Skip to comments.Holder's call to let ex-felons vote divides Senate Democrats
Posted on 03/01/2014 2:42:36 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Attorney General Eric Holders call to restore voting rights to felons after theyve served their time in prison has split Senate Democrats.
Liberal Democrats who are not facing tough re-elections this year say its the right thing to do, but vulnerable incumbents are steering clear of the proposal.
Holder has become increasingly outspoken recently. This week he declared that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that are discriminatory.
Political experts say barring ex-felons from voting impacts African Americans disproportionately.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Does anyone remember that 1988 Bush television commercial, the one showing prisoners entering & leaving prison through a revolving door?
>> Political experts say barring ex-felons from voting impacts African Americans disproportionately.
I wonder what the victims think.
Suppose just a stretch in prison doesn’t pay “the debt to society”? Suppose some us of believe that there are other consequences, including forfeiting one’s right to vote?
Fine, as long as all rights are restored, vote, office, firearms ownership etc etc.
Permanent disenfranchisement is a crime, denying even the most non-violent felons little recourse to defend their lives from violent assault with meaningful tools commonly in use.
If they are dangerous criminals, they should not walk among us; incarcerate or terminate, but not re-integrate, the numbers tell us why.
Yeah, it impacts “African Americans” disproportionately because they commit a highly disproportionate amount of the crimes. Duh.
On the other hand, if they are too dangerous to have their second amendment freedoms back, then they are too dangerous to have the vote back and they are too dangerous to be let out of prison.
Wow, felony convictions are a dime a dozen these days, you would be surprised what a felony is today.
Just where in the constitution does it say felonies negate your God Given rights?
Ever hear of paying a debt, now lifelong sentences are appropriate?
Ever hear of the 5th?
ENOUGH of this racist puke.
where does the law mention RACE?
too many blacks in prison? not enough Jews on the NBA or doing Rap “music”
RAP “Music EQUITY for Jews Now!!
Give The DEAD the VOTE!!
Well you give up those rights while you’re in prison. Is that constitutional?
One presumes that Mister Warner is LYING in order to make fence-sitting VA voters think that he is anything but in the Dem tank for felons voting (early, often, and from the big house.)
Felons and illegal aliens...Dems keep some interesting company, eh?
With God given rights come responsibility, which is always the forgotten child when people start talking about rights. The right to vote assumes the individual will abide by the laws, will be responsible enough to make him/herself knowledgeable of the issues and cast an honest vote. But today, responsibility is no longer stressed. When an individual commits a felony he/she knows he/she will lose their right to vote if caught and convicted, so they play the game and take the chance. Apparently, they didn’t thing their right to vote was important enough to not commit a felony, so why should we think their right to vote is any important than they do. So, no, they don’t get to vote again.
That's poor journalism. I think they meant "ex-convict" since they're talking about felons who have completed their sentences.
This would be an interesting experiment: Poll convicted felons and ask if they would rather give up their Bill of Rights protections or be incarcerated and have their rights remain intact. (Assuming they’d have to give up 2A, at least during incarceration.)
C’mon, you’re better than that.
Prison is the price you pay, of course the fundamental deprivation of your freedom is constitutional. Further denial of rights is not.
What other rights should be denied after a felony conviction, speech, freedom of religion, due process, how about life in general?
> Permanent disenfranchisement is a crime, denying even the most non-violent felons little recourse to defend their lives from violent assault with meaningful tools commonly in use.
> If they are dangerous criminals, they should not walk among us; incarcerate or terminate, but not re-integrate, the numbers tell us why.
I'm pretty sure that voting is the last thing someone's thinking about when they go out and commit a felony.
If some guy commits a felony DUI and does a few years in the slammer, what's to be gained (from society's viewpoint) by not letting him vote 50 years later when he's an 80 year old man who has since been an honorable citizen, paying his taxes, running a successful business, a homeowner, a father and grandfather etc?
>> Suppose some us of believe that there are other consequences, including forfeiting ones right to vote?
> Wow, felony convictions are a dime a dozen these days, you would be surprised what a felony is today.
> Just where in the constitution does it say felonies negate your God Given rights?
> Ever hear of paying a debt, now lifelong sentences are appropriate?
> Ever hear of the 5th?
Or the 8th.
Amazing how that works every six years, isn't it?
Two words: term limits.
One who has served his sentence.
I agree with you for the most part, technically there isn’t a “God” given right to vote.
I was touching more on constitutional rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment.
IMO, if a man can’t be trusted on the streets with a gun, he shouldn’t be on the streets....and therein lies the real problem.
Holder is apparently counting on people forgetting that voting rights is properly a matter for the states, not the federal government--we are too accustomed to the federal government usurping power it does not rightfully have. The 14th amendment recognizes the right of states to deny the vote to male citizens 21 years of age if they have committed a crime.
So if the federal government can intervene it could only do so lawfully for female prisoners and ex-cons, and for those aged 18, 19 or 20.
In practice I think most states have mechanisms whereby felons can regain voting rights but it isn't automatic. Holder presumably wants it to be automatic to increase voter turnout. If having to get an ID is horrible because it disadvantages minorities, then having to follow steps to get your right to vote back would "disproportionately" disadvantage Holder's people.
Yes, you're correct....thank you ;)
Ahh, the ‘black felon’ race card now.
The U.S. needs to take a close look at our penal and court systems. Plea bargaining is something that needs to be re-considered.
We need to decide what the purpose of the system is. Are we incarcerating people to punish them, reform them, or to protect society from them? If they have fulfilled their sentence and have made restitution, should they ever be fully restored to society?
Compared to most other countries, the United States incarcerates a large percent of our population.
RATs must be unable to dig up enough dead voters, ya think?
Maybe we have better detectives than most other countries. The correct statistic to look at should be the percentage of our crimes we solve and actually jail people for.
holder seems to find felons peculiarly attractive..
Agree, voting is probably the last thing on someones mind when they commit a felony, but again maybe the individuals lack of responsibility in committing the felony DUI (i.e. knowingly drinking too much and driving) shows an underlying lack of responsibility. While some convicted of some felonies just made a mistake one time (like maybe the example you gave), most are repetitive law violators and in my opinion, they should not get their vote back. Why give a criminal the right to vote on laws/lawmakers who would make it easier for him/her to continue to commit crimes, whether blue/white collar crimes or street crimes. To say all felons get their right to vote back is insane. AND, it should not be the damn federal government that says
Yes, the Willie Horton ad. The version I saw mentioned Willie Horton, but didn’t show a picture of him, and I pictured him in my mind as white (probably because I already knew a black Willie Horton—the former slugger for the Detroit Tigers—and knew that it must be a different Willie). I was really confused when a media brouhaha ensued because of Bush supposedly using race in the ads, and then I learned that a PAC had run ads showing Horton’s picture, and that Horton was black. The media always “forgot” to mention, of course, that the first political opponent of Dukakis to mention Horton’s crimes while out through Dukakis’s furlough program was none other than Al Gore (during the 1988 Democrat primaries).
So, someone who has done their time and is now working, paying taxes, perhaps for decades after their offense... you think they're still thinking of committing more crimes and voting will help them elect someone who will make crime pay better for them?
If someone's a habitual criminal then they should be locked up for good. If some idiot teenager cops a felony plea for selling a bag of pot to a narc or makes a mistake while being drunk and does a felony assault on someone who insulted his mother... should they be hobbled for life or should they be given a chance to redeem themselves and grow into productive citizens (with all the rights/responsibilities) that entails?
Bingo! As if a prison stint completely wipes away horror, unreplaceable loss of loved ones, innocence, or sense of security - all snatched away by an evil intent.
Sorry, but some things make you a permanent enemy of society. We don't want them making decisions which affect it.
"Wow, felony convictions are a dime a dozen these days, you would be surprised what a felony is today."Which is why after some consideration I made a choice to comply with my state's newly minted AWB law and register my "evil black gun", rather than risk felony prosecution and a nearly certain conviction. The personal cost of a felony conviction today is simply too great to bear and it lasts a lifetime. And I am not talking about a right to vote either. Many self-righteous freepers somehow think this only applies to serious violent felons, like murderers, robbers, but like you said so many things are a felony these days. Your entire life is eviscerated, even if you have served your time and the consequences last a life time. No good company will hire you. You will be excluded from renting in a decent place. Unlike a 100 years ago, you can't move to a different part of the country and start over, if you mean to. Some of the legendary lawmen of the West had a checkered past before they turned around. You simply can't do that in a modern America. Not without a gubernatorial, or a presidential pardon (like winning a lottery).
Yes those decided democrats. Like like those decided democrats that voted enmasse for Obama are and every other Freedom destroying law they care to pass. The only thing that decides democrats od their room assignments in hell!
Should the same judgement be applied to a murderer and lets say, someone who cheated on their tax return?
Both are felonies.
Should a felon who has done their time and gone on to hold a job and live an otherwise normal life be exempt from taxes, or do you support the concept of taxation without representation?
I’d say violent crimes, those of moral turpitude, which rise to the level of felonies should disqualify.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“If someone’s a habitual criminal then they should be locked up for good.” Couldn’t agree more, but our legal system is so piss poor that they aren’t, even murderers aren’t. It is a rotating door. As far as the individual you represent as having done his time and is being a good citizen, how long after he is paroled does he get the vote back—upon release, three years, ten, twenty or? And, who then decides which ones those individuals are, because as I have said above, it is a revolving door with most returning for one reason or another. I guess the bottom line is, we have a fundamental difference. I believe the right to vote is precious and one of the things that gives value to the way our country runs. It has already been degraded by cheating and people not knowing or taking the responsibility to know the issues or do what they need to do to vote that allowing felons to vote degrades it further and is not something I support.
"Id say violent crimes, those of moral turpitude, which rise to the level of felonies should disqualify."If the violent criminal is a threat to society, they should remain incarcerated. With so many nonviolent, even victimless acts today being felonies, all it does is contribute to a permanent underclass, which the Democrats love to exploit. In 19th century America, it was easier to change the circumstances of your life if you wanted to. Not when you have a permanent digital record, which like diamonds is forever.
So, are you saying you agree with Eric Holder’s proposal?
Perhaps a compromise for the non-violent felons (violent ones who have unjustifiably taken life, significant amounts of property, and who have invaded peoples’ homes/businesses should be barred forever) if a “truth in sentencing” requirement is included. 20 years MEANS 20 years, or no vote.
Actually, just "felon" is apparently a "race" now.
Everything’sm a frickin’ race card. Screw ‘em!
Of course, the real reasons he wants to see felons voting NOW are that (1) the majority of them would likely vote for the 'Rats and (2) the 'Rats are desperate for votes - legal or illegal - in November's midterm elections, where they see themselves in deep trouble.
Yeah, they’re doing all they can to make sure they get to stay in power without having to cheat so much. They have to pay a lot of people. This way it’s so much easier.
They’ll use the felons, the gays, the baby killers, the lesbians, the food stamp-ers, the welfare-ers, the illegals, the head in the clouds dumbasses...UNTIL they no longer need them. Then those people wil be in the same catagory as the rest of us.