[Scotswife]

I watched this segement on tv last night.
His statement has been mischaracterized.

He described a process by which a felon could APPLY to have his rights restored.
Each person’s case would be different and handled differently depending upon the person’s offense, sentence served, and behavior since their release.

He pointed out he was supporting the law that is already on the books in South Carolina.

To insinuate he simply wants all felons to be granted voting rights is simply not true.

[Utmost Certainty]

Santorum shouldn’t even be talking about this. Regardless of how cogent his explanation may be, the headline gets to be “Santorum wants felons to vote.”

[bjcoop]

The RINO establishment is out to divide conservatives to support their lover Mittens.

[detective]

“To insinuate he simply wants all felons to be granted voting rights is simply not true.”

I appreciate your response. If the article is untrue I am willing to look into the issue further. Do you have additional information?

[magritte]

Actually, no.

Senator Harry Reid, one of the three sponsors of the amendment, said on the floor of the Senate, “Basically what this amendment does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, should not be denied their right to vote.”

Sure, they can APPLY if they want, but they can’t be DENIED.

[cripplecreek]

To insinuate he simply wants all felons to be granted voting rights is simply not true.

Both sides deliberately try to cloud the issue. I've repeatedly heard John Conyers state that felons can't vote in Michigan which is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. What Conyers wants is voting booths in the jails and prisons. What Santorum supports seems to be a standardized means of returning rights to former felons.

Seems to me that Santorum sees the threat posed by people like Conyers and wants to cut him off.