Florida felons

Great Debates
1

Ok, first of all, I am NOT entertaining assumptions of ‘oh, how many more votes Gore would have gotten’. If that’s your aim, please aim some where else. Also grand conspiracy speculations are in particular, not welcome.

Felons and voting rights - in prior threads, I stated my position that to deny the right to vote for folks while they were incarcerated was a pretty simple task. All ya need to do to insure that is not let 'em out to vote, and since their mail is screened, to not allow absentee ballots in. However, it was also my position that to deny voting rights after release would be difficult and costly to do, and serve no useful purpose. But that’s not my debate here either (bear with me, I"m getting to it).

As this interactive shows, fourteen states have laws on their books premanently (or nearly so) disenfranchising folks who’ve been found guilty of a felony. Florida in addition to their own convicted felons, disallowed voting rights to persons who were convicted in other states, regardless of that other state’s laws about felons and votes.

why is this important? well, according to several Civil Service groups, under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, a public act or legal ruling in one state must be honored in another, so that a person who’d been disenfranchised by one state, but had their rights re-established should not then have to again go through a different process for the State of Florida, or so was their stance.

So, that brings us up to last year. The SoS of Florida (what was her name again?) distributed lists to the various counties, of persons who were identified has having committed felonies in other states, the lists ordered that these names be purged from the states rolls. The roughly 3000 people involved had some 5 months to attempt to get their voting rights back under the Florida system. No numbers are available for those who were able to. In fact, a notice was sent out in September of last year reiterating the rule that person whose rights were restored automatically by statute in another state, would need written proof of that, barring which, “would be required to make application for restoration of civil rights in the State of Florida,”.

and now, a new policy letter has gone out, stating “If a former felon’s civil rights were restored in another state, or if a person’s civil rights were never lost after being convicted of a felony in another state, the individual possesses his or her civil rights in Florida and need not apply for restoration of civil rights in Florida,”

This second policy letter written in February of 2001 and was stated to be a ‘clarification’. Interesting, since it seems to not clarify, but to substantially change the prior policy letter.

Comments?

2

Of course everyone knows that the State of FLorida has re-named itself “Forida”, right? Right?? ::crickets chirping::

3

I agree; it’s not a clarification; it’s a change in policy. Questions come to mind. Was the now-stated policy always the real policy? If so, was the different policy in effect during the 2000 election a genuine error on the part of officials who really did not understand the policy? Or a phoney error, entered into for the specific purpose of disenfranchising people they wanted to keep off of the voter rolls just long enough?

Slight hijack: I favor the concept of national standards for national elections. Let the states and localities do as they please in state and local elections, but for Presidential elections, have the same rules nationwide. One rule I’d set would be that felons lose their voting rights only while they’re in prison. Once they’ve paid their debt to society, their right to vote in Presidential elections would be automatically restored. End of hijack.

4

OH, some one else wonders about this!!! yippee.

Hazel I think its’ clearly a change in policy, masquerading as a ‘clarification’.

I believe that the true nature of the policy was in the first letter and was administered that way during the election. I don’t know if they had thought about it’s legal ramifications, but it did seem from the article that they had at the least been notified that there may have been a problem.

What I believe happened is that post election, with all the emphasis on ‘rule of law’, and ‘constitutionality’ and ‘equal protection under the law’ and so on, it became more clear to them that this little piece flew in the face of all of that, and they hoped no one would notice. All of the other ‘changes’ and improvements etc to the Florida election process has been trumpeted from the pulpits, this one was only reported (that I saw) here.

INteresting, eh?

5

I’m more or less with Hazel on this. As I seem to recall, there were problems reported with the purge months prior to the election. In fact I think one of the registrars was on the lsit. Miami/Dade didn’t use it at all, because they’d found a really high error rate.

6

From outside the States it seems incredible that a country proud of its democratic heritage has spent so much time legally or sub-legally withdrawing the franchise from various segments of society. The various gross methods of witholding the franchise from African-Americans caused much shame throughout the last century.

It now seems that the states which choose this route of disenfranchising people by criminal history, inability to register in primarily African-American residential areas, etc. risk continuing this shame well into this century.

I do realize that this is due to voting rights being a state function, and that state politics do tend to be particularly populist in such matters. It does seem unfortunate that so many people will continue to be disenfranchised in a so-called democratic system.

Although an admirer of much of the US constitution (over the UK nonsense of an unwritten mess), at times its eighteenth century origins and seventeenth and sixteenth century predecessor documents, lead to results which seem odd by general democratic western standards. In the UK we are just about to move to the franchise being returned to imprisoned people (with European compulsion) and have already completed the return of the franchise to all people with mental illness and mental disability who are capable of voting.

7

Pjen as somewhat of a defense of my countryfolk, although the effect of this legislation is indeed overly felt by minorities, the impetus for it, IMHO, is more because of the general feeling in this country that ‘they’ deserve whatever (the ‘they’ involved, being, of course, felons).

You’ll not have a problem getting elected here with a ‘get tough attitude on crime’. I’m waiting for one to try with a ‘be smart attitude on crime’ which would mean, reserve those costly prison beds for those from whom we need to be protected. But I digress.

8

I do understand why this happens. But a late nineteenth century politician might also say that ‘the general feeling in this country that ‘they’ deserve whatever (the ‘they’ involved, being, of course, African Americans).’ Chilling thought!

I suppose what I was pushing towards is that were one to be writing a modern constitution in the spirit of Philadelphia in the 1780s, one of the first guarantees in it would be Universal Adult Suffrage, and that this decision would not be left to the states. That is essentially what is happening in Europe where the European Convention on Human Rights seems to imply that suffrage cannot be withdrawn carelessly, and that this will probably mean prisoners being guaranteed the vote.

9

wring, there was an interesting article about this in the February 5 issue of the Nation: Florida’s Disappeared Voters. Among its many illuminating points, the article notes that the requirement in Harris’s September policy letter for “written proof” that one’s rights had been automatically restored by another state was a real catch-22. Because, of course, most states that automatically restore voting rights to ex-felons don’t maintain written records of the process, because the restoration is what? Automatic!

Whether the Florida “scrub” was originally intended only as a temporary measure to influence the 2000 elections, or whether it was meant to be a permanent policy change but the subsequent scrutiny of Florida voting practices made officials nervous, I don’t know. Either way, I hope it’s addressed in some of the lawsuits brought by voters against the state of Florida, because from the discussions I’ve seen so far, it looks like a shockingly illegitimate maneuver.

10

thanks kimstu I recall there being some issues about the ‘written proof’ aspect. Seems to me that in those cases, there may be more substantial evidence for planned poor behavior - after all, when requesting the data from the other states, it certainly would be easy enough to verify the applicable state law (there’s even brochures on it ya know). So, for example, would a citizen of Florida have to have written proof of say, citizenship, when registering to vote? (we did not, here in MI). Would be interesting to find out.

11

[QUOTE]
**

Of course, most felons in the U.S. are not African-American. So if one wishes to discern a racist motive for disenfranchisement of felons one needs to work “disproportionate” into all discussions of the subject.

12

You miss my point. What I was saying was that whereas the early twenty-first century US citizen feels comfortable disenfranchising a sector of the population because of its criminal history, nineteenth century US citizens would have used the same argument to disenfranchise African Americans.

Of course, now you raise the subject, African Americans are some four times over represented within the category of felons, so this law is effectively racist; but that was not my point.

My point is that there (IMHO) have to be severe restrictions on the right of a government to remove the franchise from adults. Neither skin color nor history of criminality should lead to disenfranchisement. If a constitution were to be framed today, it is probable that universal adult suffrage would be a very early constitutional guarantee.

13

But probably not in the United States.

Voters in states like Massachusetts, where you can kill, rape, or otherwise deprive your victims of civil rights, then if imprisoned enjoy your right to vote, are an anomaly.
There may be success in campaigns to make it easier for demonstrably reformed felons to regain the right to vote, but efforts to preserve all civil rights for convicted felons no matter what the circumstances are bound to fail, especially where they are perceived to be cynical attempts by Democrats to expand their voting base.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
**

As the OP, I do not appreciate your attempt to drag partisan rhetoric into this.

And, frankly, I think you have it backwards. The impetus for the restrictions of voters priveleges was an attempt (irrelevant, don’t know, don’t care by which party) to garner votes from the rest of us as being ‘tough on crime’ without a whole lotta effort.

There are quite a few folks who are convicted felons who have gone on to lead productive lives. The current Pres and Vice Pres both have misdemeanor convictions for actions that are currently felonies, for example. Tim Allen, the county clerk in my home town, Johhny Cash, etc. etc. etc.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by wring *
**

Um, perhaps I have completely misinterpreted the tone of this thread prior to joining in - but multiple posters including you have espoused the idea that Florida (Republican) officials deliberately made it tough for felons to vote in order to skew the results of the election, and are now promoting a false “clarification” of the law while hoping no one will notice.

Sounds like partisan rhetoric to me.

In any event, I am trying to present an idea of the difficulties the “felon enfranchisement” lobby will face with the voters - some of whom will not fail to note the role played in the effort by the Democratic Party. I personally would support reasonable attempts to make it easier to re-enfranchise those who have committed certain crimes.
**

I would respond to this, but I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say.

16

That’s fine by me, so long as the United States gives up its claim to being the premier democracy and accepts a second rank status among democratic nations:

1st rank: Those with Universal Adult Suffrage
2nd Rank: Those with Limited Adult Suffrage.

I cannot think of any other democratic state that has, since Universal Suffrage became the norm, avoided full suffrage so much as the USA. Until the sixties African Americans were denied the vote so routinely as to make the claim to universla suffrage laughable. Now we find we have a position where substantial numbers of adults (an unbalanced number of whom are from ethnic minorities) are still denied the vote.

And on the point of partisan politics, it has been conservatives (Southern Democrats in the South and Republicans) who have engaged in this practice of disenfranchisement- which they saw/have seen as being to their partisan political advantage- do you think that they would do this/would have done this if African Americans/Felons were thought to be conservatives.

Any abrogation of the right of Universal Adult Suffrage is an insult to the claim of a country to be a democracy.

17

Jackmannii (started this, power failer dammit)

I posted a thread asking specifically about an individual public officials actions: that a policy letter was issued in September 2000. Said policy was actually contrary to law (as they were advised, per Kimstu’s link) post election, a second policy letter was issued that was a retraction of the prior policy, yet was done quietly and called a ‘clarification’. Original : Do A. clarification ‘Don’t do A’ I asked for comments on this. Specifically said I didn’t want it to become a ‘gee how many votes would Gore have gotten’ etc. Was looking for some rationale as to why specific politician would issue a policy that was (according to their own courts) illegal, and then the hidden ‘oh, nevermind’.

you OTOH provided

right after the fairly inflammatory

and you don’t see the difference? I sure do. Specific actions of a specific person that had (speculation as to intent not included) specific consequences, complete with cites for the specified facts vs. generalized rants about partisan politics which may or may not have a basis in reality, naturally without any attempt at backing up the implications

and, as a matter of fact, current law in Massachusettes says you can’t vote while you’re incarerated for a felony. I work with ex offenders, and have pamphlets on the various laws for voting for felons. I did a quick perusal and found that in Alaska and Alabama, you can’t vote if you’ve been convicted of a felony involving ‘moral turpitude’. Many states say you can’t vote while incarcerated for a felony, tho’ that hotbed of conservatism, California prohibits voting while incarcerated or on parole. Indianna and Illinois prohibit voting ‘while incarcerated’ so, would apparently include misdemeanors as well as felonies. While that very liberal state Mississippi has a list of specific crimes that if you commit those offenses for State elections, but you can vote for pres/vp. So, if you have a point about Dems specifically looking to make it legal for felons to vote, for whatever purpose, I suggest that you attempt to prove the case. My little perusal of the various states’ positions suggest that you’ll have a rough time.

To clarify the other point you didn’t understand. It is my position that to be considered “soft on crime” constitutes the death blow for pretty much any campaign. However, to increase the numbers of folks incarcerated will increase costs, and there are ramifications from that (either raise taxes, fees etc or lower services in other areas). Policians (all of 'em) don’t like those alternatives, they’re likely to backfire come election time.

Solution? enact legislation that will target specific additional ‘punishments’ on that group of folks that are pretty universally scorned - felons. Extra points since to enact this legislation, there’s not a huge cost (compared to the costs of incarceration), and yet allows them to be seen as ‘tough on criminals’, even tho’ there’s no particular evidence that denial of voting rights has any appreciable effect on crime. See?

18

Sorry wring, but I think the partisan nature of this thread speaks for itself. As a registered Democrat and someone who hoped that the popular vote winner in the last election would wind up President (much as I found him personally reptilian), I feel obligated to point out the flak the party will take if its noteworthy representatives (such as the Rev. Jackson) try to steamroll a federal push to enfranchise felons. It’ll be even worse than the heat the GOP has taken over efforts to sandbag streamlined voter registration.

Massachusetts residents have, in fact, just voted to amend the state Constitution to forbid voting by incarcerated felons. I’m not sure of the status of the measure (i.e. any ACLU appeals or other attempts to delay it in court). There are to my knowledge two other states that still allow such voting.

But haven’t we massively increased the prison population (and seen a satisfying drop in the crime rate)? I think you misinterpret the willingness of Americans to pay this price for added safety. As to “disenfranchised felons”, those unfortunates rank a bit lower in my scheme of things than Americans who have lost civil rights (including but not limited to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) due to felonious activity.

Pjen, I suspect we’ll gladly accept the sting of not being a “top rank democracy” when it’s defined as not treating felons and law-abiding citizens equally.

19

well, I disagree. I see a real difference between naming specific actions of specific people and debating the topic vs. “those dems” or “those reps” followed by generalizations that don’t hold water.

Maine is the only state I found that allowed incarcerated folks to vote. Of course, I tired of looking through the brochures at about the Mississippi one…

Yes, we’ve massively increased the prison population. wheather the reduction in crime is due to that or due to the economy is subject to debate. Another factor is the baby boom generation. Folks who commit crimes are in a certain age group, and we baby boomers are aging out of that group.

I don’t agree that the population as a whole is really into it quite the way you think. The prison overcrowding and costs due to things like three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences and parole changes, has led at least Michigan and California to do a cost analysis of the future of the prison systems, and they’re not liking what they see. The aging of the prison population alone creates a seperate and costly issue (geriatrics in the prison population will be one of the new crises IMHO).

look for it to be an issue across the boards.