I’ve told you what my personal preference is. But if Virginia decides to enfranchise felons upon completion of their parole, I wouldn’t be too upset.
I would have a big problem with allowing incarcerated felons or those under current parole or probationary supervision to vote, for the reasons I stated above.
Is Congress a branch of the government of the United States, or is it not?
I thought that was a settled issue, but maybe I missed a Constitutional amendment somewhere. There’s more than two dozen of the things, and sometimes I forget one.
:sigh:
We all know that prisoners’ Constitutional rights are sharply curtailed. Any other breaking news?
Specifics, please? I’ve pointed out that other restrictions you’ve mentioned that apply to ex-felons have some connection with committing crimes, but restricting the franchise doesn’t. You’ve brought up the right of assembly, but have provided no information to indicate which category this falls into.
What - that you don’t have one??
No, I’ve taken a position, and stated what I think are some good reasons for it. You’ve not responded to them. But my reason for questioning whether I should respond further to anything you’ve said is that there’s no ‘there’ there.
I can’t support disenfranchising someone who doesn’t have the franchise.
How do you know that I think that? And if I don’t think it, how can I tell you why I think it? That’s absurd.
Are you bringing up this point as a “let’s you and him fight” sort of thing? That’s the only reason I can see for it.
This is where we run into circles though. Because the matter of what is and is not a “crime” boils down to what a majority of voters say it is. Sodomites (pre-Lawrence) and Marijuana possesors (if they possess enough to be felons) have had the gall to violate societies rules, yet I argue that they have hurt nobody by their actions and should not be stripped of their right to seek redress in the ballot box for what shouldn’t have been a crime in the first place.
And if a majority of people (but not a majority of voters because aforementioned citizens were stripped of their right to vote) think something shouldn’t be a crime, isn’t that a fundamentally unjust result?
Bolding mine.
So you think people currently in prison shouldn’t vote, as I said. Seems as arbitrary as my cutoff unless you can justify it somehow.
Mr Moto mentioned the loss of firearm privileges. This makes perfect sense if the felony in question was armed robbery… but not so much if it was income tax evasion or embezzlement.
I support Virginia’s current scheme. I also give deference to the other states that have decided the issue differently. I think committing a felony is a serious-enough issue that it should generally lead to a loss of the right to vote, but if other states find their interests are better served by permitting those who have served their sentences to vote, well… that’s why we have a federal system of states.
While it’s no surprise that most of the commentators here on SDMB lean the other way in resolving this question, I think – as applies to many of the issues of the day – that reasonable people may reasonably disagree here. That is, it’s not self-evident that a felony should cause virtually permanant loss of voting rights, and it’s not self-evident that denying the vote to those convicted of a felony is a grave injustice. It all comes down to how a particular state wishes to deal with felons.
In another thread (perhaps the thread that prompted this one!) we discussed requiring identity verification for voters. elucidator opined that many who supported that scheme did so because they believed it would benefit their party, the GOP. I countered that the idea should be judged on its merits.
Here we have a proposal similar in its lopsided effect on one party. I think it’s beyond cavil that Democrats would benefit more from former felons’ votes than the GOP would. Yet I don’t imagine that there are any posters here who have used that as the calculus to arrive at their support of the idea. Rather, just like the voter ID issue, people who tend to feel one way about the issues at hand (barriers to voting should be non-existent; felons should be judged rehabilitated) are more often Democrats, and people who feel the other way (voting is a privilege that should be carefully guarded to ensure only those eligible access it; felons deserve stricter punishments and generally lack civic responsibilty) tend to be Republicans. The decision is made not by who benefits, but by the simple fact that if you feel like ex-felons should be voting, you’re probably a Democrat; the fact that the decision benefits Democrats is utterly irrelevant.
No.
You are drawing incorrect conclusions from my words. Since it’s already been pointed out once to you that what you see there isn’t there, I wonder at your persistence.
Are you claiming on the same basis that I think 17 year olds shouldn’t have the vote? Because one would support that equally well with the exact same argument. But I’m not even considering that question, am I?
Sheesh. :rolleyes:
For me, it isn’t so much that it benefits Democrats as that I’m a populist; on account of that, I would place a very high burden on any governmental interference with the franchise, and would criminalize any nongovernmental interference. I’m a Democrat because I’m the sort of person who thinks restricting the franchise to an elite of any sort is bullshit; I’m not for the right of felons to vote because I’m a Democrat.
I find it interesting to note that people who live in towns where large educational institutions are located often express similar sentiments about university students.
Town and gown and jumpsuit.
Thank you Mr. Moto for clearing this up for us. You don’t want felons and ex-felons to vote because they might vote for the “other side”.
My brother is a convicted felon. Approximately 20 years ago he stole a car. He hasn’t had a lick of trouble since then and has lived exclusively in a state that historically has made it all but impossible to get your civil rights restored. He is married, owns property, pays taxes.
He was given custody of a child. He can’t vote in this state, but the State gave him a child.
I don’t think that’s what he’s said, actually. I’ve gone back and re-read the whole thread and I think of all of us **Moto ** probably has the firmest grasp on both the ideal and the reality.
I’m always surprised how these threads flush out commonly-held misconceptions about our government and the laws that govern us.
I believe (and “believe” covers a waterfront of ideas) that the survival of our democratic republic (or is it a republican democracy? I can never remember) depends on the informed participation of the greatest number of citizens possible. “Informed” also covers the waterfront. There have been numerous statements on the thread that certain people shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they “can’t be trusted.” Horsehockey. If trustworthiness or ability to reason were a criteria, not one person in the Colorado General Assembly would be allowed to vote after this month, the conniving bastards!
So, I believe FORMER felons who have completed all incarceration, parole and probation sentences, and who have completed all court-ordered restitution, should be fully restored to their constitutional rights. Period. And don’t even think about preaching to me about guns and crimes with guns and all that crap. A right enshrined in the Constitution is a right, goddamnit! Either honor the right or change the Constitution. (Yeah, I know, we have a dynamic tension now between the need of the people to control access to guns, and the rights of gun owners. I’m a Pollyanna – so sue me!)
I realize the right to vote isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But it is frequently referred to as the instrument of democracy. It therefore should be not lightly suspended, and should be returned at the earliest justifiable moment.
I think Mr. Moto’s position is this: Imprisoned felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Further, he considers their prison sentence to not have ended until parole, probation, and final review have all been successfully completed. He is saying that prison doesn’t end at the walls and barbed wire.
A fine position. I totally disagree with its original premise, though, that any convicted criminal, felon or not, should be disenfranchised. I can’t argue with his logic on the backend, though, that prison ain’t over 'til the fat lady (or skinny judge) sings.
Keep in mind, I only support the disenfranchisement of felons. Those convicted of misdemeanors ought to be able to vote, even from jail.
As I said before, this line is as good a one to draw as any, being reasonably clear in law and part of longstanding legal treatment.
All this time I thought you were a majoritarian. But apparently the power of “the state” to decide matters of voting supercedes that ideal. I’m curious what you think about Baker v. Carr. Sound law or judicial activism?
Do you believe that felons should be taxed?
The way I see it, voting is the right of everyone who’s expected to obey the law: the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and all that. Voting isn’t a privilege to be given only to the “good” citizens; it’s a right, allowing us to collectively choose the rules we’ll hold ourselves to. If the government is just imposing rules on people who don’t get a chance to vote on them, that’s more dictatorship than democracy.
Now, it’s true that minors aren’t allowed to vote. But they also aren’t held to the same legal standard as those of us who can vote (ignoring the misguided attempts to try minors as adults for sensational crimes). They don’t get the same sentences, and their records are sealed. It’s not perfect, but it is a good trade-off: until they can have a say in the laws that are passed, they shouldn’t be held (as) accountable for breaking those laws.
I’m uneasy with the thought of allowing the government to take away the right to vote from large amounts of U.S. citizens. There are plenty other avenues for punishment, aren’t there?