Hence the need for a Constitutional amendment.
Another reason for such a Constitutional amendment would be to turn voter suppression tactics into an interference with the exercise of a Constitutional right; such an amendment wouldn’t just be about ex-inmates. But that’s beyond the scope of the OP.
It’s quite different, actually. If Timmy gets caught drawing on the walls with crayons, his punishment might consist of: 1) No longer allowed to play with crayons, 2) Sit in the corner with the dunce hat for the rest of the week(*), 3) No more chocolate milk. After he’s done serving his time in the corner, it’s reasonable to assume he still can’t be trusted with crayons, but there’s no reason to continue keeping him away from the chocolate milk.
(*) - Yeah, I know, this is probably overboard. I’m just making a point. Sheesh.
Why not do it the other way around? ISTM that it makes more sense to allow all ex-felons to vote, but review the ones where there are legitimate concerns regarding their voting (e.g., maybe they were convicted for voter fraud).
LilShieste
Exactly. Because notice the details of the text following the originally bolded portion:
We had no problems with amending that portion, right? (Well, we did for a while… but not anymore.)
LilShieste
No. I think it ought to be left to the states to decide, as voting rights decisions as well as their punishments for state level crimes are properly theirs to deal with. States that decide to punish their felons with disenfranchisement in addition to a prison term are clearly within their rights to do so.
If a state wants to use the removal of a person’s voting rights - in state elections - as part of the punishment, that’s one thing. But this affects federal elections too, right? Why should the state be able to bar certain people from voting in a federal election?
LilShieste
What do you mean by this? What do you consider a sentence?
When a man gets convicted of, say, armed robbery in the state of Virginia, he is sentenced to several things. Now, you seem to think of the sentence as merely a prison term, which takes some years, and a parole period, which is longer.
But he is also sentenced to other penalties which are indeed lifelong ones - the aforementioned gun ban, a criminal record, and the disenfranchisement.
Now, you seem to be focusing on the voting rights aspect, which is fair as far as it goes, but I do want to know how far you want to take this. A criminal record impacts the rest of your life - should we scrap that too? How about the firearms ownership ban I mentioned above?
The sentence is a lot more than just sitting behind bars, isn’t it? And shouldn’t it be?
My brother, when he was young and stupid (but still a fully capable adult) committed. It wasn’t a bad felony (swiping valuable equipment from his workplace and trying to sell it to someone in another state, then when busted he spent some time on the lam from the FBI in Mexico), but a felony nonetheless, and he was duly convicted of his crime, and served out his sentence.
That was ten years ago. Today, he works as a computer consultant, is married and has three cats, owns his own house, and just bought a new car (a limited-edition Mitsubishi Lancer). He’s actually doing better than **I ** am, and I have a totally spotless record.
Not allowing my brother the right to vote just because he is a convicted felon would be a cruel and utterly needless thing to do, and would serve no purpose to society whatsoever. In fact, it would be detrimental, since my brother is a bright, thoughtful, responsible member of society these days, and is not at all the same person he was when he committed his crimes.
Because federal elections are actually state elections - they are elections at the state level for slates of electors.
I think the main problem I have (and I would guess others, as well), is that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
Keeping a record of someone’s past offenses makes perfect sense. Not allowing someone who has committed a violent crime, using a gun, to own a gun makes perfect sense. What, exactly, is being accomplished by stripping them of their right to vote, though? It’s like a legal non-sequitur.
LilShieste
Well, you got me there. So, I’m going to go back to defending my position on the government’s (federal or state) ability to remove someone’s voting rights in general. 
LilShieste
This is all you’re saying - that it’s ‘properly’ the state’s decision on whether an ex-felon can vote in a Federal election.
Since I don’t think you’re the official custodian of propriety, I think that still leaves you falling back on your own opinion.
Which is no argument against a proposed Constitutional amendment. What you’re saying is that we shouldn’t amend the Constitution, because the Constitution is what it is at the moment.
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that. Come to think of it, someone accused of election fraud might reasonably be prohibited from ever voting again, or from circulating petitions, etc., IMHO. As with lifetime disqualification to possess firearms for a duly-convicted former armed robber, the factual linkage between the original offense and the potential for future criminality might be sufficient to justify it. I’d want to see it pretty narrowly-tailored, though.
That’s true. But they’re still elections for Federal office, for persons whose decisions aren’t going to be confined to your state alone. If Virginia wants to choose its officials in ways that I consider somewhat demented, that doesn’t affect me, since I live on the other side of the Potomac. But if you choose Federal officials in such a way, it affects me whether I live in Newport News or Nome.
Besides, the Constitution has already been amended to determine how some such officials are chosen. Senators used to be picked by state legislators, under Article I, Section 3, until the 17th Amendment was ratified.
The OP was, do we think it’s right to forbid a felon from voting. Not whether it’s legal, constitutional, or popular. Simply whether or not it’s right. I don’t believe it is.
I’m fully aware of what the penalties are. That has nothing to do with this conversation. You might want to open another thread to discuss whether a conviction should be a life sentence or if there is a finite end to a punishment. This thread is another conversation entirely.
In some cases, it helps prevent the crime in question from being legalized, like drug use, or homosexuality back in the day ( there are still quite a few older “sex criminals” whose crime was being gay IIRC ). It’s a form of voter suppression; whether it’s meant to be so I don’t know, but that’s the effect.
Edit : And I think that felons should be allowed to vote. Anything else smacks of backdoor political oppression, especially given how slanted our “justice” system is according to such things as race, class and gender.
Actually, this doesn’t happen. We have Colorado’s largest prison right here in my town, yet almost none of the inmates are ever released here. They’re all released into the communities from which they were convicted.
The question is where they would vote while they were incarcerated, if given that right.
As I said in the OP, I’ve never heard of anyone killing 32 people in nine minutes with a vote. There is a huge difference between owning a gun and being allowed to vote. Most pro-gun types I know (and I know a lot) are completely OK with banning gun ownership for people convicted of crimes involving guns.
I, of course, come down on the side of re-enfranchising voters AFTER ALL SENTENCES HAVE BEEN SERVED. And no, Moto, sentences shouldn’t continue beyond that which is handed down by a court (which is why I have a problem with all the registered sex offender stuff, but please, let’s not go there right now.) The only exception should be a conviction for actually tampering with the election rights of others (vote fraud, etc.) which should mean a person is banned from participating in the political process in any way.
Once more, with FEELING!
After all prison terms, probation and parole are served.
A robbery suspect gets a 10-year sentence. He serves four in prison and six on parole. After the entire 10 years is up, then he can vote.
The OP said nothing about voting rights for people actually in prison.
Let’s think about this for a minute. Let’s say I live in a small county in rural Arkansas. The happen to be three state prisons within this county with a population that equals 1/4th of the eligible voters of this county. Do you really think anyone in my county is going to want these inmates to have votes? How would you ever be able to build a prison if the constituency knows that they’re going to have to accept a whole load of new voters who have zero ties to the community?
After they’re released and paroled, maybe, but not while they’re serving time.
Marc