Gerbil:
> i have a lot of issues, but yes, this is one issue that i am passionate about.

I am too.

They should _absolutely_ be allowed to vote.

By all measures, only look at our history. According to the British our founding fathers of our country were criminals and traitors. And yet they created the foundations for our country.

P.S. I'm okay with revoking that right while they're in prison. But it should be restored after their release.

i have a lot of issues, but yes, this is one issue that i am passionate about.

people seem to care so much about democracy, but look the other way when discussing felons voting. is it because people are afraid of being "soft on crime" by allowing felons to vote? are they afraid most felons are democrats and they don't want republicans to lose elections?

if criminals attack society, then wouldn't it make sense to make ALL crimes punishable by disenfranchisement?

:: Most felons lose the vote because the view of the government is that the felon attacked the society (a mini version of treason).

this view assumes that the definition of 'felon' is both justified and static. it doesn't require much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine a near future in which gay marriage or gay adoption was a felony, or certain kinds of protest - in other words, the actions of any group you wanted to politically silence - were elevated to 'felony' status.

Wow. All criminals are traitors? That's a scary perspective.

" As long as they vote democrat, I don't see the problem."

I suspect that was tongue in cheeck, but realistically, I suspect that the fact that felons tend to vote disproportionately Democratic is an unstated reason for a lot of opposition AND support of felons voting. Of course, that's a rather despicable reason either way.

(11-14) 10:13 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
The Supreme Court refused Monday to review Florida's lifetime ban on voting rights for convicted felons, a case that would have had national implications for millions of would-be voters.

Justices declined to hear a challenge to Florida's 19th century ban, which applies to inmates and those who have served their time and been released.

Felons are kept from voting in every state but Maine and Vermont, although restrictions vary.

The issue of voter eligibility got renewed attention after the 2000 presidential election, which was decided by fewer than 600 votes in Florida.

The Florida appeal had been closely watched, because lower courts have been fractured in similar voting cases. Minority and voting rights groups urged justices to hear the case.

"The court not only missed an opportunity to right a great historic injustice, it has shut the courthouse door in the face of hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised citizens," Catherine Weiss, the Brennan Center for Justice lawyer for the Florida ex-felons, said Monday.

The Florida law was contested in 2000 in Miami on behalf of people who have already completed their punishments, including probation or parole.

Their appeal asked if restrictions can be challenged under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which removed barriers to black voters.

One in 10 black Florida adults, not counting current prisoners, is barred from voting, the court was told.

The case "involves the intersection of two rights that demand the highest level of constitutional protection: the right to participate in the political process and to be free of race discrimination in doing so," Weiss wrote in a filing.

Florida attorneys argued that states have authority to set their own policies. Congress, in enacting the voting law, did not have the power to "intrude so deeply into the sovereign right over every state to set qualifications for voting and to establish punishments for felons," Washington attorney Charles Cooper, representing Florida, said in the state's filing.

Earlier this year, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack issued an executive order automatically restoring voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences. Previously, Iowa felons had to apply individually for clemency, a costly and lengthy process.

Florida also has a process for felons to seek their voting rights, but there is no guarantee of success.

The Supreme Court appeal was filed on behalf of more than 600,000 Florida felons. The court has refused to deal with this issue before.

Last year, justices left intact a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed current and former inmates to challenge as racially discriminatory a Washington state law stripping them of their right to vote. The high court also let stand a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the opposite direction, in the case of a convicted New York felon.

Nationwide, about 5 million people are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, according to The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group in Washington.

The case is Johnson v. Bush, 05-212.
___
On the Net:
Supreme Court:
Brennan Center for Justice:
www.supremecourtus.gov
www.brennancenter.org

I am for felons voting, after serving time one should be eligable with no problem. And why should one lose thier right ta vote anyway?

Peace!

" We have a racist "justice" system that disproportionately imprisons people of color and the poor"

Sincer the poor disporportionately commit crinme, should we have an affirmative action program so that we let go of a set quota of convicted poor criminals just so the prison population is more properly representative of the population at large?

Would any of the pro-disenfranchisement crowd please address the fact that it has always... always... been used as a weapon to disenfranchise legally registered voters, rather than just felons. These "felony purge lists" aren't there to target felons, they are there to target whoever they'd like to target. It's a voter suppression tactic, and has a long histroy of being used to rig the system. So regardless of why it is justified, in theory, in practice it has always been used as a tool for those in power to stay in power, or get those who the powerful want elected... elected.

Fletcher administration restores voting rights to 733 felons
ROGER ALFORD
Associated Press
FRANKFORT, Ky. - Unlike so many other Kentuckians who don't bother to vote, Tayna Fogle desperately wants to go the polls in the next election.

First though, the Lexington woman who served prison time after a felony drug conviction has to get Gov. Ernie Fletcher to restore her right to vote.

In Kentucky, convicted felons automatically lose their voting rights, but they can have the privilege restored by the governor after they've completed their prison sentences. Fletcher has restored that right to 733 ex-cons since he took office.

Fogle, 46, of Lexington, submitted an application to Fletcher's office on Wednesday, the first step in the restoration process, and she has high hopes that she will be among those who win the governor's approval.

Advocates for restoring voting rights to ex-convicts have been urging Fletcher to speed up the process, saying people who have completed their sentences should be permitted to take part in elections.

In states like Kentucky, where Republicans and Democrats are feverishly competing to register new voters, convicted felons could be viewed a pool of potential new voters. The question is whether they would be more likely to register as Democrats or Republicans in the push by both political parties to build their ranks.

Kentucky has 1,553,442 Democrats, up by 16,053 over the past year, according to records from the secretary of state's office. Republicans number 993,356 in the state, up by 24,744 over the same period.

Although no one has tracked which party most ex-convicts register with nationally, the widely held belief is that they are more apt to become Democrats, said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that supports automatic restoration of voting rights.

"It seems to me that it's highly inappropriate for either party to view this issue in partisan terms," Mauer said. "This is fundamentally a question of democracy, fairness and the right to vote. We should decide public policy based on what we think is appropriate, and not how we think any particular group of people might vote."

Fletcher's top lawyer, Jim Deckard, said some 2,000 people in Kentucky have applied to have their voting rights restored since the governor took office in December 2003. Some have been rejected because they submitted incomplete applications. Others because they had outstanding legal issues, like unpaid fines or pending charges.

However, Deckard said the governor has granted voting rights to at least a third of the people who have gone through the application process. Deckard said he's not the judge of whether that's good or bad.

"It is what it is," he said.

In comparison, former Gov. Paul Patton, a Democrat, restored the rights of more ex-convicts in his last year in office than Fletcher has in more than 2 1/2 years. In 2003, Patton restored rights to 1,150 felons out of 1,216 who applied.

Kentucky is one of three states in the nation - Florida and Virginia are the others - that permanently revokes the voting rights of people convicted of felony offenses, according to The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that supports automatic restoration of voting rights.

The right to vote can be restored on an individual basis in those states.

State Rep. Jesse Crenshaw, D-Lexington, introduced legislation in the General Assembly earlier this year to try to get lawmakers to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot so that voters could decide whether felons should automatically have their right to vote restored when their sentences are completed.

The measure died in committee, but Crenshaw said he isn't giving up, saying sometimes it takes several attempts over several years to get a bill through the legislature.

The Sentencing Project said Fletcher should change the state's reinstatement policy to make it easier for ex-felons to vote again.

Fletcher requires felons to complete a one-page application and submit a brief written explanation of why should be allowed to vote. They're also required to list three character references.

In addition, Deckard said Fletcher notifies prosecutors about each convicted felon who applies for restoration of their constitutional rights, and gives them an opportunity to comment.

Crenshaw said having rights restored is important to former prison inmates returning to society.

"I think having rights restored gives people an incentive to be good citizens and to stay out of prison," he said. "You're saying to the offender, you've paid you debt to society, and we're welcoming you back. Too many people are excluded, and they're feeling alienated from society."

Fogle agrees. She said she has served her prison term, volunteers at a recovery center for drug addicts, and works in a Lexington hospital, paying local, state and federal taxes. She said that should give her the right to vote.

"I really would like to be in on decisions that affect my community," Fogle said. "From the bottom of my heart, I really don't know what the fear is to give us our voting rights back."

The Rev. Patrick Delahanty, associate director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, said the state should automatically restore voting rights so that all ex-cons are treated consistently no matter which political party holds power.

It appears there is just something deficient in that system," Delahanty said. "We shouldn't have to sit around in a governmental system and wonder whether this year it will be easy to get your civil rights back and this year it's not."

Delahanty said he doesn't believe the Fletcher administration is reluctant to restore voting rights because of concern that felons will register and vote as Democrats. He said the more likely reason Fletcher hasn't restored rights to more people is that it simply isn't a priority.

"It's a bureaucracy that has a limited amount of time and resources to function," Delahanty said. "This is not important to them. These are people who have broken the law, and whenever we get around to it, we will. I don't sense any strong desire to reinstate quickly."

Deckard, speaking to a legislative committee last month, said many of the applicants seeking restoration of rights have been discovered to have pending charges, outstanding bench warrants, child support issues, restitution issues. In such cases, their applications are denied.

"Until this administration, I do not believe any criminal records checks were being done on those who apply for restoration of voting rights," Deckard said.

The Fletcher administration is also the first to give prosecutors a chance to weigh in on the decision of whether to restore rights to particular applicants.

"There was never an intent to slow the process down at all," Deckard told the committee.

Crenshaw said the declining numbers of restorations suggest otherwise.

"It would be much, much better if folks were able to have their rights restored," he said, "and that's what we're trying to encourage."

why should you be continually punished even after serving your time? not allowing someone to vote is a small part of the sentence still being served.

okay I didn't read the thread but my two cents is that they should be able to vote if they want. they probably don't. they probably won't. but if they want to, sure fine go ahead.

from the sentencing project:
Tennessee’s passage of a law in May created a streamlined restoration process by allowing eligible persons to apply for a “certificate of restoration” instead of going before a judge to have their voting rights restored. But a provision in the law stipulates that to receive the certificate of restoration of rights, applicants must also have all outstanding fines paid and must be current on any child support payments. Voting rights advocates are concerned that the provision may end up discriminating against the poor, especially minorities, and bar them from voting because of their financial situation.

“Felon Voting Law Discussed,” Knoxville News Sentinel, August 9, 2006
www.knoxnews.com/kns/local...47,00.html

9th is one of the most liberal of the circuits, so don't count on some lefty ruling of theirs surviving the Supremes.

Djiin says, "Prisoners shouldnt vote, but once your time is served you should have full rights again."

Our resident anarchist now takes a law and order position to the right of the oppressive capitalist state. Prisoners do have the right to vote and it should stay that way.

Many prisoners are innocent. Others are guilty of "crimes" that socialists see as no crime. The fact that the capitalist state has determined someone to be a criminal should not strip them of their voice, nor should it strip them of their vote. While prisoners are lied to by prison guards, sheriffs, etc, it is important to let prisoners know, including convicted felons, it is their right to vote in the state of California unless they are in a federal facility.

www.prospect.org/csnc/blog...ed_archive
Gov. McDonnell Backs Off New Voting Restrictions.

This is turning into a theme. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia proposes some controversial culture-war initiative, someone notices it, and he backs off. First, there was his rescindment of anti-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian state employees. Then there was his proclamation of "Confederate History Month" that omitted slavery. Now, he's suggested instituting more restrictions on voting rights for the formerly incarcerated -- and started to back off.
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that McDonnell was instituting steeper re-enfranchisement requirements for formerly incarcerated people seeking to get back their voting rights. The new restrictions, which would have added a requirement that applicants submit an essay detailing their "contributions to society" since their release, would amount to a de facto literacy test for some of the least educated people in the state, as Chris Cassidy points out.

After taking heat from local black legislators and civil-rights leaders, McDonnell now appears to be backing off, saying that the whole thing was merely a "draft proposal," which doesn't explain why 200 people were sent letters saying they had to write an essay to the governor to get their voting rights back, or why one of his spokespersons defended the new process at the time as "an opportunity, not an obstacle."

Virginia and Kentucky already have the strictest such requirements in the country, requiring the governor to personally approve the restoration of voting rights for former felons, even those who have committed nonviolent crimes. There are already around 310,000 Virginians disenfranchised by these laws, 243,000 of whom have already completed their sentences. One in six black men living in Virginia is disenfranchised by this law.

In 2002, then-Gov. Mark Warner streamlined a 16-page re-enfranchisement application to two pages for nonviolent offenders and six for those convicted of violent offenses -- a process which, again, is one of the two toughest in the country. If you've been convicted of a violent offense, your application has to include three reference letters from non-relatives. If your application is denied, you have to wait another two years to apply. According to the Brennan Center, Warner approved more re-enfranchisement applications than any Virginia governor in 20 years, a whopping total of 685, less than 1 percent of the total population disenfranchised by such laws in Virginia today.

This was too much for McDonnell apparently, so he decided to make the process even harder.

When the felony disenfranchisement laws were first passed in Virginia during the Constitutional Convention of 1902, they were part of a general package of laws meant to prevent black people from voting. As delegate and future Sen. Carter Glass said at the time, "This plan will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than 5 years, so that in no single county … will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government.”

Happy Confederate History Month.
-- A. Serwer

Posted by Adam Serwer on April 14, 2010 9:32 AM

i guess your experience was extremely limited.

www.aclu.org/racial-just...ny-convictio

since when has not having "bad judgment" been a prerequisite for being able to vote?