Posted on 03/11/2005 10:37:19 AM PST by QQQQQ
A coalition of liberal groups is hailing the state of Nebraska for restoring the voting rights of felons.
Although Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, a Republican, vetoed the bill on Wednesday, the state's unicameral legislature overrode his veto on Thursday by a 36-11 vote (six votes more than the 30 needed for an override).
The new law will automatically restore the voting rights of Nebraska felons two years after they complete their prison sentences or meet the terms of their parole or probation.
Right now, it takes a pardon to restore voting rights in Nebraska, but pardons aren't granted until at least ten years after a sentence is completed.
The new law is expected to affect thousands of former convicts, beginning in September.
"This is yet another great win for our democracy and the movement to end felony disfranchisement across the country," said Rashad Robinson of the Right to Vote Campaign, which assisted in the effort to let Nebraska felons vote.
The Right to Vote Campaign - a coalition that includes the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the America Way and three other organizations -- said Nebraska now joins 36 other states in allowing people with felony convictions to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
"The laws of the US determine people's right to vote."
Wrong. The laws of each state determine people's right to vote.
At some point, our government will make felons of us all.
"Currently in most states..."
14 out of 50 constitutes most?
"This is because you have committed a serious crime against society."
Do you consider Rush Limbaugh to be a serious criminal that should lose his right to vote?
"Sorry, for felonies, that's the way it's been for a long time."
Except the definition of felony is constantly expanding to increase the revenue generation of the CJ branch of government. What used to be a non-crime or misdemeanor "for a long time" are in many cases felonies today.
Eh? Seems to me it is the same folks, and the whole idea with the voting rights is that it takes it out of the hands of prosecutors determination. I agree a lifetime of loss is inappropriate but a line must be drawn and it seems the same liberals are in on this one as the illegal alien situation. Re that Liber Diana Shimeck (sp?).
"Have you heard of taxation without representation? "
Are you saying that non-citizens ( LEGAL residents, but non-citizens) shouldn't be paying taxes or are you proposing that they should have the right to vote?
'What happens if someone breaks into a family's home and the father beats the intruder to death.'
It might be excessive to hang his dead, bleeding body in an ornamental birch in the frontyard, but if the man of the house didn't shotgun the felon out a window while his family cowered in their bedrooms, then he's a liberal.
I don't drink and drive.
Your point about individual reformation is well taken, but I can't figure out what else you're trying to say, sorry; maybe I don't want my vote diluted by some ex-con who will probably take a Dumbocrat bribe. You wanna vote, own firearms, enjoy full citizenship rights, then behave yourself.
Viva Bush and Free Republic
Good link, just don't expect many to read it.
What I found more shocking than the fact that Nebraska had "Restore(d) Felon's Voting Rights" (which, of course is not quite what they did, when you read the story instead of reacting to the headline), was the fact that 35 other states already had some form of convicted felon voting rights restoration on the books. It occurs to me that if a felon cannot run for President, why should he/she be permitted to vote (absent exoneration/pardon)? Conversely, if a felon can vote, why should we not amend the Constitution to allow him/her to run for President?
Of course, you are right. If convicting a person of a felony is to have any meaning, there must be some method (other than simply incarcerating them) to induce a little shame or humiliation in them, and to act as a spur to cause them to want to be pardoned in order to have full rights restored (i.e. a meaningful pardon that should involve voluntary public service, and not just "good behavior"). Otherwise these ex-convicts will end up feeling self-justified and sorry for themselves like some of their friends in this thread who don't believe that "x" or "y" should be a crime in the first place.
That having been said, I'm pleased to note that this act of the Nebraska legislature does not allow incarcerated felons to vote, and that there is at least a two-year waiting period after release before the provisions of the law apply; thereby making this law not the same thing as the Federal-level Jesse Jackson/Hillary Clinton proposal.
"Except the definition of felony is constantly expanding to increase the revenue generation of the CJ branch of government. What used to be a non-crime or misdemeanor "for a long time" are in many cases felonies today."
The obvious answer to this argument is that the ever-expanding definitions of crimes is yet another problem which has to be fought and won by conservatives. It's the same liberal crowd who is reponsible for both of these failings of an effective criminal justice system. It seems to be that their agenda is to have Government do everything possible, except govern.
Oh get a grip. Get pulled over for DUI and you get a slap on the wrist, not a felony conviction! It's typical for only a FOURTH DUI or DUI with injury that results in a felony DUI (laws vary by state).
Losing the right to vote is PART OF YOUR PUNISHMENT FOR COMMITTING A FELONY -- your punishment doesn't end when you get out of jail. If you take away that punishment, you are lessening the punishment on serious criminals. I say if you want to give felons the right to vote, tack an extra 20% onto their sentence to compensate.
In this country you are not guilty until you have been convicted. It's a pretty basic thing to understand.
There are tens of millions of people in the U.S. who pay taxes and don't get to vote: non-citizens (including illegals), people under 18, felons -- to take your argument to its logical (and I use that term loosely to apply to your statement!) conclusion.
You seem to be OK with the premise that a crime would have "committed" in this instance. Your only hangup was the word "guilty". Is that correct?
Yes, but -- I disagree with the direction your comment (or some other related comments) went, too, that the laws are so restrictive in some areas that felonies can be come by easily so felons should be allowed to vote. The problem there is the restrictive laws, not the felon-voting part. But the laws are those of our democratically elected representatives, and we shouldn't make some laws worse to compensate for other unwise laws -- that just drags the whole system lower.
Well, I sorta see your point but, if the problem is the laws themselves, how can we justify a never ending sentence for a good, honest citizen who has inadvertantly and unintentionally run afoul of one of these "laws"?
Because there will always be miscarriages of justice, either wrongful convictions or the result of bad laws. The more you protect against that, the easier you are on the bad guys. It's a trade-off. (Like: the only way to ensure that all criminals are convicted is to put everyone in jail, and the only way to ensure no innocent person is convicted is to convict no one.)
Also, as long as it wasn't a violent felony, their gun rights should be restored too.
The way we're heading, everything is now a felony. Picking up and keeping a damn eagle feather can make you a felon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.