People are very eager in these threads to point out exceptions, but how many sex offenders are really just guys who peed in public or had a young girlfriend? I’m genuinely curious.
Also, I do wonder about sex offenders who committed crimes that were very obvious violent but that didn’t involve kids (i.e., NOT a public urinator or 18 yo boy who had sex with a 15 yo girlfriend). Is he considered a danger to children?
Probably depends on local conditions. I lived in Reston for 20 years, and they tended to close the school for the “major” elections, which drew a big turnout, but not for the local stuff, when turnout could be expected to be embarrassingly light.
Huh? That has got to be the stupidest idea yet. Set up a camp of sex offenders under a bridge somewhere – and that’s supposed to be a safe solution? :dubious:
(Note, this is not directed at you, Johnny.)
I vote at the firehall down the street – which is right across the street from the Catholic church…AND the parish school. I don’t know if that would count.
I remember my high school was open in 2006, and people came in to vote.
My high school was open during voting in 2006, 2008, and our local elections earlier this year - it was a complete madhouse in there (or more so than usual.) I also remember because I had to go all the way across town to vote at a middle school, because I lived on the other side of the boundary street of the high school’s voting district.
Actually, on the November election date, our schools (Fairfax County) are closed.
On other polling days, however, they are not (e.g. as we were standing in line to vote in the primary last year, we were being cheered on by students as they changed class. The students were mostly Obama supporters).
I grew up in Reston but live in City of Alexandria now. Every election I’ve voted in, school was open. Same with Montgomery County MD, across the river.
It doesn’t matter. Until we’re done with zero-tolerance, one size fits all laws, 1 public urinator enduring sex-offender status is too many.
Jesus H. Christ. Now I known how Oklahomans feel. :o
African-Americans are disproportionately more likely to have been convicted of felonies. Auntbeast and the ACLU make no arguments about whether or not they are fairly convicted (although any public defender will tell you that white felony suspects are much less likely to be convicted and serve much shorter sentences than black ones), or are more likely to commit them.
Wow, I didn’t even see jtgain’s response to me. Lets see, I think assuming I’m a racist is about the last thing I’d expect when I posted that. Not that you would know, but the reason I know specifically about the ACLU as it relates to felons voting in Florida is because my brother is a convicted felon and tried for a long time to get his civil rights restored. The only way it could happen prior is if the Governor himself issued it. To give you an idea of how difficult it was, the State of Florida would not allow my brother to vote, to own a gun, etc, BUT they happily gave him custody of an 11 year old child. It was not his child, it was our sister. They chose him over her grandparents or any other relative.
From the ACLU:
U. S. disfranchisement policies also disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities. Although these policies have been in effect for many years, they were significantly expanded and flourished during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era. Their purpose has been to deny the franchise to as many of the freed slaves as possible. (One might argue that the disfranchisement policies worked precisely as intended.)
(/aclu)
This is not the pit, but I shall remember your name and remember that when someone was trying to educate you about how the laws work in regards to felons (whether or not those laws are right) and went out of their way to give information for anyone else to rectify the wrongs done to those people, you pulled the most asinine suggestion right out of your butt.
And just so you know, for every child molester that has those limitations upon them, there are thousands more that don’t. Nothing is keeping my father away from children in any way shape or form, no, he hasn’t been convicted, but that is because he is in a back woods state that doesn’t think it is a big deal.
Sister to a felon.
Child of a molester.
Avid voter.
Grudge Holder
Consummate bitch (which is what I assume I’ll be called next)
Yes, if you’re going to do it, do it right! None of these halfway measures. 
They aren’t closed in California either. Both of my kids’ schools were polling places this year and neither were closed.
First, I did not mean to imply that convicted felons could not be near a child. I know my post reads that way, but it was poor construction. I meant that convicted child molesters cannot be near children.
Also, you will note that I disagree with a lifetime voting ban for a convicted felon. That being said, how can you suggest that a law against convicted felons voting is meant to keep blacks from voting without making an implicit assumption yourself that blacks commit felonies at a higher rate than whites?
If that is true, and I do say if, then the only people who are to blame for their disenfranchisement is they themselves. Don’t commit a felony and you won’t have to worry about voting rights.
The state of Florida isn’t the only state that won’t let your brother own a gun. That is a federal prohibition for convicted felons. I think that is too harsh as well, but I can’t for the life of me see a racial component. White felons can’t own guns anymore than black felons.
See above… blacks are convicted of felonies at higher rates than whites, so it wouldn’t matter if they were charged with the same number.
Your “don’t commit crimes, then” argument is fine for an individual, but immaterial if you’re talking about society as a whole.
I don’t know how many of these cases exist but there are some that don’t seem to fit the intent of the law. Two that spring to mind are:
Mother who allows her teenaged daughter consensual to have sex in the house.
College student date. He says she consented. She claims she was raped. Lawyer recommends accepting a plea to avoid risk of a more serious conviction.
Bottom line for me is that I’ve yet to see a zero tolerance policy that shouldn’t have had some exceptions.
So that means that blacks are victims of a racist judicial system?
One could argue that the police are reverse racists as they are arresting innocent whites who are vindicated at trial; or that police are taking extra precautions to be more sure of guilt before arresting a black person to avoid the accusation of racism.
I just think that is is irresponsible to accuse a voting qualification system of being racist simply because a person disagrees with it. Until it is shown that blacks are convicted at a higher rate that whites BECAUSE of a bias in the system, AND that Florida state lawmakers know of all of the above but continue the ruse for the sole purpose of keeping blacks from voting, and not from a general desire to keep all convicted felons from voting, then it is a terribly unfair criticism.
It requires far too many unfounded inferences.
Are there people reading this thread that have not heard about discrimination? What do you think it was? Ever heard the phrase “driving while black?”
Your perfect, utopian society where everyone is treated like a precious little snowflake has little actual bearing on the way things were and actually are in some areas.
I have lived in a town and told a black friend had best be gone by sundown. Should I mention that it was the white town counterpoint to Rosewood (the one they made the movie about). It ain’t just story-tellin’. Really, cops would arrest you and make shit up just because you were black. Hell, read some threads here. Do you really live in that world?
And guess what? Hot chicks get away without tickets sometimes too.