Should ex-felons be allowed to vote?

[Sunrazor]

Seems to be a lot of bickering over whether imprisoned inmates should be allowed to vote. That wasn’t in the OP, but some of you guys keep wandering over there. The OP specifically said FORMER inmates who have served their ENTIRE sentences.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Ludovic

“Taxation without representation” was sloganeering, too. After all, they had no problem restricting their own countrymen and women from voting…

There were conservatives here who looked down on those “sloganeers” back then & presented serious arguments why the status quo was quite reasonable. (They were concerned about The Wrong Sort gaining power.) I believe they called them Tories.

(Here in Texas, the right to vote is gained automatically after the end of the sentence, probation and/or parole. Sounds OK to me.)

[Kalhoun]

@Bridget Burke

There were conservatives here who looked down on those “sloganeers” back then & presented serious arguments why the status quo was quite reasonable. (They were concerned about The Wrong Sort gaining power.) I believe they called them Tories.

(Here in Texas, the right to vote is gained automatically after the end of the sentence, probation and/or parole. Sounds OK to me.)

Illinois, too.

I found via The Free Press article linked, that the reason voting rights were taken away from ex-felons was specifically to disenfranchise the black voters.

Ex-felon disenfranchisement and the struggle for voting rights | Freepress.org

At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, lawmakers who opposed African American voting rights desperately considered ways to remove large numbers of blacks from their state’s electorates without appearing to violate their constitutional rights. In the 1960s, many southern and some western states figured out how to accomplish this: by passing state constitutional provisions, or state laws, barring individuals convicted of a felony from voting for the remainder of their lives. Since African Americans were disproportionately prosecuted and convicted of felonies in most state courts, the loss of voting rights would hit blacks hardest.

This racist scheme – using the criminal justice system not to “rehabilitate” prisoners, but to strip them of their democratic voting rights for life – was successful. In 1968, Florida barred ex-offenders from voting for life. By 2000, approximately 818,000 Florida residents who had prior felony convictions, but who were no longer incarcerated, were disenfranchised. The vast majority of this disenfranchised population was African-American. None of these citizens were permitted to vote in Florida’s contested 2000 presidential election, which George W. Bush narrowly “won” by only hundreds of votes.

and

In every democracy throughout the world, except for most of the United States, everyone who is defined as a “citizen” has a right to vote. A “citizen” who has been convicted of any crime, including murder, remains a citizen, and thus retains his or her voting rights. In Maine and Vermont, for example, all prisoners behind bars do vote. The other 48 states are not as democratic. In only a small number of states, including Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Oregon, and Utah, felons regain the right to vote after leaving prison. In states like New York and Colorado, former prisoners who are on parole and still under the jurisdiction of criminal justice authorities can’t vote. In a host of states, mostly in the south and far west, ex-felons who successfully complete years of parole are no longer excluded from voting. And in Virginia and Kentucky, ex-prisoners are still barred from voting for life. Conservatively, there are now five million Americans who are out of prison, and who have “repaid their debt to society,” but who temporarily or permanently cannot vote.

[BwanaBob]

@acsenray

Yeah, and you change a bad law by participating in elections. Unless the law says you’re not eligible to participate. Oops.

Maybe one ought to think twice before committing a felony if their privilege to vote is so precious to them.

[Kalhoun]

@BwanaBob

Maybe one ought to think twice before committing a felony if their privilege to vote is so precious to them.

Well, isnt’ that just typical of the holier than thou type to chime in with judgemental-yet-useless commentary.

[Acsenray]

@BwanaBob

Maybe one ought to think twice before committing a felony if their privilege to vote is so precious to them.

This seems to me to be imposing a real reform school sensibility on the operations of a free and democratic society – “You broke a rule, so you no longer get a say in how the rules are made.”

Where is the respect for civil disobedience? Or the accumulation of experience? Some people might not have any opinion about the advisability of a particular law until after they experience the weight of legal jeopardy.

Either someone is a full citizen or not. I see no room in a free society for half-citizens, who look like free members of society but are subject to legal handicaps of one kind or another.

[BwanaBob]

@acsenray

This seems to me to be imposing a real reform school sensibility on the operations of a free and democratic society – “You broke a rule, so you no longer get a say in how the rules are made.”

Where is the respect for civil disobedience? Or the accumulation of experience? Some people might not have any opinion about the advisability of a particular law until after they experience the weight of legal jeopardy.

Either someone is a full citizen or not. I see no room in a free society for half-citizens, who look like free members of society but are subject to legal handicaps of one kind or another.

Look, there are laws that I disagree with - none of them happen to be felonies. I believe in peaceful demonstrations and believe I have the right to be heard by my “representatives”.
I also wouldn’t consider breaking a law to make a point.
YMMV. I’m not “holier than thou”; I make many mistakes, but law breaking isn’t one of them.

[Kalhoun]

@BwanaBob

Look, there are laws that I disagree with - none of them happen to be felonies. I believe in peaceful demonstrations and believe I have the right to be heard by my “representatives”.
I also wouldn’t consider breaking a law to make a point.
YMMV. I’m not “holier than thou”; I make many mistakes, but law breaking isn’t one of them.

Wow. Incredible.

[Blalron]

@BwanaBob

I also wouldn’t consider breaking a law to make a point.

Have you ever read “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau?

[Ms2001]

@acsenray

This seems to me to be imposing a real reform school sensibility on the operations of a free and democratic society – “You broke a rule, so you no longer get a say in how the rules are made.”

More disturbingly, it undermines the legitimacy of those very rules. If you don’t get a say in how the rules are made, you’re a subject, not a citizen. And at the rate we’re adding to their numbers, we’d better hope those subjects don’t get the same idea our founding fathers did.

[Kalhoun]

@Mr2001

More disturbingly, it undermines the legitimacy of those very rules. If you don’t get a say in how the rules are made, you’re a subject, not a citizen. And at the rate we’re adding to their numbers, we’d better hope those subjects don’t get the same idea our founding fathers did.

I agree completely. For a nation that supposedly values freedom and democracy, we sure have a funny way of expressing it.

Here are some stats:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:roEpDgbXU1YJ:www.sentencingproject.org/Admin%255CDocuments%255Cpublications%255Cfd_bs_fdlawsinus.pdf+disenfranchisement+laws+by+state&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Frank]

@Kalhoun

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/4/2007/1527

From the cite:

And in Virginia and Kentucky, ex-prisoners are still barred from voting for life.

This can’t be right, as Mr Moto has specifically stated that felons in Virginia may be reinstated after a review process.

[Kalhoun]

@Frank

From the cite:

This can’t be right, as Mr Moto has specifically stated that felons in Virginia may be reinstated after a review process.

I believe he said that process includes a pardon, which from what I gather, is a rarity. I think the pardon erases the felony, which would make sense. If your record is clean, you get to vote again. That’s how I’m reading it, anyway. Mr. Moto, are you still around to shed some light on this?

[Kalhoun]

According to VA’s website, first comes restoration of rights, then a pardon:

http://www.commonwealth.virginia.gov/JudicialSystem/Clemency/simplePardon.cfm

However,

Again, granting a restoration of rights is solely at the discretion of the Governor; it is not guaranteed. If your petition for restoration of rights is denied, you have no right of appeal – but you may reapply after a two-year period.

[Kalhoun]

Also, suppose an ex-con is convicted in VA and then moves to IL. Can he just start voting, since we’re a state that doesn’t disenfranchise?

[Bricker]

@Kalhoun

Well, isnt’ that just typical of the holier than thou type to chime in with judgemental-yet-useless commentary.

What is the principled distinction between his comment and your own contributions to this thread? Objectively - how can your comments judging the wisdom of felons voting be objectively distinguished from his comments judging the felons’ actions that resulted in their loss of voting rights?

[Kalhoun]

@Bricker

What is the principled distinction between his comment and your own contributions to this thread? Objectively - how can your comments judging the wisdom of felons voting be objectively distinguished from his comments judging the felons’ actions that resulted in their loss of voting rights?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m basing my opinion on the fact that American citizens are supposed to be represented through the process of voting. I am saying that a felony conviction doesn’t take away your citizenship, and therefore shouldn’t take away your right to vote; your right to be part of the democracy.

I’m not making a judgement, pro or con, with respect to the wisdom of felons. Wisdom is not a prerequisite for voting in the US. A sense of civic responsibility is not a prerequisite of voting. And it is against the law to require a citizen to tell you who he voted for or why he chose that candidate. We don’t care how you came to your decision; we just grant the right of citizens’ to voice their opinion in the form of a vote.

[Bricker]

@Kalhoun

I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m basing my opinion on the fact that American citizens are supposed to be represented through the process of voting. I am saying that a felony conviction doesn’t take away your citizenship, and therefore shouldn’t take away your right to vote; your right to be part of the democracy.

But that’s a judgement. It’s your opinion that your right to be part of democracy should survive a felony conviction. In the same way, BwanaBob’s comment about thinking twice before committing a felony if their privilege to vote is so precious to them is a judgement. The difference is you slammed BwanaBob as “holier than thou” for offering his judgement, apparently unable to recognize that your own contribution is also simply an opinion, an assertion unsupported by any particular facts.

[Ms2001]

@Bricker

It’s your opinion that your right to be part of democracy should survive a felony conviction.

That’s not an opinion, it’s the meaning of democratic government: those who are required to obey the laws get a say in making them. The opinion is either (1) our government should be democratic, or (2) allowing felons to vote is a better way to ensure a democratic government than allowing felons to freely violate the law after they’ve been disenfranchised.

[Kalhoun]

@Bricker

But that’s a judgement. It’s your opinion that your right to be part of democracy should survive a felony conviction. In the same way, BwanaBob’s comment about thinking twice before committing a felony if their privilege to vote is so precious to them is a judgement. The difference is you slammed BwanaBob as “holier than thou” for offering his judgement, apparently unable to recognize that your own contribution is also simply an opinion, an assertion unsupported by any particular facts.

As Mr2001 said, you can’t have a democracy without embracing the basic comcept of a voice for all citizens. The question isn’t whether or not BwanaBob should think felony crime is ok or not; it’s whether BwanaBob thinks that democracy is really the kind of government he wants to be part of. If he thinks it’s ok to take a person’s political voice maybe democracy really isn’t his bag.