Ya sure 'bout that?
CMC fnord!
That’s why we have judges. To make decisions requiring judgement. At least in theory that’s one function of a judge.
I believe there are a few states where that is already done, although I am not familiar enough with the details to make a definitive statement.
It is important to some people.
Any crime that, upon conviction, carries a sentence of greater than one year (that is, 366 days or more). They range from passing a bad check to first degree murder. Some felonies, such as embezzling, are non-violent. Some felonies are pretty horrible.
I’d say passing a bad check might qualify as a “not-so-bad” felony. If I wasn’t so tired right now I might be able to think of a couple others. Drug possession greater than a certain amount qualifies as a felony. In some states, your first DUI is a misdemeanor but any after that is a felony. These are serious offenses, but not, in my opinion, on the same level as murder.
Why is the European analogy so incredibly compelling when we discuss health care, and yet so easily hand waved away in this circumstance?
I don’t think judges are involved in writing laws.
That’s too bad - it would be interesting to see the results.
Yeah, I know. It’s just so unimportant to me that I have trouble viewing it as enough of an incentive for a felon to stay out of trouble for X number of years.
Well, that’s simple! I didn’t think lawmakers could be that clear… But I was looking for more of what type of crimes are felonies. Such as below -
I guess I agree, at least without putting too much thought into it. On first blush, it seems that someone with two DUIs or who passed a bad check due to upcoming starvation wouldn’t be any worse as a voter than the average person. However, one thing I wonder about in giving felons the right to vote - are they more likely to be subject to bribery to vote for the highest bidder?
Or is that what most folks are doing these days anyway… :eek:
Depends on if people agree with what the Europeans are doing. Doesn’t have a thing to do with whether or not it applies to any given situation.
Because it clearly works when it comes to health care and voting is different because so’s your face. So there.
Heinlein believed that people would value things more that the worked to earn rather than things that were just handed to them. Considering how many people don’t even bother to vote it certainly seems plausible that most people don’t think of their franchise as a valuable possession that should be exercised carefully. I wonder how many people even bother to read the information the newspaper publishes on the candidates and the ballot initiatives.
Purely anecdotally, someone I know very very well and trust implicitly was convicted of felony hit and run for a not-very-serious incident in which he or she literally did not realize that an accident had occurred and drove off, making it hit-and-run, and thus an automatic felony. There was no severe punishment, but he or she did have to reapply to get voting rights back, technically being a convicted felon.
As for curlcoat’s question, I will respond, but I have to ask first how serious you are. Is your position:
(a) as far as you can tell, these laws would affect both parties identically, and think our claims are actively wrong
(b) you have no knowledge of the topic and all, and will believe our claims, but only if we back them up with evidence
© you think our position is probably right, but want data to support it
?
(The position I’m referring to here is of course the position that this law would have disproportionate effect.)
It’s a little of a, b & c.
A - as far as I can tell, these laws shouldn’t end up affecting one party more than the other significantly because I don’t think that those without proof of citizenship are more likely to be significantly one side than the other, I don’t think the League of Women Voters is registering significantly one side than the other, I don’t think people who delay registering until the day of an election are significantly one side than the other, I don’t think felons are significantly one side than the other, and I have trouble believing such a large percentage of African-Americans don’t have something like a driver’s license AND wouldn’t be able to get one fairly easily.
I mean, do you really think that illegal aliens who cannot get themselves registered except at the last minute and just got done serving a felony sentence are mostly Democrat? 
B - I’m not sure what you are including when you say “no knowledge of the topic” but I will believe most things backed up by legit cites.
C - I don’t really think that your position is completely right, but some of it might be and I’d like to see data.
OTOH, it may be that I won’t even need cites if the answers to my questions seem logical.
To withhold it entirely, yes. To apply additional, individually based conditions to restoring it, though? I’m not sure that Sec. 2 nor Ramirez go that far.
-
Age. It is much easier for older people to vote than younger; statistics show voting likelihood increases with age. Older people have more leisure time, more ready access to ID’s etc.
And older people are much more likely to vote Republican than Democrats. If this isn’t clear look at this graphic. -
Race. Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Poverty and discrimination make it harder for Blacks to vote, and of course a heart-rending percentage of Black males are incarcerated or ex-felons. (It is amply documented that high felony rates for Blacks are due in part to discrimination, but that’s a topic for another thread.) That many here do not acknowledge or understand the difficulties of America’s under-class is disappointing. (In another recent thread “How much do you keep in your checking account?”. some Dopers kept only $20,000 – just enough to cover their monthly Credit Card bill.)
-
Race and age are the most obvious biggies; do you still need more?
-
Often politics gets complicated; and to the uninitiated right can seem wrong and vice versa. Just as listening to professional scientists is a good way to learn about science, so viewing the actions of professional politicians is often an effective shortcut to understanding political implications. It is the GOP exclusively which is pushing these “voting reforms” and Demos are trying hard to resist. It would be naive to assume this is not politics.
Just a minor heads up in case you didn’t mean to go in to different directions here: you can be part of the american under-class, and white. Sure. It’s hard to believe, but it’s true.
Also I am part of America’s under-class. I still manage to get myself around just fine and afford the requisite IDs and such to do so. Just because somebody disagrees with you does not mean they lack the requisite understanding of a segment of the population.
Yes; my post was brief and hence somewhat conflational; I was just trying to point Curlcoat in the right direction.
And congratulations to you for getting yourself around just fine despite being in the under-class. Some people are lacking in necessary werewithal. Perhaps you think it is good to disenfrachise such resourceless people; if so, please state so clearly.
And please please, those of you who support Republican “voting reform”, exercise the intellectual honesty to address the strongest charges, not the weakest. I could support ID cards if administered properly. The charges in linked-to URL and elsewhere include Republican malice far more nefarious than ID requirements.
You missed the point. I wasn’t saying that I’m some kind of special case poor person. I’m saying that assuming that jumping through the requisite hurdles to get an ID is too difficult for the “underclass” is honestly a little patronizing. According to the League of Women voters, only 15% of people with low income are lacking in photo ID. Clearly most of the underclass are doing just fine without your concern.
And let’s be honest, fretting over 11% of the population not having photo ID that might be required to vote is a fucking joke when nearly half the population doesn’t vote anyways. In your post you mention the “heart rending percentage of black males that are incarcerated or ex felons,” and you think having to get a drivers license is what is going to disenfranchise them? After the partisan slapfest over the debt ceiling, you think needing a photo ID is going to keep people from voting?
Get a fucking clue. You could register the entirety of the United States population to vote and give them a free picture ID to use and I honestly doubt you’d see two thirds of the population come out to vote. 11% of the population might be disenfranchised if they have to get a photo ID to vote. 44% didn’t vote at all in the last presidential election. Seems to me like the population is plenty disenfranchised already.
To the contrary, you missed my points. Every single one.
Allowing people who don’t want to vote not to vote is a separate topic.
Here we discuss disenfranchising people who do want to vote.
Would you be willing to comment on the more egregious examples of “reform” in the OP cite?
Have you taken a stand on whether you think these Republican initiatives are partisan?
Taken a stand? How dramatic. 46% of the eligible population doesn’t vote already and you’re worried about 11% that may be disenfranchised if they have to have photo ID. Uh huh.
And because I apparently must, yes it’s partisan. It’s also stupid. Cries of election fraud are just as hysterical as cries of election theft. Congrats. You’re both fucking idiots.
And seriously, all the democrats have to do to defeat the nefarious scheme of the republicans is to motivate people to vote for their party instead of the other guys. Worst plan to steal an election I’ve ever heard of.
And lastly (sorry for the multiple posts. I’m at work and posting on my mobile.) you’re the one arguing that people will be disenfranchised. I’m saying they already are and that having to get ID isn’t going to change that. I certainly think it’s wrong to prevent people from being able to vote. I just don’t think that these people aren’t going to vote because they need ID to do so. There are way more reasons for people to feel disenfranchised than that.
I think you misunderstand - the judges are not involved in writing laws regarding whether or not felons can have restoration of full civil rights after conviction an fulfilling their sentence. They are involved where restoration of full civil rights are permitted but not automatic. So in such a state a felon would have to approach the court and ask for restoration, it’s not automatically granted.
I doubt they’d be more vulnerable to such temptation. First of all, bribing of individual voters is pretty uncommon, even in such dens of political corruption as, say, Chicago. Second, merely because a person commits one type of crime does not automatically mean they’re more likely to commit another. As an example, embezzlers aren’t more likely to engage in armed assaults than the average person (if they were, maybe they’d be muggers and not embezzlers). Martha Stewart is now a convicted felon (insider trading) but someone I don’t think she’s more prone to murder, arson, or bribery because of that.
I think the main idea here is that if someone passes bad checks at, say, 18, then 10 years later when they’re more mature they can be re-granted full civil rights if they’ve demonstrated they’ve learned their lesson.
I’ve met some people who were convicted of crimes who genuinely don’t seem to care if they go back to jail and they continue to commit crimes. I’ve met people who went to jail once and are so determined to avoid going back they’re more law-abiding than the average citizen. I don’t think you can make blanket statements about the group called “convicted felon” which is why I tend to favor judicial review when it comes to removing some of the long-term penalties.
Here’s some real-world data. (I hate to bring facts into such a rousing partisan debate, but you know it is.)
In Pennsylvania, the Secretary of State, who is responsible for voting and elections in the state, has estimated that 1% of eligible voters lack photo ID. This is based on PennDOT data, which looked at everyone over the age of 18 that had either a driver’s license or a state-issued photo ID. However, PennDOT says that that figure includes people who are not eligible to vote in Pennsylvania, such as convicted felons, and there’s no way to know which eligible voters don’t have a PennDOT-issued license or photo ID. The ACLU says the actual figure of eligible voters without photo ID is kinda important, and I agree with them.
I asked this question in a previous post, and I’d like an answer: What protections would be in place to keep overzealous poll workers from not allowing someone to vote by refusing to allow otherwise valid ID? For example, college students may register to vote where they attend college, but their license (if they even have one) may show their home address. What would be in place to require poll workers to accept the address in the voter registration log and not the address on the license?
I don’t see why there has to be any waiting period at all, or judicial review to restore voting privileges. After completion of parole, their rights should be restored. Why make them wait 10 extra years to be able to vote? Hell, some societal involvement may actually be good for them.