Editorial: Voter ID Amendment

pioneer press ^ | 10-28-12 | editors

[TurboZamboni]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, writing about Indiana's voter ID law, said it was "amply justified by the valid interests in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'" Stevens was a liberal justice writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the law by a 6-3 margin. Stevens went on to say that "We cannot conclude that the statue imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."

Polls suggest that Minnesota's Voter ID amendment will pass, perhaps easily. If so, it is because on the surface it just seems to make so much sense. Virtually any activity of any consequence in this society requires a photo ID. Nobody accuses other institutions of suppression or worse when they require photo ID during the regular course of their activities.

[TurboZamboni]

I’ve noticed that’s the new Dem talking point here in MN.

Dems only count a person voting while impersonating another as “fraud” now.

Felons voting doesn’t seem to matter to them now (we hav hade Dems actually trying to pass laws here to allow felons to legally vote)

My conclusion is they think it’s fine to allow felons to vote NOW, otherwise they’d tighten the law to exclude being able to claim

Ignorance of the law as a valid claim to avoid prosecution.

How many laws have you ever heard of where you can avoid prosecution by claiming "I didn't know it was illegal" ?

[mjustice]

I think we should have a (legal) process in place for freed, non-recidivist felons to get all of their rights back (after 5-10 years), including the right to vote. But until we have a law that allows for it, it’s illegal for felons to vote and we need to have safeguards in place to prevent them from voting. Ignorance of the law should not be an excuse to avoid prosecution. It has been asserted that the “felon vote” is what carried that non-genius Al Franken into the Senate.

MJ

[mjustice]

I think we should have a (legal) process in place for freed, non-recidivist felons to get all of their rights back (after 5-10 years), including the right to vote. But until we have a law that allows for it, it’s illegal for felons to vote and we need to have safeguards in place to prevent them from voting. Ignorance of the law should not be an excuse to avoid prosecution. It’s been asserted that the “felon vote” is what carried that non-genius Al Franken into the Senate.

MJ

[okie01]

But until we have a law that allows for it, it’s illegal for felons to vote and we need to have safeguards in place to prevent them from voting. Ignorance of the law should not be an excuse to avoid prosecution.

Felons voting is a state-by-state proposition.

In some states, convicted felons can't vote ever again.

In others, they lose their voting rights for a specified period of time.

In others, they lose them only while incarcerated.

And, in some states, a felony doesn't cause the loss of voting rights at all.

[tickles]

I think that could be fixed by having them sigh a paper stating that they know and understand that they cannot vote. Do this when they are released. It should of course also say they have been given the information on how and when they can ask to have their vote restored.

And yes I do believe that after they pay their debt to society (including all probation) they should be able to get their vote back. But I do believe they should be the ones to ask it should not necessarily be automatic.