It is law in some states and I never see much serious objection, but it seems just kind of random and arbitrary to me. Can someone who is for this explain it to me?
Seems to me that "yeah, fuck those guys " pretty much sums it up. I don’t really have a problem with that.
My guess would be that Politician A suggests it to appear Tough on Crime™, and Politician B doesn’t want to oppose/repeal it because they don’t want to be seen as Weak on Crime™. As if losing voter rights is an effective deterrent compared to being locked up for x years.
Convicted felons are bad people, and their opinion should not influence our political process?
Mostly it’s not ideological. It’s just political suicide to say, “let’s lighten up on the convicted felons”
Those who cannot follow felony laws of our society lose the right to make more decisions for us.
Yeah, I never understood the no-vote thing. Now I’m wondering how/when/why that got started.
Hey, Google, thanks! http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html
** U.S. Constitution says:
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
**Ok now I’m wondering if untaxed Indians can’t vote or what. 
As Roger Clegg, president of the conservative advocacy group Center for Equal Opportunity, neatly puts it, “If you aren’t willing to follow the law, you can’t claim the right to make the law for everyone else.”
The above is taken from the link Taomist just added.
[URL=“http://www.ehow.com/list_6500867_states-allow-convicted-felons-vote_.html”]
I’m adding a link which shows how the states allow/disallow felons to vote.
At the rate we are locking people up, convicted felons could form a substantial voting block if permitted.
But presumably it’s ok to break some laws (misdemeanors) and still have a say in what those laws should be. Also, is anyone not affected by the fact that being convicted of something doesn’t neccesarily mean you are actually guilty? We all understand that unfortunately having a flawed justice system means some people will be falsely imprisoned, but taking away people’s political rights just seems a step too far and completely unrelated.
Exactly, for this issue and so many other criminal justice-related issues. And for sex offenders it’s a million times worse.
I’m fine with not allowing people to vote while they’re in prison. Once they get out, they’re supposed to get a chance to turn things around.
Also we tend to consider non-violent civil disobedience a good thing in certain situations, and certainly in some historical contexts. Why shouldn’t someone who symbolically breaks a law be able to repay their ‘debt’ and continue on as an activist for that cause in the most basic form of voting?
I agree with those who say it is a “tough on crime” issue and opposing it just looks bad politically regardless of intentions. I’m just looking for those who agree with it and playing devil’s advocate to try to really get at the core of this position.
But most felons become part of society again. Should they be branded forever because they broke the law? Or broke the law & couldn’t afford a fancy lawyer? Or didn’t break a law &* still* couldn’t afford a fancy lawyer?
In Texas, all felons automatically regain the franchise two years after the end of their sentence, parole and/or probation. But Texas is well known for its bleeding heart liberals…
It’s not particularly arbitrary if you think that historically voting was restricted to the elite (e.g. male landowners worth more than $XYZ who aren’t bankrupts, felons or lunatics) and that the restrictions were removed in a piecemeal fashion, with the most sympathetic groups getting their restrictions removed first. In that case, they just haven’t gotten around to felons yet.
Ex-felons are probably more affected by the results of elections than most of us. Let’s welcome them back to the land of the non-criminals and let them have a voice in future elections.
Bridget Burke, Go to the link in my post 10, middle of the page shows restoration granted by states. Only Virginia and Kentucky never allow felons restoration of voting rights.
I’m quite aware of the differences by state. Did some research back in 2000, when voting rights were on lots of folks’ minds. In order to keep things simple, perhaps I should have replied directly to your opinion:
Most states, not just we humble Texans, disagree with you. Most felons in the US do not lose that right permanently…
Bridget Burke, Yes, by all means keep the argument simple. The states of MN, WI, and TX allow restoration of voting rights to felons when their sentence is complete.
(no longer incarcerated, or on parole, probation, or supervised release) I’m fine with restoration of voting rights laws when the sentence is completed. You’ll have to find people from Kentucky or Virginia to argue with. 
A prison sentence is just one part of your punishment. Not being able to vote is another part of your punishment.
I see nothing wrong with this. If you violate the trust of your community, why should your community trust you to make choices for it?