Skip to comments.Felons have lost their right to vote
Posted on 06/16/2010 12:22:11 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Every state in the country except two - Maine and Vermont - prohibits at least some felons from voting. In January, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the state of Washington is violating the federal Voting Rights Act by disenfranchising felons.
Now the full 9th Circuit has decided to hear the case, Farrakhan v. Gregoire.
The case has implications for all nine states within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, including California. Every other federal court of appeals so far has ruled against using the Voting Rights Act to give felons the right to vote.
The 9th Circuit should join them.
(Excerpt) Read more at juneauempire.com ...
Farrakhan is a felon?..............
I would like to see where if you do not pay income taxes, you do not get to vote. If you work for state government, you may not vote in state elections, if you work for federal government you do not get to vote in federal elections...we have to stop this corruption of buying votes by the democrat party...
Yeah but . . . wait . . . illegal aliens, felons, and and dead people will be voting as democrats in the next election . . . they can’t win without these votes . . . stay tuned . . .
Main and Vermont are the only states that allow incarcerated people to vote. The rest of the states have various laws.
I’m a felon (drunk driving) and I’m a legal voter here in Michigan. Voting rights are restored here as long as a person isn’t incarcerated, on parole or probation.
Whoa... Getting felons the right to vote has been a major Democrat priority for decades.
The 9th Circus is very rat/goofball friendly, so I hope they rule quickly and allow this issue to get before the Supreme Court where there is still a majority of normal human beings (barely).
In Oregon Felons can Vote.
We have vote by Mail.
Felons are also expected to do Jury Duty although they are assigned to civil cases.
I don’t know if the VRA is the correct tool, but people who’ve “paid their dues to society” have paid them. If they’re off parole, LET THEM VOTE and allow them to rejoin society as full participants.
Unless, of course, we prefer to create a permanant under-class of (nominal) citizens.
Sure as soon as you eliminate plea bargins and early release.
One might consider that part of their "dues to society" include losing the right to vote.
One shouldn't do the crime if they can't do the time.
Plea bargains are part of the game.
Good luck getting a functional court system without them.
Early release is also legal. Considering that the vast majority of felonies are non-violent, I’ll accept this as a valid tool, as well. Without it, you have ZERO incentive for the inmate.
If a person is so dangerous that they can’t even be trusted to vote, why were they released?
Again, creating a permanant under-class is not a workable option. Proven.
Then people Have not paid their debt in full....No vote.
The liberals that are pushing this might get more than they bargined for. Using their same logic the government shouldn’t be able to deny felons the right to own guns.
“If a person is so dangerous that they cant even be trusted to vote, why were they released?”
At sentencing, “early release”, “time off” and “plea bargains” are all part of the legal, known deal. Nothing new is added to the mix. It’s sort of like a termination clause or an “out” in a contract.
Now, I may disagree with how “early release” and the rest are administered, but I don’t doubt that they exist.
So, a vote is a dangerous thing?
Mighty slippery slope, there.
Same for here in Iowa. Culver signed this by exec order and didn’t allow a vote to make it law. I hope this gets thrown out all over the land. If you break the law and are a felon then you lose your right to vote. Period.
Felons should be allowed to vote or own arms until the demonstrate that they’re ready for the responsibility. Jail time is PUNISHMENT. It isn’t “paying your dues.”
The time to consider the entire punishment, including jail time, fines and penalties, parole, and the loss of rights would be BEFORE one commits the crime, not after. If you're concerned about felons losing the right to vote AS PART OF THEIR PUNISHMENT, then avoid becoming a felon.
If you did something against society and break the law it shows a problem or flaw in your mental or moral decision making. We should not let people who have demonstrated their inability to think of the good of society effect that very society with their views. In attacking society they show they are not fully part of it and should not be given the ability to move that society in a negative direction.
They already have. Second Amendment rights.
If the "government" i.e. the federal overlords claim they can cherry-pick who gets Second Amendment rights they will progress to the rest of YOUR rights, for whatever manufactured "crime" they deem you have committed. AND they will make it ex-post facto.
How does it go again? No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed Yea, right. Tell it to all the guys that have been screwed by domestic violence laws over an argument with some worthless wife.
Right now they are playing around with your First Amendment Rights like they are pool toys.
I think from the age of 21 on, they should keep track of every individuals credits/debits to the federal govt. Once you are taking out more than you contributed, then if you are on any kind of federal assistance (welfare, medicare, food stamps, social security, unemployment, etc.) you must give up your right to vote if want to continue to receive assistance.
Included in your debit for each year would be your portion for defense, for courts, federal prisons, customs, etc.
Include in your credits would be interest calculated for excess payments that exceeded your debits in prior years.
Think about it: A welfare recipient who wants to keep getting a check has to give up their right to vote. A retired person who reaches a point where they are collecting more from social security than they ever contributed (including interest on payments they made) would have to give up their right to vote to keep collecting social security.
It would mean that politicians could no longer buy votes from those that are voting themselves money.
I think along similar lines - a vote should be weighted according to the taxes one pays. If you're paying more, then you stand to lose more by rogue government action and thus should have a stonger vote than a perpetual welfare bum.
If you knew how may crimes, even felonies, you might inadvertently commit in a day, you’d be shocked. Or the fact that something you think would be an infraction or even just a misdemeanor, ends in a felony.
No non-violent crime should resent in permanant under-class status.
Considering what voters (real or fraudulent) put into the White House in 2008, I would have to say "yes".
The Lautenberg Law as a disgrace, as is the man.
Ayn Rand had it right.
The only way to control a man is to make him guilty of a crime.
Too many here think every crime is murder and that every punishment should be permanant.
So you are saying that no amount of rehabilitation makes a difference? Once a low-life always a low-life?
So, every soldier, sailor, professor at a military academy, FBI agent, Treasury agent, et al, should be denied the right to vote? Ummm....no.
I can never spell “permanent” or “separate”.
And sometimes, not even a “low life”.
The punishment is what it is stated to by by statute at the time that the crime is committed. You're wanting to change the punishment ex-posto facto.
I'm sure that we could discuss what crimes ought to constitute felonies and what crimes should not, and I think that some felonies shouldn't be felonies at all, but the fact remains that the punishment for a given crime is no secret - it is public record. Any criminal that fails to acknowledge what might happen if he is caught is only hurting himself.
Overture, curtain, lights! If we can - we'll give them rights ... No more rehearsing or nursing a fart ... We'll trash every law by heart!
Overture, curtain, lights! This is it. We'll start some fights! And oh, what fights we'll pit! On with the farce, this is it!
Tonight what fights we'll pit! On with the farce, this is it!
The loss of voting priveleges is not written into the statutes for larceny, drug dealing or even murder.
They’re incorporated into separate state statutes that pretty much cover ALL felonies, and quite a few misdemeanors now, IIRC. Yes, they are there at the time the felonies are committed and as they say, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
But, those statutes are only in effect until they’re rescinded/removed, and no statute is ever permanent and beyond change. With the exception of The States apportionment of US Senators, ANYTHING can be changed. The fact that many states account for a reinstatement of voting and gun rights says there’s room to debate this.
We know they will vote democrat.
Theyre incorporated into separate state statutes...
They're not in the statutes, but they are??? They're public record, accessable to all. Trying to claim that because they're written elsewhere, they shouldn't apply doesn't work. This information is available to all citizens.
By chance, are you a felon? Or, perhaps, a trial lawyer?
What do you consider a “non violent” crime?
What if said crime effects others and they commit violence due to your actions? Like someone who is exercising their free speech rights and they insight a riot. Is that a non violent crime?
A person’s actions are their own.
Some people can read “Catcher in the Rye” and massacre a schoolbus full of nuns and orpans holding puppies. I don’t hold the writer responsible unless he specifically conspired to shoot those puppies.
If the actual crime (what you listed is fine) doesn’t involve crime, then it’s “non-violent”. Any subsequent crimes committed by persons involved are immaterial. Even trying to link causality to another, violent crime is too scary to think about. Kiss all of our rights goodbye.
I usually dont do this but...
Why are you hawking a clearly liberal cause?
“So, a vote is a dangerous thing?”
*points to obama*
I’d personally favor going back to where you needed to own property or have a certaian ammount of assets to vote.
You know...like when the constitution was written...
“The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.”
“Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. The further the limit of voting rights is extended, the stronger is the need felt to spread them still wider, for after each new concession the forces of democracy are strengthened, and its demands increase with the augmented power. The ambition of those left below the qualifying limit increases in proportion to the number of those above it. Finally the exception becomes the rule; concessions follow one another without interruption, and there is no halting place until universal suffrage has been attained.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
*points to obama again*
In Oregon I think it’s some, but not all Felons, after completion of all sentence aspects, including fines.
This kind of debate is exactly why the matter should be left to the discretion of each individual state, as it is now. Perhaps a state will decide that it should be evaluated case by case, or only allowed in certain kinds of cases, or never at all (so long as broad standards of fairness are kept, such as that the process is race blind, etc.). Making blanket assessments is (IMHO) foolish, but we don’t want the window forced open by the Fed Dems to any old riff raff either. To that end, I think the USSC in its current makeup will reverse the 9th’s panel, if the full 9th doesn’t.
I refering to the “restoration of felon voting rights”...a liberal cause.
Please stay on topic instead of trying the bait and switch with “liberty”
Clinton/Kerry Bill to Give Vote to Felons Opposed by Americans
Jim Kouri, CPPMay 26, 2006
While Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Kerry (D-MA) attempt to push a bill through the Senate that would restore voting rights for felons — including killers, rapists and child predators — such a law would receive a cold reception by most Americans, according to a just-released poll.
A new poll conducted by Zogby Interactive for Associated Television News and The O’Leary Report shows that a clear majority of Americans, including blacks and Hispanics, are opposed to the restoration of voting rights for former felons.
The Zogby/Associated Television News poll findings show that Americans oppose aspects of the Count Every Vote Act sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry that would restore the voting rights of former convicted felons. Fifty-three percent of the American public believes that such a law giving back the right to vote to felons is bad for the country.
Another 71% of the country feels that the motive for such legislation is to help win elections. Both Clinton and Kerry are expected to run for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States.
Twenty-three percent of the American public believes that felons, as a class, who are released from prison should get their voting rights back while 70% of Americans believe the vote should be restored on an individual basis and not as a class.
Between 79% and 90% of the American public believes that anyone who has used a gun in a crime or guilty of a sex crime or a violent crime should face tougher standards in having their voting rights restored than those individuals convicted of a non-violent crime.
Vermont and Maine are the only two states in the country that allow felons to vote while incarcerated. Depending on the severity of the crime, between 70% and 80% of the American public opposes such provisions in the law.
One reason given for the introduction of the Clinton/Kerry bill was to return a racial balance to the disproportionate number of blacks serving time in our prison system for felonies. Yet, 61% of blacks and 66% of Hispanics believe voting rights for felons should be returned on an individual basis and not as a class as the Clinton/Kerry bill would do.
One political strategist believes the push to give amnesty for illegal aliens and for felons is driven by the desire to increase the Democrat Party base.
“Whether they admit it or not, the Democrats need lawbreakers such as illegal aliens — who are being illegally registered as Democrats — and killers, rapists and robbers in order to increase their base of far-left voters,” says Mike Baker, political strategist and pollster.
“While most clear thinking Americans reject their [Democrats] agenda, criminals and people who don’t understand English, who number in the millions, is an immense bump in the numbers of their party’s base. And should such a bill be made law, look for them to pander to criminals and oppose law enforcement,” he added.
This is an excellent point, aka “felony-flation.” In days of yesteryear, the “felony” class of crime was reserved to those acts which were considered worthy of a possible death penalty. A death penalty sentence was not a foregone conclusion upon conviction for such crimes, but was always possible. It takes only a brief look at the criminological landscape today to find “felonies” for which the idea of a death penalty (ever) would fail the laugh test.
You befog the issue too by failing to recognize that different states treat the issue differently.
“You befog the issue too by failing to recognize that different states treat the issue differently.”
Not the issue...the issue is liberals in congress pushing a federal law to override state laws.
Restoration of felon voting rights is a liberal cause..period.
I’m not accusing JSample of being a liberal...I’m asking why he SEEMS to support a clearly liberal cause...
Unless you can dig up some examples of conservative support for such a thing...as I’ve looked and found none.
Maybe my google is broken?
“In days of yesteryear, the felony class of crime was reserved to those acts which were considered worthy of a possible death penalty.”