The problem I have with Balron’s proposed amendment is that it doesn’t go far enough. If we are going to the trouble of amending our Constitution we should do it right. Why guarantee a right to vote without eliminating the Electoral College which denies individuals the right to vote for the most powerful “elective” position of them all, the Presidency? Why remove the proscription on electing 18 year olds to the presidency but still not allow the electorate the right to choose whomever they wish even if the candidate was born in another country or ( shocked gasp! ) even has already proven their competence by serving honorably for 2 full terms?
The Constitution is littered with partial remedies for its original undemocratic character. The OP even lists a few. It seems to me that we don’t need any more half measures.
Any standard of identification that can qualify a person a few weeks before the election can be used on the day of the election just as well. For the rest we have provisional voting. The person claiming to be eligible can cast a ballot to be held seperate from the rest until the claim can be verified or refuted. Did you know that North Dakota doesn’t register voters at all? Everyone who votes at the polls has to be able to demonstrate their eligibility. Of course that’s North Dakota where it can usually be done by saying, “Hey Bill, gimme my ballot and how are Alice and the kids?”
Eligibility is determined by residency not just citizenship. Since the Moter Voter Law requires states to attempt to register residents when issuing drivers licenses the state already has to determine eligibility. The drivers license wouldn’t show you are a citizen it would just show that you are you.
I have already noted the situation of North Dakota. The oft cited Vanishing Voter by Thomas Patterson states that Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow same day registration. According to Patterson registration is a large barrier to electoral participation. He says there are studies showing that registered Americans vote at similar rates as European voters where the burden of registration is taken up by the state and not placed on the individual. He also cites Who Votes? by Wolfinger and Stone as estimating that turnout could increase as much as nine percent by relaxing registration requirements. ( It should be noted that that book came out before the Moter Voter Law. )
We are. The people act as a check on their leaders by denying support to the ones who are seen as going too far. No competent politician will promote restricting the franchise to propertyholders. As Lemur866 says, if we fall into fascism it won’t matter what the Constitution says anyways. No paper check will stop the government from limiting the franchise if they have popular support.
BrainGlutton’s idea of using ink to mark voters would work. Or just entering each person’s name and address into a database as they vote. Here is where provisional voting could come in handy if there is any doubt about elgibility.
I’m afraid that turns out not to be the case. Article 1, Section 4: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” ( bolding mine )
The federal government has jurisdiction over federal elections which is how we have things like the Moter Voter Law. If Congress decides felons shouldn’t be denied the vote they could just pass a law requiring states to include felons. This wouldn’t effect local and state elections directly but what state wants the trouble and expense of maintaining multiple voting lists and practices? Not many so such a law, or the promise of such legislation, could well encourage Congress to propose and states to ratify a constitutional amendment enfranchising felons. This is essentially how the amendment enfranchising 18 year olds got passed. Without the threat of simple legislation to accomplish the goal the 26th Amendment might have shared the fate of the ERA.
Enfranchising felons isn’t intended to make elections easy to count. The reason for elections is to allow the people to pick the leaders. Felons are people too. Enfranchising felons would help elections more accurately reflect the will of the people.
Yeah, but a lot of people don’t want elections to more accurately reflect the will of convicted criminals. It seems to me that if you’re convicted of a felony, you should permanently not be able to vote.
Elections, Captain, are the time when the people are supposed to judge the government, not the other way around. And convicts remain people – and remain citizens, if they were citizens prior to conviction.
Well, at the risk of being called a pussy by the Vice President I’m sensitive to that kind of feeling. I can see the benefits of putting a muzzle on evil old Richard Mellon Scaife. But I think silencing political dissent is always a bad idea. I’m sorry conservatives don’t see it that way.
It seems to me more and more the Republican Party are turning into the Federalists. At the risk of promoting the political paranoia so prevelent these days ( and so reminiscent of those ) I’m almost expecting some new Alien and Sedition Acts.
Doesn’t that send the message to convicts that no matter how hard they try, no matter how good of citizens they may become in the future, no matter how diligently they pay their taxes, they are forever punished for their mistakes? How does that help in the rehabilitation process?
Also remember that what is or is not a crime can be an evolving paradigm. Having sex with a 17 year old may lock you behind bars in one state, and in another state right next to it may be perfectly okay.
If the majority of people wish to change the law, then the law should be changed. If you are afraid that lettings convicts vote will tip the balance, perhaps the balance should be tipped. No matter how you spin it, preventing majority rule from taking place by segregating convicts from the political process is undemocratic.
They’re not allowed to have guns, either, so it’s not like losing the right to vote is the only thing that happens to ex-felons. It’s not a matter of being afraid that convicts voting will tip the balance and get whatever law repealed. It’s that they’ve chosen to commit a felony…they’ve chosen to break the rules of the society in a major way, and by doing so, shown that they’re not worthy, so to speak, of participating in civil society.
Has anyone said it was? We are discussing the right to have a voice in how things work.
That’s just what the white South African government thought about Mandela.
If felons are not worthy of rejoining society after they have served their time then why are they not kept in prison or deported? Do you really believe that felons no longer deserve to be Americans?
Won’t work. I think it was tried before in some juristictions, and dudes just went away for 'the Holiday" and voting decreased. There is some rule about Government employees getting up to 4 hours Admin leave if they can show they need it to vote. But now- with longer pollong place hours, no one shoudl have a problem.
Blalron said that by denying the vote to ex-felons, we’re sending them a message that they’re forever to be punished for their mistakes, and I was just pointing out that losing the franchise isn’t the only thing that happens to ex-felons.
We’re not South Africa, and most felons aren’t Nelson Mandela.
Of course they deserve to be Americans, and of course they’re worthy of rejoinging society. I’m not saying that, and I’m not saying they should be deported. I am saying that they shouldn’t vote. Voting should be the prerogative of the law-abiding citizen. And in those places where ex-felons can’t vote, they made the choice to commit the crime that they knew, or should have known, took away their vote. It’s their own fault.
So, how do you propose to distinguish the felons who are comparable to him from the ones who aren’t?
What’s the point of being an American if you can’t vote? What could possibly be more basic to the spirit of this country than the ability to choose your rulers?
Couldn’t that logic excuse any punishment, no matter how cruel, as long as would-be criminals are told about it in advance? If you get whipped or castrated for committing a crime - hey, you knew it would happen, so it’s your own fault and there’s no need to change it.
Are you serious? You would support a policy even though it disenfranchises SOME Nelson Madelas? That’s mighty white of you.
No you are just saying that they should remain second class citizens. Less than full Americans.
Have you ever been to the ghetto? Do you have any idea what growing up poor and hopeless does to a person? I’m not saying we should excuse individual rapists and murderers but we are discussing the entire group. Why do you suppose that blacks and latinos are far more likely to be convicted of a felony? Is there some racial defect in minorities?
The US, unlike South Africa, isn’t in the habit of convicting peaceful political protestors of felonies. The Nelson Mandela situation just doesn’t come up here.
I’m saying they shouldn’t be allowed to vote in elections. If you consider that making them “less than full Americans”, then that’s your interpretation.
I know that poverty increases the crime rate, but remember, most poor people don’t commit crimes. As for why blacks and latinos are more likely to be convicted of a crime, part of that is because of poverty, and part of it is racial bias. There are discrepencies in sentencing and in convictions. All of that needs to be changed, and I’m not going to disagree with you there. I also don’t like your implication that I’m a racist,
At any rate, it’s not like the South African government took away his right to vote…he never had it in the first place. And we, unlike Apartheid South Africa, don’t disenfranchise about 70% of our population. This is a red herring.
Somewhere around 15% of black men are unable to vote due to felonies, according to what I’ve read. Just what percentage of the population is it OK to disenfranchise?
There are political prisoners in America; Dr Kevorkian comes to mind. He didn’t attack anyone. He stood up for what he believed in and the government convicted him of felonies. He gave up his freedom for his dissent. Should he lose his political rights as well?
Clearly that is my interpretation. Since you didn’t dispute it should I assume you consider it indisputable? Somehow I doubt it. In any case since they don’t have the same rights as everyone else surely you must admit they are 2nd class citizens, right?
This puzzles me. You understand that the behavior of the group is affected by factors outside their control and yet you still place the entire blame for the behavior on the group. If some of the fault is due to the world around them then what sense does it make to remove their ability to alter that world via the electoral process?
I didn’t imply but if you inferred and that spurred you to think about my objections to your position then my purpose was well served. I wasn’t trying to make you look like anything. I wanted you to look at something. Namely that the policy you favor locks the racial disparities of American society into the electorate.
It seems to me that if you’re convicted of a felony, you should permanently not be able to vote.