do nothing... first, outside groups need to push the issue, and make it more acceptable to the masses.

But yes, that was the correction I was suggesting. Criticism of the Democratic Party, combined with the "Democrat Party" comment, set off numerous red flags.

[ulTRAX]

34. "some" Democrats...... ???? What about the Party?

kiahzero wrote "It's hard for the Democratic Party to bring up this issue and not consign itself to the electoral abyss, where it can do nothing... first, outside groups need to push the issue, and make it more acceptable to the masses."

This is NOT the problem you or the Democrats make it out to be. The REAL problem is no one can think past the next election to create a long-term plan. Think of this as a 10 year project. It can start with the simple affirmation of the principle that ALL US citizens deserve some basic rights... one is the right to be represented. Remember how powerful "no taxation without representation" was during the Revolution?

Getting the American People to rethink this issue starts with a return to basic democratic principles. But this is something the Democratic Party generally believes is in the range of impermissible thought. Who's to blame for that moral cowardice?

[kiahzero]

43. Well, since you don't grasp

representative democracy, nor do you understand the idea of federalism, your conflation of felon voting rights and the numerical advantage given to small states in the Senate is not surprising.

It can start with the simple affirmation of the principle that ALL US citizens deserve some basic rights... one is the right to be represented.

IIRC, the Democratic Party has this position in their platform... the Party is currently working for full voting rights to the District of Columbia. I'm sure you're probably against that, though, since D.C. would have two senators and one representative, thus shifting the Electoral College's weighting, as well as the representation in Congress.

[ulTRAX]

65. and what energy do the Dems put into this issue?

kiahzero wrote: "IIRC, the Democratic Party has this position in their platform... "

Platforms come and go. They often contain language candidates and the Party ignore. For you to prove your point you have to demonstrate that the national Democratic establishment or primary candidates have actually given more than lip service to this issue.

"the Party is currently working for full voting rights to the District of Columbia. I'm sure you're probably against that, though, since D.C. would have two senators and one representative, thus shifting the Electoral College's weighting, as well as the representation in Congress."

I believe abolishing a fundamentally flawed and anti-democratic institution such as the EC is preferable to the delusion that tweaking it can ever make it fair. So if your position is the latter... then yes we disagree. Let me ask you this... if from the point of view of democracy itself... the EC and Senate are irredeemable... how is tweaking it going to help? Demographics are making the EC and Senate more and more anti-democratic. Any measure you write of here do NOTHING to change that fact.

[kiahzero]

66. The Senate is not "irredeemable"

Repeat after me: "The United States is not a unitary government. The United States is not a unitary government."

Your argument would only make sense if the United States were a unitary government, like Britain or France. It is not.

The Electoral College is less democratic, to be sure, but it is not, as you say, "irredeemable."

[camero]

24. No

and since almost 72% of the people in prison are there for non-violent offenses, the tough on crime argument kind of rings hollow.

The ex-felons lose the vote so that voter turnout can be surpressed and ex-felons would likely vote Dem (think drug war).

They should have thier right to vote restored upon release.

[MMP]

26. Reasons why section 1 of Amendment 15 doesnt apply.

Each state determines who is able to vote, within the guidelines of federal law. Some states permit felons to vote again after completing their sentence. Others do not.

Felons are not prohibited from voting because of prior conditions of servitude. They are prohibited because of their prior criminal acts.

I personally would permit them to vote. I would also allow all citizens to carry concealed firearms. If you can not trust a criminal with a concealed firearm, you can not trust him with a car, a boat, an airplane, a can of gas, or his freedom. Same for non-convicted citizens and legal residents.

[dpbrown]

35. Voting is how we get democracy, guns is how we get murder

And all those other things that you mention have as their primary purpose something other than depriving another human being of their right to life - but that's the sole purpose of guns, especially the ones that can be "concealed."

The Second Amendment has to do with preserving the right of people to be able to free themselves from the yoke of oppressive government - and that right has been gutted by a media and a government that has over time deprived individuals of their ability to think for themselves, rendering any vestigial right to self-governance and lethal enforcement of that right moot.

Therefore the right to suffrage under an interpretation of equal protection keeping an individual free of "status" discrimination is independent of a right, now rendered symbolic, of the individual citizen to throw off the yoke of oppressive government. Since the right, preserved in the Constitution, to secure to individuals the right to use lethal force to protect themselves from oppressive government, and the included obligation, preserved together with the right, of the citizen to come to the aid of the country when attacked with that lethal force, have both been rendered moot by a government and military of an unimaginable size and power, only the "right to use lethal force" remains, and since the government is no longer the target, the target is our fellow citizens.

It goes beyond the pale of perversion to imagine that a secular humanist document like the Constitution meant to preserve the right of citizens to kill each other for specious reasonings, unchecked anger, and in the commission of crimes, yet that's the only "letter and not spirit" interpretation left of the Second Amendment, which if the nation had any sense would be sent to the dustbin of history.

We amended the Constitution to ban drinking, then to drink again, and to keep good Presidents from leading the country, yet we can't find consensus over getting rid of a bad piece of license to kill that no other previous British colony has - and without which no former British colony has the murder rate that we have.

The Second Amendment is a useless piece of crap.

[ulTRAX]

64. voting should be a federal right

Then we wouldn't have to worry about this.

[Nevernose]

29. Yes, absolutely

People convicted of felonies have proven themselves incapable of making responsible choices -- they should definitely not have a say in who our leaders should be. Felons should have thought have that before they committed the crime ("don't do the crime if you can't do the time").

Since there is NO exclusion for those convicted of a crime one has to wonder whether this amendment would apply to ex-cons. Does the 15th amendment make it illegal under ANY circumstances to deprive a former convict of the vote?

Of course there is an exclusion. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, can you? A "right to bear arms" doesn't mean you can have a howitzer in your backyard, does it? "Freedom of the press" doesn't mean you can pass out Hustler in elementary schools, does it?

There are a million more examples of these rules regarding constitutionality. (Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have WestLaw at home).

Now, if you're arguing that drug laws are unfair, or that there are a disproportionate number of minorities suffering/have suffered incarceration, you may have an argument -- but it's a different argument than "should ex-cons be allowed to vote."

[kiahzero]

32. Well, that's just silly

If you break the law, you no longer have a say in changing the law. That's absolutely ridiculous.

[Nevernose]

33. Simple solution

Don't break the law. Just don't. Don't try crack. Don't rape a woman. Don't knock over a liquor store. Don't embezzle funds. Don't set any fires. Don't break anyone else's bones. Don't lie to FBI agents. Don't lie to congress. Don't modify your rifle to fire fully-automatic. Don't own any explosives. These are not the people we need voting; they are not responsible citizens; they have committed serious offenses against society, as judged by society.

Trust me, a felony is not like a speeding ticket, or even a misdemeanor: you have to go pretty far out of your way to commit one.

And of course some one who breaks a serious law shouldn't have a say in changing it. Felons knew that before they broke the law. They knew what the consequences would be. I've got an eight year old kid who can accept that responsibility; why should grown men and women be any different?

BTW, some states, IIRC, have a "waiting period" after the period of incarceration/parole, usually in the years. If an ex-con demonstrates over a period of ten or fifteen years that they are responsible (by not reoffending in that period), then they regain their right to vote. If executed properly, I think that concept has potential.

[kiahzero]

36. Wrong

Sodomy was a felony in the state of Virginia. Suck a cock, lose the right to vote. Should you have been convicted of commiting sodomy, you lose the right to vote in people that would work to change that law.

[Nevernose]

41. Uh, er

"Sucking a cock" is actually fellatio. "Fucking someone in the ass" is sodomy. :evilgrin:

At any rate: The law is not always fair, is it? So, in Virginia, don't sodomize someone until it's legal. Fight like hell to end discrimination against gays, fight like hell against homophobia. Move to a different state, one where God's choice/lifestyle choice isn't as frowned upon, or at least isn't illegal.

And no, I don't think every example is fair (you might add abortion to your sodomy example, for instance). Neither is life. There are also far more convicted pedophiles, murderers, embezzlers, etc., than there are "political" criminals such as sodomites or abortionists. In my rarely-humble-opinion, pragmatism usually outweighs idealism.

[kiahzero]

45. I'm aware of that definition

Under the Virginia statute, both were defined as sodomy.

At any rate: The law is not always fair, is it? So, in Virginia, don't sodomize someone until it's legal. Fight like hell to end discrimination against gays, fight like hell against homophobia. Move to a different state, one where God's choice/lifestyle choice isn't as frowned upon, or at least isn't illegal.

Bullshit. To use your example, how could a woman wait until abortion is no longer a felony to have one if she needs one?

And no, I don't think every example is fair (you might add abortion to your sodomy example, for instance). Neither is life. There are also far more convicted pedophiles, murderers, embezzlers, etc., than there are "political" criminals such as sodomites or abortionists. In my rarely-humble-opinion, pragmatism usually outweighs idealism.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how commiting a crime justifies the removal of human rights. A murderer is still a citizen, and hence has all of the rights given to citizens.

Additionally, this assumes that there can be no reform of criminals, something that our justice system was originally based on. If an embezzeler is reformed, why should they not be allowed to vote?

[ulTRAX]

40. you bring shame to the Progressive movement

Argumentus wrote: "Simple solution. Don't break the law. Just don't. Don't try crack. Don't rape a woman. Don't knock over a liquor store. Don't embezzle funds. Don't set any fires. Don't break anyone else's bones. Don't lie to FBI agents. Don't lie to congress. Don't modify your rifle to fire fully-automatic. Don't own any explosives. These are not the people we need voting; they are not responsible citizens; they have committed serious offenses against society, as judged by society."

Ok... if a criminal record is reason to deprive someone of a vote... why not do the same for who do not finish high school? Obviously they lack the education to appreciate the right to vote. Right? Following your "logic" who will be left?

"And of course some one who breaks a serious law shouldn't have a say in changing it. Felons knew that before they broke the law. They knew what the consequences would be. I've got an eight year old kid who can accept that responsibility; why should grown men and women be any different?"

I suspect that someone will ALWAYS find some excuse to deprive others of some rights. The right to vote is the ONLY right which makes ALL citizens... rich or poor, smart or less so... perfect citizen or not... equals. Damn... true civic EQUALITY... what a concept.

And you defend abolishing it???? Shame.

[Nevernose]

47. What we have here is a difference in perspective

Ok... if a criminal record is reason to deprive someone of a vote... why not do the same for who do not finish high school? Obviously they lack the education to appreciate the right to vote. Right? Following your "logic" who will be left?

I don't think that not finishing high school makes someone a bad person. I think stealing from your shareholders or beating up old people does. Most people in America agree with me on this particular point (not that that's a ringing endorsement, mind you).

rich or poor, smart or less so... perfect citizen or not

We're not discussing rich or poor, smart or not, or even "perfect citizen or not" are we? Aside from a few, rare examples, we're discussing the dregs of human society.

I suspect that someone will ALWAYS find some excuse to deprive others of some rights. The right to vote is the ONLY right which makes ALL citizens

Then, should my aforementioned eight-year old get to vote? And yes, she will get to vote someday. Unless she screws up so horribly that she is no longer worthy of that vote.

Our total difference in perspective is here:
You, and apparently many here like you, feel that felons have had their right to vote taken away from them, or that they somehow lost it. It wasn't taken away and it wasn't lost. They gave it up. Voluntarily relinquished it. Threw it in the garbage. Decided that it wasn't as important as driving drunk for the third time.

Also, I would like to inquire: does anyone who does not agree with you on every issue a "shame to the progressive movement?"

[ulTRAX]

63. NO.... our differences are....

Argumentus wrote: "Our total difference in perspective is here:
You, and apparently many here like you, feel that felons have had their right to vote taken away from them, or that they somehow lost it. It wasn't taken away and it wasn't lost. They gave it up. Voluntarily relinquished it. Threw it in the garbage. Decided that it wasn't as important as driving drunk for the third time.

No... to protect society and as a punishment for their crimes, criminals give up the right to be free men or women. It's POLITICIANS that take away the right to vote. Our REAL difference in perspective is here: you call your views pragmatic when in reality you have merely abrogated your duties as a citizen, and dare I say as a Progressive, to oppose cynical politicians and the immoral laws they write.

"Also, I would like to inquire: does anyone who does not agree with you on every issue a "shame to the progressive movement?"

I already addressed this in my first post: "I suspect that someone will ALWAYS find some excuse to deprive others of some rights. The right to vote is the ONLY right which makes ALL citizens... rich or poor, smart or less so... perfect citizen or not... equals. Damn... true civic EQUALITY... what a concept.

And you defend abolishing it???? Shame."

That SHOULD have been clear enough and not needed any clarification.

[kaitykaity]

42. Well isn't that just generous of you.

re: "that concept has potential." God forbid somebody makes a mistake, if more people like you were in charge.

[ulTRAX]

49. I too am appalled...

I too am appalled by Argumentus's argument. Just why does s/he find such affinity with DU?

[kaitykaity]

50. Well, we lefties are all kinda like a herd of cats.

We don't march in lockstep, and we all stubbornly go our own way. :shrug:

[Nevernose]

51. Pro-choice, anti death-penalty

safe and sane gun laws, progressive tax codes, strict separation of church and state, money for the poor/homeless/down-and-out, corporate responsibility, against the war in Iraq (and most other wars besides), reform of drug laws, instituting rehabilitation of prisoners, universal health care, state-sponsored higher education, a drastic increase in primary and secondary education research and funding...the list goes on and on.

I differ from many at DU in that I am not quite as idealistic. I am a pragmatist by nature.

I'm willing to bet good, hard, virtual money that we agree on nine out of ten political issues. I ask you again: in what way does disagreeing with you on one issue make me a "shame to the progressive movement"?

[kaitykaity]

61. It doesn't.

That's what I tried to say in my "herding cats" post.

As an ex-felon (probation, not prison) I take exception to someone wanting to take my voting rights away, and I shake my head in wonder at how you'd react if you ever made a mistake and people treated you so harshly, but we're still free to disagree with each other.

Peace.

[camero]

53. and don't forget

Pay your child support. Even if you're too poor to afford it. <sarcasm>

[corporatewhore]

38. whats if they have had rehab and therapy not to mention the criminal

injustice system

[Nevernose]

48. There's an ENORMOUS injustice in the CJ system

That, however, is another argument, and a situation I'm trying to correct a little bit each day.

[Ysabel]

54. bullsh*t...

my son broke no laws - my son was cuffed and beaten with a club by a police offcer (This particular police officer is listed at HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH with 6 counts of abuse charges against him - as well as 2 prior CONVICTIONS for police brutality - and also 2 psychiatric evaluations stating that this police officer should never be allowed on police work on the street again - and yet he remains on the beat in ATLANTA today) then this police officer charged my son with a felony (this PIG made up charges - my son shouldn't even have been taken into custody - he had not broken ANY law - was not read any rights - was actually kidnapped by this PIG - my son was thrown into a truck and driven into a dark alley and beaten by this PIG) and - my son was convicted...

tell me about responsibility (rhetorical - i am certainly not going to argue with you)...

[Nevernose]

57. I see kids like yours all the time

I work in the CJ field (DA/probation). Stories like what happened to your son are all too common. I've also been abused by the police in a similar fashion (though thankfully, and admittedly, I've never been convicted). Stories like this are also, however, the exception. I see too many cases of racial profiling, drug addicts singled out for a health problem, or just-plain-bad police work to even begin to list them. However, these are arguments against racial profiling, or bad cops, not against forbidding felons the right to vote.

If you'd like to use anecdotal evidence: I should also mention that in my experience, the ones who are truly innocent are few and far between, and are usually not convicted (prosecutors nationwide average between 93 and 95% conviction rate). From your description,m the police in Atlanta sound terrible; if you lived out West I might be able to recommend some lawyers.

What happened to your son was terrible, a true miscarriage of justice -- but I ask you (albeit rhetorically) what do we do with the other 9,999 people who were legitimately convicted? Do we let them off the hook, too? Does what happened to your son invalidate the other 99.99% of accurate convictions?

I have no means of looking up Georgia case law at home. However, on Wednesday, I will have one of the DA's at work research "sealing criminal records." Most states have some means by which after a sentence has been carried out (usually seven years), if there has been no recidivism, a criminal record can be sealed -- thus making the felon eligible to vote, eligible for jobs, etc. (although usually sex crimes and crimes against children cannot be sealed). They just don't tell anyone about this possibillity. It's also been my experience that a lot of lawyers don't even know about the sealing of criminal records; they usually only work the initial trial or appeals, and don't do things like sealing records unless a generally-ignorant member of the public asks them to. It would be in your son's best interests to ask a lawyer about this. If your lawyer doesn't give you a satisfactory answer, ask another one.

[Ysabel]

67. first you say "all too common"...

and then you say these cases are the "exception"...

which is it...? (also rhetorical)...

i know these cases are common...

what is the exception is true justice - hardly found in this country at all...

my son also had no legal representation what-so-ever - i had no money for a lawyer (i tried to get help from various civil rights organisations - all were completely over-worked and booked up with numerous similar cases) - no legal representation was provided for my son...

--------------

this does tie into the subject at hand - if you don't see that - that's a pity...

----------------------------

regardless - i believe felons who have served their time - ought to be able to vote - i also see no reason either why felons ought not to be able to vote while actually in prison serving time...

i think everyone ought to have the right to vote - period...

i am still not arguing with you...

heh...

------------------

edit - typo...

[Bridget Burke]

68. That means taking rights away in most states

Felons only lose their vote in 15 states.

Texas is one but, even here, they regain the right two years after the end of the sentence.

[Fleshdancer]

37. is that taxation without representation?

Once a person pays their debt to society, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[ulTRAX]

44. yup...

But by definition our winner takes all election system deprives some 40-49% of the population of repesentation all the time. Maybe that, too, deserves a second look.

[corporatewhore]

39. in texas if you have finished with probation you can vote if you are an

excon

[Bridget Burke]

69. Yes.

Two years need to elapse after the end of incarceration, parole or probation.

[Tactical Progressive]

46. I think existing convicts should be allowed to vote

Who needs representation more than someone in prison?

Also voting, and the attention that goes with it, is a social responsibility which might help towards rehabilitation.

[jeanmarc]

55. I think it is too easy to disenfranchise

A legislature only needs a majority to rule what a felony is and that has serious repercussions on these people.

I wonder if this corrupt court could see a 'safe harbor' theory here. Nah, that would be helping those disenfranchised.

I would think this would be worth taking to the Supremes anyway, just to expose their hypocrisy that much more.

[debsianben]

56. Is this even a serious question?

Of course not....at least if you believe in basic democracy.

Look at the figures. A disproportionate number of people in prison are there for involvement in the drug trade, which should be legal. Most couldn't afford lawyers, hence didn't have real trials (public defenders, however well-intentioned, don't have the time or resources to do the job) and a disproportionate number are African Americans arrested for petty offenses.

And, to point out the obvious, (1)when you've served your sentence, your punishment is over, (2)you don't lose any of your other citizenship rights when you get out of prison (you stil lhave a right to free speech, assembly, bear arms, etc., and every one would be horrified if people tried to take those rights away from ex-cons) and (3)just because your arrested/convicted, especially given the horrors of the current US legal system, it doesn't mean you've done *anything* wrong.

Shit, I might be an "ex-con" if some month-old bullshit charges from an anti-war demonstration stick and I have to do time for them...

[Nevernose]

58. You lose virtually ALL of your rights

Not just voting. Screw voting -- you'll never work a good job again. The lack of rehabilitaion is the reason that there is a 90% recidivism rate among inmates who receive no education while incarcerated (the rate of recidivism for inmates who get an A.A. degree or better while in prison is only 10%). There are few fates worse than getting out of prison with nowhere to go.

[troublemaker]

60. previous condition of servitude.

previous condition of servitude refers only to slavery and related relationships -- not all slaves were owned outright; every conceivable sort of contractual arrangement existed. Also, saying "or due to having been a slave" is a little blunt for the Constitution.

Stripping felons of the vote has repeatedly been ruled constitutional, and it probably is. The federal courts have always given the States extraordinary latitude in such questions.

In the 1980s I could have imagined a 'disparate impact' argument-- that the results are de facto racist--but that argument would have foundered on the fact that the selfsame disparate impact exists in conviction in the first place. That's the big hang-up. If they can throw you in jail of course they can strip you of the vote.

There's ample precedent for punishments outliving the sentence -- sex offenders registering, not being able to buy guns, not being able to get certain jobs... and so on.

All of that said, if I were president the restoration of the franchise to all citizens over 18 would be my very top priority--including people serving sentences at the time. In fact, ESPECIALLY people in jail at the time.

In a democracy, everybody has their own issues. Some people are one-issue voters because government actions affect them in particular. Artistic freedoms mean more to me than health care--a minority view, but my voice is part of the democratic average. Gun owners have particular interests. Anyone who genuinely thinks abortion is mass murder probably SHOULD be a single issue voter. Hardcore pacifists will win on some wars, lose on others, but either way they at least get to cast their votes.

Particular minority interests still find expression if their voting blocs are firm enough. Black voters are a minority but have political clout because they vote en masse. The same goes for the religious right. This is what Lani Guinier (misspelled, I'm sure) didn't understand -- majority politicians can, and do, represent minority blocs. If two white politicians are tied in the white population the black vote is decisive, and one or both will seek to represent that population.

Neither party supports civil liberties very well, but the Democrats are a bit better, so they're my party. Having captured the small hardcore civil libertarian vote they're somewhat reluctant to lose it by trying to poach religious rightist voters.

So, who are the hardcore prison reform voters?