Well if you pass enough laws and set up a system where money "talks" in the court system, then you can disenfranchise even MORE of the have nots.

No doubt, just a coincidence.

Because they have chosen to assault civil society, and thus the majority has stripped them of the most direct means of influence as to who shall represent civil society.

In 100 years I'd like to think people will look back on the barbarity of our penal system and feel a sort of curious shame. Sadly we'll still be ostrasizing those convicted of crimes. They'll continue to be relegated to the fringes of society, assuring a return to prison once trying to live in a free world wanting no part of them has again beaten them down.

Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?

Kevin, criminals have committed crimes. And therefore they must be punished. We punish them by taking away their right to vote. This is no different than any other punishment.
This punishment also deters them from committing more crimes. If you give criminals the right to vote I predict there would a surge in crimes across America because the deterrence effect would be lost. None of us want to be cowering in our homes for fear that criminals would rape and murder us. But that may happen if we do what you want. Criminals would form a special interest voting bloc demanding the right to commit crimes once they get the right to vote. It would be crazy to let them do that.

While I agree with you I believe they do lose their right to a free trial in some respects. A parolee picked up with a weapon, for example, I believe is sent straight to jail without any form of jury trial.

now you can argue that they are actually just completing the rest of their previous term but it's too fine a hair for me. They were let out, then scooped up with no trial and re-imprisoned.

The benefit of such a legislative scheme is to keep poorer and darker people from voting.

There is no other reason. Unless you think getting caught with a dime bag is somehow an "assault on civil society", which is laughable.

You know Al actually approaches having a good point here:

"We punish them by taking away their right to vote. This is no different than any other punishment."

if that is the case then the lose of suffrage should be part of the sentencing. It should be up to the jury to decide whether to revoke their right to vote as part of the penalty phase of a trial. Otherwise you are inflicting a criminal punishment without a jury trial, which is unconstitutional.

I agree with AH...

The first one.
I mean the second one...

Er, I mean... Ah shucks...
Whatever Dick Cheney says is right.

That's easy: Racism. Do you think it's a coincidence that a third of black men in states like Florida are disenfranchised?

Mmmm... those "tough on crime people" aren't self-satisfied enough with someone just doing their time. How can you possibly feel good about yourself if you can't heap more sanctimony on others?!

In the recent Iraqi elections (remember the purple thumbs?), did we prohibit Iraqis who had committed crimes from voting? I don't think so.

Conservatives like the concepts of freedom and democracy much better in theory than in practice.

That's easy,Kevin, because in the US there is no right to vote. While I agree that ex-cons should be reenfranchised, I don't agree that voting is a human right. Non-citizens have the right to free speech, and (in theory if not in practice) a right to a fair trial, but not the right to Vote! should they get that right?

Al, do you honestly think that losing the ability to vote has a deterrent effect in the minds of criminals? That's pretty silly. Even if it were the case, your argument has it backwards. If a felon has no chance of ever recovering his voting rights, then he has no reason to refrain from criminal behaviour. He has already lost his right forever. If he had the chance to get his right to vote back, he might have an incentive for good behaviour after being released. Regardless, I doubt a single potential criminal has decided not to commit a crime because of the possibility of losing his voting rights.

Nope, nothing racist about it:

But to deny a racial component in felon voting restrictions is to deny history. As this Uggen/Manza chart shows, blanket felon disenfranchisement was basically invented in the first five years after the Civil War, in the South. Joseph "Jazz" Hayden, who is suing the state of New York over its voter laws, claimed in a San Francisco Chronicle column last month that in 1896:

"Mississippi lawmakers ruled that only a narrow range of offenses—bribery, burglary, theft, arson, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy and 'obtaining money or goods under false pretenses'—made you lose the vote. Why not murder or rape? Because ex-slaves were far more likely to commit petty property crimes than serious offenses. [...] One delegate to the Virginia convention of 1906, which established rules similar to Mississippi's, went on record at the time as saying: 'This plan will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years.'"

And Vermont doesn't even disenfranchise people while they're in prison, which is why Vermont is such a festering hellhole of crime and violence.

unlike speaking, voting is an exercise of actual political power. as to the "why", it's because the state legislatures passed the laws that way. Perhaps they thought that felons, as a group, might occasionally be the swing votes on important issues, like mandatory sentencing, and the legislators thought that on they whole the felons would use the power to the disadvantage of non-felons.

On a totally unrelated topic, which was addressed on another thread a few days ago, and while the Congress is studying and debating the PACE act, you might enjoy reading this:

http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/TheEnergyPolicyActof2005anniversaryreport5.doc

Some of it is actual progress, some is updated forecasts.

The point is at some juncture you should be done with your penance. Losing the right to vote for the rest of your life means a lifetime of punishment for your crime. Should something you've done at the age of 18 dog you for your remaining days (excluding of course the obvious heinous crimes such as premeditated murder, treason, etc)? When does it stop? Robbing a bank and serving ten years isn't good enough, someone has to go another fifty without voting? And why pick voting? If you really want to inflict perpetual cruelty forbid procreation or driving a car. Make it illegal to go to college. Hell, just forbid anyone to hire them for pay, that'll serve'em right. When will people see part of the recidivism we experience is because people are never forgiven for their wrongs?

Al:

Evidence for the deterrent effect of punishment is very weak, surveys show that most offenders do not know, at the time of their crime, the sentence for which they are convicted, and many are not sober when they commit their crimes so they cannot rationally weigh the costs and benefits of crime. Studies show that there are deterrent effects, but it is the risk of being caught, not the severity of punishment that deters.

Typically we don't apply lifelong penalties to criminal offenders and felon disenfranchisement and other civil disabilities are anomalous in this way. They do not really serve a public safety function. At best they are motivated by retribution.

Historically, felon disenfranchisment laws date from reconstruction and were devised to deny the vote to newly enfranchised southern blacks. So even at their inception they were not conceived to serve a criminal justice function -- the laws we have todays are historical remnants of those efforts to restrict the vote.

As for the retributive justification -- a third of all state prison admissions are now for drug crimes. Another 30 percent are for non-violent property or public order offenses. In many cases these were not felony offenses 30 years ago. The system has become much more punitive, and voting rights are restricted on an expanded scale as a result. The incarceration rate in the United States is five times its historic average, and the lifetime risk of imprisonment for noncollege men is about 7% (19% for African American noncollege men). This is a huge contraction of the franchise for those who have paid their debt to society.

There is really very little justification for these laws, and they are unknown in advanced democracies outside the United States

AH: Just swap "sanctity" for "revenge" and then maybe you can filter through the sarcasm.

I forgot to add: the decision is made by state legislators, and they might not all have the same reasons in all states.

Drum:

I figure that if a country guarantees the following three rights, it's probably a pretty decent place:
1.The right to free speech
2.The right to a fair trial
3.The right to vote

This premise + Guantanamo = ?

Oh goody! My hobby horse...

No? Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?

Uh... cause America's not a particularly good democracy?

Just add to the pile which includes:

- restricted access to media (public air waves!)
- your bizarre system of drawing up electoral districts (foxes guarding the henhouse)
- unequal access (lack of machines, misdirecting voters and the whole slew of dirty tricks that demand much, much harsher punishment)
- results that can't be audited (!!!!!!!! Can't place enough exclamation marks here)

Yes, people who have served their time must have their rights fully restored; they must be able to vote...

but your whole voting system remains in crisis.

And 2006 merely proved that the system still works creakily when there is extreme stress. Any other country and the GOP would have been near wiped out (note that the less manipulable Senate results were 23-9)

What do you think of when you hear the word "felony"? I think of big ones like robbery, battery, rape, murder. You gotta know the truth, I don't see why a guy who served prison time for, for example, armed robbery, really deserves to retain the right to vote even after he gets out.

But now imagine, on the night before the big annual football game, a Dunedin, Florida Hi-Skool senior hops the chain-link fence guarding the stadium at arch-rival Clearwater Hi-Skool and spray-paints "TORNADOS SUX!!!1!" on the bleacher wall. Suppose just then an Argus-eyed Clearwater policeman notices a flicker of motion as he rolls down Gulf-to-Bay, and he swoops down and apprehends the miscreant. Then, upon conviction, the unfortunate Falcon - his only moral flaw, gentlemen, being an overabundance of wholesome Skool Spirit! - becomes a felon, and may never vote in this state again.

Yep, graffitti is a felony here, and so are a hundred other puny little peccadillos under our berserk laws. It's easy and rewarding for a legislator to get a pissy little public offense promoted from its rightful place among the misdemeanors up into the hard-core big-time of felonies. And once a legislature makes that mistake, it will never, ever back down.

Whether or not there should be drug felonies (I say quite obviously not), or whether the state should cartegorize any other particular behavior as a felony is a seperate issue. It is plain to me that our majorities have wrongly felonized all manner of behaviors, but that doesn't inform us as to whether majorities can legitimately strip convicted felons in general of their ability to vote. I can live with either a "yes" or a "no" as to the question of whether a majority should do, but that is a seperate issue as to whether it is a question that is legitimately left to the majority's will.

Ah, Kevin.

More liberal loonyness from the web's foremost lefty la-la boy Kevin Drum.

You think that's all a country needs to be a good place? How about the right to be free from abortion? The right to bear arms? The right to enjoy the sanctity of marriage without having it desecrated by gays and such? The right to be free and secure from terror? The right to be free from overly burdensome taxation and regulation? The regulation of welfare queens and crack house lords?

Nope, in Kevin Drum's looney left world all these things are unheard of.

Momentum for disenfranchisement reform began 10 years ago when the Texas legislature and then Governor George W. Bush repealed a two-year waiting period required for vote restoration after completion of sentence.

who knew GWB was so progressive?

""No? Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?""
Because their vote slants Democartic. Can I help you with anything else?
Richard

Yes egbert, it's important to be free from abortion. If I ever get pregnant by my father I sure hope the state forces me to carry to full term. Of course, being a man reduces my level of risk just a bit...........

Governor George W. Bush repealed a two-year waiting period required for vote restoration after completion of sentence.

He was probably leaving himself an out in case he was convicted of felony drunk driving.

Will wrote: I can live with either a "yes" or a "no" as to the question of whether a majority should do, but that is a seperate issue as to whether it is a question that is legitimately left to the majority's will.

Should it be left to the majority? It depends. In several states plaintiffs have argued (unsuccessfully so far) that felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th, 14th or 15th Amendments, or the Voting Rights Act. Evidence for the effects of the disenfranchisement laws may become so overwhelming that they are ruled out of order.

The issue is on the radar now, of course, because of Florida 2000, other voting irregularities, and the massive size of the penal system. Some state legislature are re-examining these voting bans in this context.

Good lawd, someone please call the troll exterminator.

Aw hell, bring back debtor prisons.

Know your rights
All three of them

When I was a kid my mom explained to me that if you break a law you get put in jail. You serve your time, and upon release you get a 2nd chance.

It really should be that simple.

I endorse your three points, but without an antecedent, they effectively become null and void: habeus corpus. Significantly, that one was not an "amendment"; it was part of the basic document.

Kevin, I'd throw freedom of association into the mix, which naturally includes freedom from association. (hint, hint)

Will Allen: Whether or not there should be drug felonies (I say quite obviously not), or whether the state should cartegorize any other particular behavior as a felony is a seperate issue.

No, it's not. The question of whether it is just to disenfranchise felons clearly hinges upon the definition of the word "felony." If all felonies were severe, unforgivable assaults upon society such as robbery, murder, etc., then I would have no problem with permanently disenfranchising convicted felons. The word that is central to my thinking is "unforgivable." However, since felonies in Florida include crimes like spraying of graffiti, where any sane person's forgiveness can be purchased for the cost of a couple gallons of paint, and since this use of the word "felony" is common through all fifty states, I am opposed to permanently disenfranchising felons.

You aren't reading your own articles.

Say that most of them don't allow you to vote on parole. Parole is still 'in prison' but out for good behaviour - you get parole before your original sentence is up.

Most times this stuff comes up - its trying to get parole holders who tend to vote lefty to vote.

Only "a dozen" states have legislation that can "permanently" remove your write to vote and the article dodges stating whether or not that legislation is actually in force.

I would guess that you get your vote back after parole but Kevin is skipping facts to get a few more liberal voters to the polls, ignoring the fact that they are on parole for a frigging crime!

Do here's a question: Do you think convicted felons who have served their time should be prohibited from speaking freely? Do you think they should lose the right to a fair trial?

Heck, I don't think that felons who haven't served their time should lose those rights.

Of course, the context in which they operate means that the usual balancing tests in regards to the first of these rights do and should have different practical outcomes in many cases than they would outside of the prison system, and prisoners typically (in good behavior) enjoy privileges that are, given their sentence, not a matter of right and which they may be deprived of without trial within the scope of the original sentence.

No? Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?

Why should criminals lose the right to vote in the first place? Unless they are convicted of, say, illegal vote-selling or trading, it certainly serves no incapacitation-related purpose. It likewise does not appear likely to serve a rehabilitative purpose, nor one of deterrence (general or specific). The only even theory of criminal justice it seems to have even an remote connection to is the retributive theory, which is the only theory of criminal justice not concerned with any personal or social good: it is harm for the sake of harm itself.

It should be unsurprising that the real historical reasons (as discussed upthread) for felon disenfranchisement had nothing to do with any theory of criminal justice, but simply a vehicle to replace slavery as a tool for keeping blacks in their place.

Unless the crime is related to voter fraud, elected office corruption or something rationally related to the franchise to vote, there is no reason for the ban. No other first tier civilized country that I am aware of engages in this practice. The only explanation that it still exists at this point is sheer bigotry, be it racial or social.

Well, in Australia voting is compulsory - you don't vote, you get fined.

Currently Australian prisoners serving sentences of less than only three years can vote in federal elections. In Aug 2004 Federal Parliament restricted the right to vote to those serving sentences of three years or less.

But where it's really interesting: presumably being in prison does not excuse you from getting a fine if you don't vote.

That's easy,Kevin, because in the US there is no right to vote.

Wrong. Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI explicitly recognize that such a right exists and place absolute bars to certain bases for limitation on that right; the courts have consistently held that, even outside of those absolute prohibitions, the right to vote is nevertheless a fundamental right and limitations on it are subject to strict scrutiny.

Of course, the courts have also held that felon disenfranchisement survives strict scrutiny, which I find rather ludicrous.

Parole is still 'in prison' but out for good behaviour - you get parole before your original sentence is up.

There are all sorts of gradations to these laws. Some ban parolees, some ban all felons (including the large number who don't go to prison), some ban just the prison inmates.

None of these laws serve public safety. They're a historical remnant of efforts to deny southern blacks the vote after the civil war. Think about it -- taking away the vote has nothing to do with crime or its prevention. (We have plenty of tools to deal with crime -- prison, probation, fines etc)

Let's be honest -- support for these laws is about limiting the political voice of those who have the highest rates of incarceration -- today this means, poor, young, urban African American men.

No other first tier civilized country that I am aware of engages in this practice.

Our conservative Prime Miniature wants to introduce legislation doing just that.

Why he wants this has not been explained thus far.

I will go so far as to say that my position stated above applies to felons in prison as well as out; unless the offense is rationally related to the franchise to vote, you don't lose it. We do to much to dehumanize felons in this country, that is one reason behind our off the chart recidivism rate.

I would guess that you get your vote back after parole but Kevin is skipping facts to get a few more liberal voters to the polls...

Yeah, because liberal voters are such a minority in the US at the moment.

cmdicely is quite correct as to the strict scrutiny standard, and it is hard to see how what we are discussing here meets that test for constitutionality.

How about the right to be free from abortion?

Don't you mean freeing fetuses from their imprisoning wombs, most in solitary confinement?

Ah McA - I've missed your peculiarly vitriolic brand of nutty insecurity. What's been up? The chip on your shoulder stuffed up your mouse hand or something?

Which one of you is posting under this name today?

A felon who has paid his dues to society should have a clean slate and allowed to vote. After all, most of us are unconvicted felons. Ever held a grain of cocaine in your hand? Ever shaved some points off your taxable income come April? Well, you're a felon, too. The only difference is you probably haven't paid YOUR debt to society, and yet you are able to vote, eh?

So let's wake up: Felons lose the right to vote because so many convicted felons are black. For most of the history of this country, particularly in the south, being black meant that you didn't get to vote. Do you really think this longstanding element of American political culture has gone away?

Think of it -- the South turned more or less on a dime in the late 60's and early 70s and switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. The reason was that the Democrats, under LBJ, extended rights under the United States Constitution of the United States of America to blacks. The south couldn't live with that, and conveniently the Republican party quickly found that it could easily live with those same persons who did not think blacks should have equal rights under the Constitution of the United States.

The felon law is just an update of the poll tax, "literacy" tests, and the various subterfuges the south used for a century to deny blacks their rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Do you think George W. Bush is a great respecter of the U.S. Constitution? If you answer "no", then also take a moment to note that he is a white, southern, right-winger.

But it's really of limited use to focus on the south now. While it remains the base of the Republican Party, the same anti-Constitution mindset can be found anywhere in the United States.

But felons don't get to vote because so many of them are black, and there are still different rules for blacks in many parts of this country.

Shorter American Hawk: I'm a racist.

I thought that we didn't punish people twice for a crime, which taking away the right to vote basically does.

Yeah, cmdicely, the people of Iowa, New Mexico, Wyoming, and the state of Washington (pre-1984) merely wanted a tool which could replace slavery as a means of keeping blacks in their place. Or, really, Wyoming has had such a substantial black population that the majority really, really, really wanted to make sure black people were prevented from voting. Really.

Al: "Kevin, criminals have committed crimes. And therefore they must be punished."

Oh, yeah? When are you going to get punished for imitating a human being?

Egsmell: "More liberal loonyness from the web's foremost lefty la-la boy Kevin Drum."

Mmm, the place where you spend all your free time. And Kevin, you crazy man, please don't let this immense power go to your head.

Felons might vote, but I just h4cked your electoral college.

Linus Torvalds wins the vote!!

Yaaayyyy!!

Racism

It is a way to keep blacks and urban poor from voting. Since they outlawed poll tax the Southern Whiteys needed another way to disenfranchise. Since blacks are more likely to be convicted by white juries on less evidence, there are higher rates of black felons. A lot of white folk can hire a fancy lawyer and get off.

Not only does this keep black felons from voting, if you are black and have the same last name as a felon, they can put you on the list and keep you from voting. The do this in FL and a lot of Southern Redneck states.

It's hard to debate this issue honestly, because the majority of felons vote Democratic. So, Dems look for excuses to have felons vote and Reps look for excuses to not let them vote.

One can argue that someone who chooses not to obey our laws ought not to get a say in creating those laws.

Incidentally, many other Americans do not have the right to vote, in particular, those under 18 and those who have moved recently. But, there are more unusual cases.

About 35 or 40 years ago the California legislature (controlled by Dems) revised voting districts in such a way that a group of us were not able to vote for any candidate for a particular office in a particular election. For one election we were in no district. As I recall, the courts upheld this redistricting plan.

If legislative convenience justifies depriving people of a their vote, then committing a felony does too.

Yeah, the black population of Wyoming has been around .008 or less of the total popuation since Wyoming has become a state. Those racists who disenfrachised felons really wanted to make sure blacks coudn't vote in Wyoming, or as bakho notes, they were concerned about the prospects of the urban poor voting. Because the urban poor comprised such a significant percentage of the population of Wyoming for a such a large part of it's history.

Cmdicely: as a practical matter, allowing felons who are currently serving time behind bars to vote is problematic: in many of the places where there are state prisons, they would constitute a large plurality or an outright majority of the voters in the given jurisdiction. (See, for example, Soledad and Folsom).

This might be ameliorated a bit by forcing them to vote at some other permanent address, but how that address is determined is problematic. Many prisoners have no strong family connection and/or were essentially transient before being arrested; so how do you establish a residence location other than the prison?

We don't let felons have firearms, and self-defense can at time be more important than the three listed.

Personally, I couldn't care less if criminals are
punished or not. Just keeping them off the street,
out of where they can harm even more people, is
enough for me.

Prisons don't even pretend to 'rehabilitate'
any more. They just keep the bad guys out
of circulation for a while.

Once they have served their time, there is no
legitimate reason for ex-criminals not to have
their right to vote back.

Does it bother the Democrats on this board
that convicted criminals want to vote Democrat
in overwhelming numbers? What is it about
the Democrat stance on the issues that make
them so attractive to convicted criminals?
Do Democrats think it would be an effective
campaign ad to say "Vote the way convicted
criminals vote - Vote Democrat"? I'm just
asking why Democrats actively want the
support of convicted criminals. Is that
because honest people will only vote
Republican?

Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?

Because (with few exceptions) they don't have any friends in the White House who will pardon them.

"the real historical reasons (as discussed upthread) for felon disenfranchisement had nothing to do with any theory of criminal justice, but simply a vehicle to replace slavery as a tool for keeping blacks in their place."

Since most states had felon disenfranchisement laws before the Civil War, their state legislatures must have been clairvoyant.

Really, people, can't we do better than this?

Cmdicely: as a practical matter, allowing felons who are currently serving time behind bars to vote is problematic: in many of the places where there are state prisons, they would constitute a large plurality or an outright majority of the voters in the given jurisdiction.

In terms of purely local elections (rather than ones for state or federal office), there is nothing I am aware of preventing the state from making its prisons outside the jurisdiction of, and therefore its residents without a vote in, any substate entity. Since, as a practical matter, they are not generally affected by such entities during their incarceration, this is somewhat sensible from a policy perspective, especially if it is a fallback residence in the event of no readily establishable prior residence.

(See, for example, Soledad and Folsom).

Folsom prison has a population of less than just over 4,000; the City of Folsom has a population over 45,000, so I don't think that, in any case, its a particularly good example.

Soledad would be a better example of the problem you want to point, as the prison population of the two prisons near there (Salinas Valley State Prison and the Correctional Training Facility) are approximately equal to the population of the city of Soledad.

Since most states had felon disenfranchisement laws before the Civil War, their state legislatures must have been clairvoyant.

19 of 34 before the civil war, virtually all have some degree of felon disenfranchisement now. Before the civil war disenfranchisement was a fading remnant of the civil disabilities associated with bills of attainder in England, after the Civil War it was a revitalized institution with a new purpose.

Yes, yes, cmdicely, especially in Nevada, which had all of 347 blacks living within it's borders in 1870, six years after achieving statehood.

Fair trials for the poor? The exceptions that prove the rule I guess. How many 'convicted' felons end up pleading to lesser felonies because their incompetent lawyers suggest it? In order to preserve the illusion that the process is fair they have to allocute a 'confession'.

Oh, let's not forget the racists of Washington State, who went out their way to disenfranchise blacks, an ethnic group which comprised .004 of the population of Washington at the time of statehood (1890), by disenfranchising felons. Pretty shrewd, those racist Washingtonians.

One can argue that someone who chooses not to obey our laws ought not to get a say in creating those laws.

One can also argue that someone who makes those laws ought not to be able to use them to take away the vote from people who might not vote for them.

To me, this is a clear-cut reason to allow even felons in prison to vote: if we don't, then it's easy for legislators to tailor the composition of the voting public to their liking by defining lots and lots of felonies. For instance, they could lean toward defining drug possession as a felony if the drug just happens to be one favored by inner-city blacks. Just as a hypothetical.

Does it bother the Democrats on this board that convicted criminals want to vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers?

Eugene V. Debs: "While there is a lower class, I am in it; While there is a criminal element, I am of it; While there is a soul in prison, I am not free!"

Debs himself ended up doing time for saying some of the things he said. But while I personally admit that some people in prison might well belong there, I don't think his saying this marks him as a bad man.

It's hard to debate this issue honestly, because some of the politician-felons attempt to inhibit opposing votes. So, Dems look for excuses to have felons vote and Reps look for excuses to not let minorities vote.

One can argue that someone who chooses not to obey our laws ought not to get a say in creating those laws. And I would argue that immigrants, legal or otherwise, ex-slaves and blacks shouldn't either. The fact that we imprison so many non-whites is just an advantage in this argument.

Incidentally, many other Americans do not have the right to vote, in particular, those under 18 and those who have moved recently. But, there are more unusual cases....

Posted by: another-ex-liberal on February 28, 2007

Oooooh. ex-lib, that last point is so powerful. So many people just moved before they could re-register. Yeah, and give the vote to 3-year-olds too!

Voting districts? Remove them from political manipulation. 30 or 40 years ago? How about Texas redistricting. Ohio, 2004. Come up to date.

Just looking forward to you making any sense any time.

We don't let felons have firearms, and self-defense can at time be more important than the three listed.

Posted by: Frank J. on February 28, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. Another proof that "the right to bear arms" CAN be infringed. Let's do it.

WILL ALLEN: Yes, yes, cmdicely, especially in Nevada, which . . .

Of course, it could be because you're stupid. Too stupid to understand that states with a low black population might enact laws not only to disenfranchise blacks already living there, but also to prevent other blacks from moving there.

Then again, racist and stupid are synonymous. Asshole, too, come to think of it.

Yeah, sure, jayarbee, when there were 347 blacks living in Nevada, the prospect of them voting, or blacks moving to Nevada, was really at the forefront of Nevada's legislators' minds. How do we know this? Well, cmdicely, and you, say so, that's how. There can be no other possible explanations, and anyone who say differently is a racist. Really.

Will, dear, do come back when you've got something substantive to back up your assertions, won't you? Until then, you're just amusing us.

To answer your rhetorical question:
Because its politically useful for the ruling party in those states to disenfranchise felons.

Gosh, PaulB, I've not made any assertions, other than to agree with the incisive analysis offered in this thread, which so wonderfully adheres to the historical data available. Really quite remarkable; congratulations to all involved.

Will Allen --

there has been a powerful movement in this country to disenfranchise voters, from Illinois through Ohio, but most definitely in the the South spreading westwards that has had a most pernicious racist element.

Look where the most lynchings were the last century. Not hard to see. And no one ever called the white states non-racist. I live in MN and I've seen and heard it. . . more than I ever did out East.

When will people see part of the recidivism we experience is because people are never forgiven for their wrongs?
Posted by: steve duncan on February 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM

We've shifted culturally toward the punishment and vengeance of the Old Testament and away from the tender mercies of the New Testament-that's SO seventies! Maybe it is purely demographics-a greyer perfectionistic society might be less willing to forgive?

Yeah, notthere, when one of right wing nuts at this publication, Wshington Monthly, wrote...

"Of course, not all felon disenfranchisement laws originate in clearly racist movements......"

....he was just covering for his racist tendencies. It is impossible for any felon disenfranchisement law to have been written for any other reason than to carry out the desire of racists. Yep, that's it.

ex-thinker: "...the majority of felons vote Democratic."

It's hard to talk to someone whose facts smell exactly like the rest of what comes out of his ass.

"Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?"

They also lose the right to own a gun in all 50 states, plus all territories and possessions of the United States.

Well, I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but I couldn't be bothered to read through 85 of these comments before posting. so: I actually find religious freedom to be more important than the right to vote. That's not to say that I don't find it strange that felons can't vote in that number of states. But then I'm Swedish, and thus almost by default far removed from the american political mainstream.

"ex-liberal" wrote: It's hard to debate this issue honestly

"ex-liberal," you've already demonstrated that it's impossible for you to debate any issue honestly. But that, of course, is due to your twisted adherence to the mendacious and corrupt neocon agenda, which is wholly incompatible with reality.

And speaking of which, it's time for another edition of the Will Allen Show! Pass the popcorn.

ut for the distortions put on our criminal justice system by our asinine drug laws this issue would have a completely different perspective. The reason truly bad guys should forfeit their right to participate in the franchise is that the alternative is keeping them locked up longer. The problem you are trying to address is not getting more votes for libs, but why does a felony have no social stigma anymore.

3 wrongs don't make Iraq war right, Bush Cheney and Condi all are liars.

Maintaining his son's right to vote was why George HW Bush didn't press for a conviction on George W's insider trading scandal. That right to vote is so important to the Bush family.

Still racist. Still elitist.

The majority of felons are poor. The majority of poor folks vote for Democrats because Republicans are elititsts. Wyoming may have fewer blacks than other states but they have poor people that the elitists do not want to vote.

One can assign any ideology to intent of a law. The effect of a law is more important than intent. The effect of these laws is to prevent significant numbers of poor and black voters from voting for Democrats. It is obvious that these laws have the effect of disproportionately disenfranchising blacks and Democrats. The effect is both racist and political.

"they also lose the right to own a gun in.......and possessions of the United States"

Does this include Iraq and Afghanistan?

And in our fine bastion of liberal thought of the State of Oregon, many forget that in the early constitution of the state, blacks were denied the right to even live in the state - The few in the territory at the time moved to the state to the north of us. And Oregon was settled largely by folks from the Northeastern areas of the US. Last major meeing of the Klan was in Astoria, Oregon. FWIW, as it is always so easy to cast stones towards the south.

Amendment 14: "But when the right to vote at any election ...is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime..."

The reason for removing these laws has to do with the rights that are conferred on citizens of the US, though the constitution does permit exclusions for crime.

But I've begun to doubt the principle of universal sufferage as a right of citizenship. Its beauty is, of course, that it is very simple to apply--you are a US citizen, you get to vote. But after the ignorance shown by the electorate in the 2004 election, the susceptibility of the electorate to sophisticated media manipulation, the complexity of issues, and the high percentage of people who don't bother to vote now, I have come to wonder whether voting should be something that one earns, a privilege, not a right. Perhaps if voting were something that citizens could not take for granted, citizens would value it more highly.

The assumption of the founding fathers was that a well-informed electorate had a moral right to choose their representatives. Now 35-45% of the population can be described as "no-nothings" who don't know basic things about the government--the name of the Vice President, the name of their senators, the party that controls congress--much less understand fundamental facts such as whether or not Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack or the scientific reality of evolution....sigh.

Alternatively, perhaps we could develop a different structure for citizen participation? Perhaps a reality show like American Idol? We could call it American Democracy, and every week, a large pool of "candidates" for political office would perform some relevant political task. And each week, one candidate would be eliminated after Americans "voted" for their favorite candidates by calling a toll free number....

Yes. "no-nothings". Indeed.

Never let the historical record get in the way of a good axe-grinding.

The reason truly bad guys should forfeit their right to participate in the franchise is that the alternative is keeping them locked up longer.

How so? What good that would otherwise be provided by keeping people locked up longer is served by disenfranchisement?

The problem you are trying to address is not getting more votes for libs, but why does a felony have no social stigma anymore.

Actually, neither of those is the problem I'm trying to address in this thread; the first is irrelevant, the second is simply false.

Are there any forums where conservatives make intellectually honest and effective honest arguments in favor of their positions?

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." —Anatole France

Keeping the bad guys out of circulation for awhile is not a bad policy achievement. In my long criminal corrections career I have concluded that most of the folks who do appear to be rehabilitated have simply aged and matured out of the reckless impulses of youth. Others have decided intellectually that their method of easily taking resources from society is too risky. I have sat with inmates many times and helped them calculate their criminal ratings, which under our state codes increases the sentencing guidelines the next go-around.

There certainly are the impulsive people who will be impulsive all their lives. My own great aunt was that way. All her life her relatives were bailing her out of shoplifting incidents and after we put her in a rest home with Alzheimer's the staff still reported that whenever something turned up missing they could find it hidden in her room. She didn't know our names, but she knew she was a thief!

The two greatest rights: the right to contradict yourself and the right to leave!

Why is it that right wing wackjobs love to make a quote as if it were a fact and then stick with it like it's a recognized fact[Felons mostly vote for democrats].Answer-weak in the head. Has there been a study done by some rightwing nutjob thinktank on this subject? Probably just a dependable source like Ann Coulter or Al.

Yes, gandalf, it is remarkable that the wackjobs you disagree make baseless assertions, while the virtuous, upstanding people your agree with simply stick to the facts, like...

"It should be unsurprising that the real historical reasons (as discussed upthread) for felon disenfranchisement had nothing to do with any theory of criminal justice, but simply a vehicle to replace slavery as a tool for keeping blacks in their place."

Yes, yes, remarkable.

Personally, I believe people in prisons should be REQUIRED to vote.

1) Vote is not just a right, but a civic duty. Voting is the responsibility of a citizen engaged with his nation and community.
2) Those who have committed a felony have failed to live up to their duty as citizens to live according to the law. They have failed to live up to their responsibility as citizens, and their rights are taken away.
3) But they still have their responsibilities. I think the right to abstain from voting should be taken from them. But the responsibility to vote should remain.
Okay, I'm just being a little facetious. But only a little. I'll know the country is on the right track when every prisoner is required to take civics classes (since they probably didn't get them in school) and voting is encouraged in prisons.

Who said I agree with that. You don't have to be a right winger to make baseless assertions but it does help.

where have you been

there never has been a "right to vote"

some people have the power to vote and expanding this power has been an important aspect of our history as a nation

constitutional amendments have been an essential part of this struggle

it may be time for a constitutional amendment making a universal "power to vote" a federal law

we might take voting power out of the hands of political operatives and nest it safely within a beaucracy like the census bureau

I think I'd add the right to health care.

Otherwise -- it's a good list.

I believe the question should be, "Why are left wingers so concerned about felons?"

Is it compassion or the desire for a new voter block? Please forgive me if I am skeptical about the party of Willam Jefferson and John Murtha.

Why don't we ask all the felons we can find who they would vote for. If the majority would vote Republican I believe the liberal concern for felons would fade quietly into the night like their Iraq strategy has.

How about a vote strike, where all the Democrats say they won't participate in the voting process until every felon has the right to vote.

Now we are getting to some real solutions.

No? Then why do they lose the right to vote in 20 states?

Because a disproportionate number of felons are black and tend to vote democratic?
The political makeup of this country would be different, intentionally or not, if all felons could vote.

Remember the purge of voters in FL?

.

Fair enough, Gandalf, but I'd be hard pressed to say that any faction is more prone to baseless assertion. It is the coin of the realm.

There is a connection between the suspension of habeas corpus, the designation of “enemy combatants� and the denial of voting rights for criminals after they have served their time. It is the fundamental belief of conservative authoritarians that rights are things given because of status not because, as liberals contend, you are a human being and have certain inalienable rights. Since the time of the American and French revolutions conservative authoritarians have rejected the idea of the Rights of Man. Anyone who lies outside of orthodox society because of their status as criminals, or paupers, or their ethnic origin, religion or race can be denied rights and the rule of law. Conservative authoritarians everywhere dismiss any entity that seeks to preserve and extend universal rights from the United Nations to The Hague. The concentration camp is the apotheosis of the authoritarian war against the unorthodox corrupters of society. It is a place where authoritarians designate by fiat certain people as stateless and therefore strip them of rights and any obligation of humane treatment.

The reign of conservative authoritarians in the United States over the last 30 years has resulted in a deeply inequitable society (the Gini is similar to China) that incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any nation on earth.

The unreformed American Republic is arguably the least democratic of the old democracies. With an eye towards aristocratic Britain in the 18th century the founding fathers created the Senate and the electoral colleague to keep a check on populist democracy and voting, of course, was limited to men with property- an antique assumption cherished by conservative authoritarians for whom property and power, and the order they imply, are the only social values worth embracing. Conservative authoritarians champion the tradition of aristocratic veto in the United States and not the revolutionary promise of democracy and enfranchisement. The Cheney Regency stands as a monument to the principles of monarchy. Bush's liberty is the liberty of kings to do as the wish and the poor to have their poverty.

The majority of felons are poor.

Exactly. I'm sure if you correct for income, you'll find that felons are no more likely to vote Dem than the general population. Unless of course you believe that the Republicans entering Club Fed for their white collar crimes come out rehabbed as Dem voters, like G. Gordon, eg....

Wrong. Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI explicitly recognize that such a right exists and place absolute bars to certain bases for limitation on that right; the courts have consistently held that, even outside of those absolute prohibitions, the right to vote is nevertheless a fundamental right and limitations on it are subject to strict scrutiny. Of course, the courts have also held that felon disenfranchisement survives strict scrutiny, which I find rather ludicrous.

Shorter CMD: Correct.

I don't know why states bar felons from voting - I suspect it has something to do with incumbent politicians wanting to look tough on crime. It has very little to do with any tangible effect on society. Keeping felons from voting is not going to have any marked change except to deny a basic right to what is rapidly becoming a huge swath of American citizens. No politician wants to campaign for the rights of prisoners (though someone should).

Furthermore, I disagree strongly with Al that taking away the right to vote is a deserved punishment just like any other punishment. Isn't spending time in prison the agreed upon punishment (not to mention the conditions)? Isn't the thousands of dollars in legal fees punishment? Isn't being tried and convicted in front of God and country a punishment? Where does it stop? When does a person get to feel like a part of society again after a crime is committed (or not committed as DNA evidence is revealing in certain cases)?

I vehemently disagree with this policy because I have learned you do not have to be a violent person or a criminal mind to be charged with and found guilty of a felony. The people deemed "criminals" by the state are not all rapists and murderers. Many of them are people who have committed no crimes except to be addicted to drugs. There are several circumstances that can lead an overzealous police force to charge the innocent and ruin lives all in the spirit of the law. If you doubt this, then I am certain you have zero experience with the criminal justice system.

Fourth, which we have, is religious freedom. As an atheist who believes that is supposed to include freedom from... I think you have to include that on your short list.

Fifth is an explicit right to privacy. Most Continental Western European countries wrote it into their post-WWII constitutions.

We had a chance to do similar with either Griswold or Roe, with Douglas or somebody else finding that an explicit privacy right was implicit in the Ninth Amdt, and bolstered by First Amdt worship and assembly, and Fourth Amdt ban on quartering, being but more ardent protections of bits and pieces of a more overarching right to privacy.

Unfortunately, the Warren Court didn't follow that line, so you have nutbars like Nino now saying we have no privacy right.

you have nutbars like Nino now saying we have no privacy right.

Interestingly, his daughter, who was recently arrested for DUI while driving with her three minor children, is now arguing the opposite of her dad....

Manza and Uggen's Locked Out: Felon Disfranchisement and American Democracy is probably the most definitive work on the topic. Short answer: the bulk of felon disfranchisement laws emerged in the South, especially in the Reconstruction period, as part of the campaign to disfranchise blacks en masse. The laws then diffused to other states outside the South.

Here's the Manza and Uggen book at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Locked-Out-Disenfranchisement-American-Democracy/dp/0195149327

jonp, precisely define "bulk" and "diffused".

I have no particular opinion as to whether felons should be able to vote, other than to note that majorities have illegitimately defined far too many behaviors as felonious. What is false, however, is too claim that the only reason to oppose felons voting is racially motivated. The cheap, easy, way to support allowing felons to vote is to dishonestly claim that the disenfranchisements of blacks is the sole reason that some oppose allowing felons to vote. It is a contemptible thing to do, equally contemptible as claiming that those who support allowing felons to vote do so out of solidarity with rapists and armed robbers.

I have no issue with a state legislature which allows felons to vote. I'd applaud any governor who issued a blanket pardon to any citizen who has been convicted of a felony that never should have categorized as a felony to begin with, and there are many, many, many people so deserving. It is detestable, however, to insinuate that those who oppose such actions must be racially motivated. I also disagree with the notion that the citizens of a state shall not be allowed to practice self-government, and thus define what the sanction shall be for felonious behavior, legitimately defined , as long as it does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Good post, bellumregio.

Shorter CMD: Correct.

If you take "right" to mean something inviolable in every circumstance, than sure, but by that standard there is no such thing as a "right" in practice.

ex-liberal:

About 35 or 40 years ago the California legislature (controlled by Dems) revised voting districts in such a way that a group of us were not able to vote for any candidate for a particular office in a particular election. For one election we were in no district. As I recall, the courts upheld this redistricting plan.

Got a citation or a case name for this? It's outrageous, if true.

cmdicely: you are correct with respect to cities, although such prisons would remain within counties, and therefore could potentially influence districted county elections. (this is really a very similar argument to the one against allowing college students to vote in their college towns, except that felons in state prisons have even *less* of a connection to their town than the college kids did).

Point taken with regard to Folsom; I thought it was a smaller city than it is.

You think that's all a country needs to be a good place? How about the right to be free from abortion? The right to bear arms? The right to enjoy the sanctity of marriage without having it desecrated by gays and such? The right to be free and secure from terror? The right to be free from overly burdensome taxation and regulation? The regulation of welfare queens and crack house lords?

Ha ha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha ha... heh heh... um, I just...heh...wanted to... heh.. hahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...heh. Sniff...sniff...

Oh, that's beautiful. Kevin really *is* a loon, isn't he?

Haven't read all the comments, so this may have been said already, but the motivation is pretty simple - most felons are non-white, and having them out of the voting pool means a way around many of those pesky amendments to the constitution made back in the 19th century.

"Because they have chosen to assault civil society, and thus the majority has stripped them of the most direct means of influence as to who shall represent civil society." And those who expressed similar views.

If you lock them out of society, what can you expect but further anti-social behavior?

And I don't for a moment believe that you would apply that standard to the various white collar criminals, like the boys from Enron.

zak, what you believe likely does not conform with reality to any significant degree.

... So clearly you support the workers' right to vote for or against unions... mh rat 12:11 PM

This post is stupid. Permanent residents (and other foreigners) are entitled to free speech and fair trial, but not the right to vote. I had the first 2 rights until I became a citizen which give me the 3rd right.

If you are going to give felons the right to vote. Are you proposing the same right, at least, for permanent residents?

If you are going to give felons the right to vote. Are you proposing the same right, at least, for permanent residents?

Uh, why?

Felons that would retain the franchise are citizens of the United States—permanent resident aliens are not.

Now, personally, I find the idea of a category of “permanent resident aliens”, from a theoretical perspective, a defect of our immigration system, the route to citizenship should be both faster than it is and mandatory; resident alien status should be transitional only on the path to citizenship, and if citizenship isn't sought and obtained in a set period, status should be terminated. But why should be people who are not citizens be admitted to the franchise?