Holder's call to let ex-felons vote divides Senate Democrats

The Hill ^ | March 1, 2014 | Alexander Bolton

[Clintonfatigued]

Attorney General Eric Holder’s call to restore voting rights to felons after they’ve served their time in prison has split Senate Democrats.

Liberal Democrats who are not facing tough re-elections this year say it’s the right thing to do, but vulnerable incumbents are steering clear of the proposal.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

[JadeEmperor]

"I’d 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.

[VRW Conspirator]

I wonder what the victims think.

Touché

[GeronL]

bump

[fwdude]

So, are you saying you agree with Eric Holder’s proposal?

[fwdude]

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.

[fwdude]

Ahh, the ‘black felon’ race card now.

Actually, just "felon" is apparently a "race" now.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Everything’sm a frickin’ race card. Screw ‘em!

[justiceseeker93]

This issue of whether felons should be allowed to vote has always been a matter of state law. Does Holder now advocate that there be a federal statute which mandates that all states allow felons (presumably only those who are not currently imprisoned) to vote? If so, it would seem to be yet another attack on the Tenth Amendment.

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.

[MeshugeMikey]

Holder and Barry are two VERY VERY desperate "brothers keepers at this point arent they.

[TribalPrincess2U]

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.

[JadeEmperor]

b

"So, are you saying you agree with Eric Holder’s proposal?"

The Att'y General's proposal in itself is class warfare politics as it serves to empower the current underclass in exchange for perpetual loyalty to the Democrats (votes). Same as the entitlements.

However, parts of the currents system are de-facto an orphaned holdover from a different era. They made sense in the context of Traditional America (circa 1800's) where different balances AND yes, different remedies existed, which do not exist today.

In 1901 we used to give guns back to the felons who served their time immediately when they were freed from prison. We are not that America anymore in so many ways.

We do not live in the world of nine or so common-law felonies. Instead, there are multiple state and federal statutory crimes, that make criminal justice an overly blunt instrument.

We need to look at this in more ways than one.

[Cementjungle]

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.

If the legal system is piss poor (and I agree it is) then we should be fixing that. If someone re-offends, then by all means send them back to prison and suspend their voting rights again until they get it right.

I think that voting should be tied more to one's current standing than to someone's life history. If someone's clean and in good standing (not serving a sentence for something, current on their taxes and child support, etc.) then they should have a say in their government.

I would be more inclined to strip voting rights from people who are not sharing the burden... such as perpetual welfare recipients.

[Birdsbane]

We have more corrupt investigators than any other country.

[SunkenCiv]

Yeah, right, really divides them — this is just memebuilding by partisan media shills. The Demagogic Party is already onboard with the idea, has been for many years, and all these Demwits allegedly divided by the idea already have and will continue to embrace it. Thanks Clintonfatigued.

[SunkenCiv]

Whoops, and thanks justiceseeker93.

[Cementjungle]

We have more corrupt investigators than any other country.

Ever been to Mexico? How about Nigeria, or Iran?

[Birdsbane]

“The correct statistic to look at should be the percentage of our crimes we solve and actually jail people for.”

How about the slew of convictions obtained by the BS use of Oregon’s Measure 11, which holds a 5 year mandatory sentence. Prosecutors there will trump up a Measure 11 and use it as leverage to force defendants to plea deal to lesser, often-times trumped up also, felony charges, forcing many innocent so called offenders to screw themselves...Forever? It’s called “RAILROADING”, and it happens quite frequently, so the prosecutors record of wins over losses falsely portray great professionalism and dedication. It is political positioning and job security. It’s a standard operating procedure, and a very effective one at that. Way to go, Oregon.

[Birdsbane]

“Ever been to Mexico? How about Nigeria, or Iran?”

I live just north of Tuscon, and yes I have been to Mexico. I used to live in Ecuador. I have been to Somalia, China, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, Diego Garcia, Hong Kong, Philipines, Guam and Enewetok in the Marshall Islands, Columbia, Peru, and Panama, plus 46 of the 57 US States. The US has by far more investigators than any country you could possibly name. The number of corrupt in the US by far outdistance the combined total of all three countries you named.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

I don't care about that — there's a justice-principle here that is being violated (and a legal one, in some cases¹).
You see, to serve one's sentence is to have paid for the crime, to forever strip a person of the ability to defend himself as other citizens do would alone make him a 2nd-class citizen… and this is further underscored by stripping them of the ability to vote or serve on juries.

In the matter of Holder's pushing it [or any other person's (save God's) endorsement/condmnation] is irrelevant to its morality. — this is to say that, like truth, justice is not dependent on the whims of the majority (or opinion of the minority).

This issue of whether felons should be allowed to vote has always been a matter of state law. Does Holder now advocate that there be a federal statute which mandates that all states allow felons (presumably only those who are not currently imprisoned) to vote? If so, it would seem to be yet another attack on the Tenth Amendment.

Not so — the GCA is a federal law which imposes the restrictions to keep and bear arms upon ex-felons.

¹ In particular, the stripping of the right to keep and bear arms from the [ex-]felon is an ex post facto law because it imposed its strictures on those who had already served their sentence (or were then serving it) — the Constitution prohibits ex post facto law both to the federal government and to the states… moreover, the GCA prohibited persons include those who have not yet been convicted of a crime.

[Birdsbane]

“Ever been to Mexico? How about Nigeria, or Iran?”

I live just north of Tuscon, and yes I have been to Mexico. I used to live in Ecuador. I have been to Somalia, China, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, Diego Garcia, Hong Kong, Philipines, Guam and Enewetok in the Marshall Islands, Columbia, Peru, and Panama, plus 46 of the 57 US States. The US has by far more investigators than any country you could possibly name. The number of corrupt in the US by far outdistance the combined total of all three countries you named.