Posted on 06/16/2010 12:22:11 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Every state in the country except two - Maine and Vermont - prohibits at least some felons from voting. In January, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the state of Washington is violating the federal Voting Rights Act by disenfranchising felons.
Now the full 9th Circuit has decided to hear the case, Farrakhan v. Gregoire.
The case has implications for all nine states within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, including California. Every other federal court of appeals so far has ruled against using the Voting Rights Act to give felons the right to vote.
The 9th Circuit should join them.
(Excerpt) Read more at juneauempire.com ...
I usually dont do this but...
Why are you hawking a clearly liberal cause?
“So, a vote is a dangerous thing?”
*points to obama*
I’d personally favor going back to where you needed to own property or have a certaian ammount of assets to vote.
You know...like when the constitution was written...
“The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.”
BlackStone.
“Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. The further the limit of voting rights is extended, the stronger is the need felt to spread them still wider, for after each new concession the forces of democracy are strengthened, and its demands increase with the augmented power. The ambition of those left below the qualifying limit increases in proportion to the number of those above it. Finally the exception becomes the rule; concessions follow one another without interruption, and there is no halting place until universal suffrage has been attained.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
*points to obama again*
In Oregon I think it’s some, but not all Felons, after completion of all sentence aspects, including fines.
This kind of debate is exactly why the matter should be left to the discretion of each individual state, as it is now. Perhaps a state will decide that it should be evaluated case by case, or only allowed in certain kinds of cases, or never at all (so long as broad standards of fairness are kept, such as that the process is race blind, etc.). Making blanket assessments is (IMHO) foolish, but we don’t want the window forced open by the Fed Dems to any old riff raff either. To that end, I think the USSC in its current makeup will reverse the 9th’s panel, if the full 9th doesn’t.
I refering to the “restoration of felon voting rights”...a liberal cause.
Please stay on topic instead of trying the bait and switch with “liberty”
Clinton/Kerry Bill to Give Vote to Felons Opposed by Americans
Jim Kouri, CPPMay 26, 2006
While Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Kerry (D-MA) attempt to push a bill through the Senate that would restore voting rights for felons — including killers, rapists and child predators — such a law would receive a cold reception by most Americans, according to a just-released poll.
A new poll conducted by Zogby Interactive for Associated Television News and The O’Leary Report shows that a clear majority of Americans, including blacks and Hispanics, are opposed to the restoration of voting rights for former felons.
The Zogby/Associated Television News poll findings show that Americans oppose aspects of the Count Every Vote Act sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry that would restore the voting rights of former convicted felons. Fifty-three percent of the American public believes that such a law giving back the right to vote to felons is bad for the country.
Another 71% of the country feels that the motive for such legislation is to help win elections. Both Clinton and Kerry are expected to run for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States.
Twenty-three percent of the American public believes that felons, as a class, who are released from prison should get their voting rights back while 70% of Americans believe the vote should be restored on an individual basis and not as a class.
Between 79% and 90% of the American public believes that anyone who has used a gun in a crime or guilty of a sex crime or a violent crime should face tougher standards in having their voting rights restored than those individuals convicted of a non-violent crime.
Vermont and Maine are the only two states in the country that allow felons to vote while incarcerated. Depending on the severity of the crime, between 70% and 80% of the American public opposes such provisions in the law.
One reason given for the introduction of the Clinton/Kerry bill was to return a racial balance to the disproportionate number of blacks serving time in our prison system for felonies. Yet, 61% of blacks and 66% of Hispanics believe voting rights for felons should be returned on an individual basis and not as a class as the Clinton/Kerry bill would do.
One political strategist believes the push to give amnesty for illegal aliens and for felons is driven by the desire to increase the Democrat Party base.
“Whether they admit it or not, the Democrats need lawbreakers such as illegal aliens — who are being illegally registered as Democrats — and killers, rapists and robbers in order to increase their base of far-left voters,” says Mike Baker, political strategist and pollster.
“While most clear thinking Americans reject their [Democrats] agenda, criminals and people who don’t understand English, who number in the millions, is an immense bump in the numbers of their party’s base. And should such a bill be made law, look for them to pander to criminals and oppose law enforcement,” he added.
This is an excellent point, aka “felony-flation.” In days of yesteryear, the “felony” class of crime was reserved to those acts which were considered worthy of a possible death penalty. A death penalty sentence was not a foregone conclusion upon conviction for such crimes, but was always possible. It takes only a brief look at the criminological landscape today to find “felonies” for which the idea of a death penalty (ever) would fail the laugh test.
You befog the issue too by failing to recognize that different states treat the issue differently.
“You befog the issue too by failing to recognize that different states treat the issue differently.”
Not the issue...the issue is liberals in congress pushing a federal law to override state laws.
Restoration of felon voting rights is a liberal cause..period.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Restoring-Voting-Rights-of-Convicted-Felons-and-HR-3335
I’m not accusing JSample of being a liberal...I’m asking why he SEEMS to support a clearly liberal cause...
Unless you can dig up some examples of conservative support for such a thing...as I’ve looked and found none.
Maybe my google is broken?
*smirk*
“In days of yesteryear, the “felony” class of crime was reserved to those acts which were considered worthy of a possible death penalty.”
Source please...
LOL. So many sleepless nights worrying about those poor disenfranchised felons.
Does that mean most of Congress can’t vote?
;-)
“Yeah but . . . wait . . . illegal aliens, felons, and and dead people will be voting as democrats in the next election . . . they can’t win without these votes . . . stay tuned . . “
Don’t forget, pelicans, grackles, twigs, very small rocks....
I consider the ability to choose one’s representation a matter of “liberty”. Right on topic.
That’s it?
You respone with a POLL and a bow to the wishes of a plurality?
Not much of an argument.
I’m glad we live in a Constitutional Republic.
Conservatives support A LOT of stupid shit.
The War On (Some) Drugs, for a start.
You make the mistake of choosing a particular alignment and ascribing infallibility to it.
I, too, believe THE STATES should reserve the manner in which they hold elections, as per The Constitution. In this case, I believe “The Several States” have fallen to popular whim and abrogated the rights of citizens according to popular whim.
“In Oregon Felons can Vote. We have vote by Mail.”
Yeah, but how do the dead people vote? By mail? Air mail?
“I consider the ability to choose one’s representation a matter of “liberty”.”
When one chooses to commit a crime..in this case a felony...one also choses the consequences that come along with it..
“That’s it?
You respone with a POLL and a bow to the wishes of a plurality?
Not much of an argument.
I’m glad we live in a Constitutional Republic”
We are also a nation of laws (for the time being)....when you voluntarily break those laws you also voluntarily accept the penalties for breaking those laws....in most states that means the loss of certain rights....such as owning a firearm or voting...
It is neither cruel nor unusual...
The link was the the heritage foundation and the submitted counter testimony provided to congress on the matter of felon voting rights...
I consider the heritage foundation to be conservative...do you?
“Conservatives support A LOT of stupid shit.
The War On (Some) Drugs, for a start.”
I agree.....but Buckley was a staunch conservative and he was against the war on drugs...I agree with Buckley as well.
“You make the mistake of choosing a particular alignment and ascribing infallibility to it.”
No...I take note of who sponsors such legislation and who advocates for this position (felon rights)....liberals.
Unless perhaps you dont consider Clinton,Kerry and the ACLU to be liberal...I do...
If you can find some support for this amongst conservatives I may revisit my opinion that this is a liberal cause.
“I, too, believe THE STATES should reserve the manner in which they hold elections, as per The Constitution. In this case, I believe “The Several States” have fallen to popular whim and abrogated the rights of citizens according to popular whim.”
Again...we are in full agreement...but for opposite reasons...the states have everyright to restrict those who have broken it’s laws (felony) and has every right to keep said persons from owning firearms, vote, living within a thousand feet of a school, or work in a day care (sex offenders) or get a drivers license (DUI)...
None of these are deemed cruel or unusual even though it may vary by state.
A federal law restoring felons voting rights is a usurpation of states rights.
On one hand...You are asking for a hodgepodge of state laws where “empathy” is at play...whereas certain felons are reinstated and others are not....on a case by case basis...
While at the same time asking for a federal law that will be a blanket re-instatement for ALL felons regardless of the crime...
And I would remind you that in most states one may petition to the court to have these rights reinstated by having your record expunged.
There is a road to getting your rights back that you willingly surrendered by the commision of a felony, but it requires you prove to the court that you are worthy of that reinstatement.
I think we’ll call this a gentlemans diagreement ...Ok?
“Yeah, but how do the dead people vote? By mail? Air mail?”
Ghost writing....
*grin*
Oh, I think you’ve been 100% a gentleman and have presented some very good points.
I was good chatting with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.