Yes, and D.C. residents are only represented by a non-voting delegate in the house (who can’t “speak” in a legislative sense). If we are interpreting “no taxation without representation” as the Revolutionaries did (not the most literal sense), it’s just that: No representation.
And although not technically a member of the U.S., Puerto Ricans pay U.S. taxes without voting representation in Congress as well.
This of course is a great emotional argument for granting D.C. residents a voting representative: They may as well be living in Puerto Rico as far as Congress is concerned.
As far as I know, not on the federal level. I’m pretty sure the feds dictate who can and can’t vote for federal elections; I don’t recall ever hearing about non-citizens being allowed to vote
The “convicted felons” thing should probably be remedied, but nobody’s likely to go to bat for it. It makes sense that actual prisoners and parolees have their voting rights suspended, but once such periods are up it makes no sense, if reformed criminals are ostensibly supposed to be returned to society. Nevertheless, we have a lot of states where some 45 year old man can’t vote because he held up a liquor store when he was 19, even though he’s been a law abiding citizen ever since.
It could be argued that the voting restriction is a further incentive against committing a felony -not quite a scarlet “A”, but something that will stay with them the rest of their lives.
Of course, I’m not going to argue that! I’m sure that 19 year old didn’t really care too much about his voting rights 26 years later.
That’s bullshit. I think there are plenty of areas where their interests conflict. If you don’t want them to vote, I think that’s fine, but I don’t think you should get to collect taxes from them.
You’re right, and I meant it the way I said it. Puerto Rico is not a state. It is not technically a member of the United States. I didn’t mean to offend, but it’s a self-governing, un-incorporated territory of the United States.
I know that it’s a MUCH more complicated issue than that. I was just commenting on their state-hood; it’s just semantics.
The problem here is the word “member.” It has no meaning in this context, whether “technical” or not. Puerto Rico is not a state, but it is part of the United States.
Do we know how the convicted felon thing works? See, my dad’s a convicted felon (income tax evasion), but he’s voted in nearly every big election since he moved to Wisconsin. He’s also purchased firearms, which is another restriction against felons (I believe). How has he been able to do these things? Shouldn’t he have been prevented from them? Is his vote thrown out later (which seems impossible, as it’s anonymous - they take his name to register and identify him, but they don’t know which vote is his after he casts it)?
Is there a statute of limitations, after which his rights are restored (I don’t think so, but maybe. He was convicted in the early 1980s.)? Is it a communication issue between the two states (his conviction was in one state; he moved to another after completing all restitution required by the courts)? Is it a difference of laws between the two states? Is it a federal versus state felon thing (admittedly, I’m a little unclear about my crimes and misdemeanors)?
I’ve always wondered about this, and have been stymied.
Not everyone would agree that it makes sense to disenfranchise prisoners or parolees. I believe there have been GD threads on this issue in the past.
I don’t think Puerto Rico is without representation the same way that DC is, in the sense that they’ve had several votes on whether to become a state, and have decided not to. They could be admitted to the union and given representatives if they wanted, whereas DC is stuck.
It’s by state, and I should have looked it up. In 2000, there were 10 states that denied felons voting rights permanently, without special intervention by the Governor. There has been some movement on this, and today there are only two - Virginia and Kentucky. There has been debate going on in Virginia:
There are some states which restrict SOME felons. A map of the status by state, referenced in that article:
Only 2 states believe actual prisoners should be able to vote - VT and ME.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Unless he was fully pardoned for his felony it is both a serious federal & state crime for him to possess or even attempt to possess firearms. There is no statute of limitations on this. Restoration of civil rights does not include firearm possession. Completing probation and restitution requirements does not affect this. Unless he was pardoned he cannot (legally) own guns. Period! This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer.
Wisconsin allows felons to vote after their probation/parole period is completed. This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer.
The citizens of DC are choosing to live in DC. They are not being denied anything, as they are free to leave whenever they want.
That’s like saying I will take a job for minimum wage, and then crying over the fact you don’t get paid a proper scale. If you want to live in DC, you don’t live in a state, you live in a territory. We had territories for over a hundred years. They paid taxes to the feds in some form. No one forced them to live in the Arizona Territory or whatever.
DC is PART of the United States but it is NOT ONE of the United States. There is a big difference.
If you’re going to complain about it being unfair that people live in DC and are taxed, why not complain about people who live in California with 37 million people and have two senators, the same number of senators as Wyoming that has 544,000 people. That is unfair too.
You could go on and one, why single that one thing out, especially since no one forces you to live in DC and not a state.
People who were born to US-citizen parents outside the USA and have never lived in the USA… no state of residence so no voting, but you need to pay US taxes even if you have never set foot in the USA.
Isn’t a caucus a private election for a representative of a private party? (Yes, primary elections are unusual in that state resources are normally used to determine candidates for what are private entities, i.e. political parties. But caucuses don’t even rise to that standard since public resources are not being used.)
This is definitely true to an extent, but it’s similar to saying that we shouldn’t have given federal aid relief to people in New Orleans after Katrina. They chose to live there, so they have to deal with the consequences. And I understand that this is a point that can and has been argued (and I am definitely NOT going to get into an argument about Katrina relief in this thread).
To get the OP, though, Americans living here before the Revolution were free to move as well. That didn’t stop them from demanding “no taxation without representation”. I can only assume that we’re using their definition of “representation”, which puts them in the EXACT same situation as D.C. residents in terms of voting representation in the highest governing bodies.
I agree that it seems unfair, but the both populations have voting representation in the House and Senate. This is not the case in D.C., so I don’t understand what parallel you’re trying to draw.