http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/1148791...-felons-prison
Pretty bold but will it stand and will it change anything?
Printable View
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/1148791...-felons-prison
Pretty bold but will it stand and will it change anything?
Felons in prison should not have the right to vote, but once time is served then there is no reason to deny them the vote for the rest of their life. If they're guilty of something that makes them incapable of voting, why are they not behind bars?
Lewks reasoning works the other way too, you could easily say the GOP is opposed because it would cost them elections, not because they think it's right.
To understand how ridiculous it is to restrict felons from having some of our basic rights, like voting, look at Lewk's other thread about the soda thief. That guy would be a felon, 18 years old and likely still in high school and no longer allowed to vote if convicted.
What about it? The executive order under discussion doesn't touch that prohibition. It reinstates suffrage to those whose sentence is completed. That means not until any relevant probation or parole are also completed, as those are inclusive in any sentence. The article literally spelled that out for you.
Voting is a right, not a privilege. I fail to see the merit of any argument that forbids people who are not actively incarcerated from being able to exercise that right. Bad people don't lose their rights. There's no moral test for suffrage. There's no mental capacity test for suffrage. There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
Bingo. Further, legitimacy in democracy relies on that right being exercised as broadly as possible.
Not much point in them doing so since if they did rule otherwise, it would get taken down by the states and Congress in fairly short order. Perfect example case for trying to replicate the creation of the 11th amendment. So SCOTUS has little reason to bother.Quote:
There is no argument for keeping ex-felons from voting, and the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled otherwise is disgraceful.
If the Supreme Court did rule that way, we can always condition some federal transfers on states allowing ex-felons to vote in federal elections. And one would hope that state courts would learn to read their own constitutions instead of pandering to the "think of the children" mob.
What would their reasoning be for such a ruling, considering they've previously ruled that the 14th amendment doesn't necessarily guarantee felons the right to vote?
They can reread the 14th amendment and the Federalist Papers. Along with Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
I want to see an end to these practices as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure I see how that might actually be achieved through the SCOTUS.
The court has previously ruled (in Richardson v Ramirez) that section 2 of the 14th amendment implicitly affirms a state's right to deny criminals the right to vote:
It's also declined to apply strict scrutiny to the matter of felon disenfranchisement.Quote:
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, 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 basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
What arguments could be presented to the court that might make it rule differently today? I'm just trying to understand.
This paper suggests that section 2 is in fact no longer valid and that if the matter of felon disenfranchisment were re-examined the SCOTUS may end up ruling differently: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=433580
The dissent in the Richardson case seems to argue, among other things, that, even if the text of section 2 can be read as authorizing felon disenfranchisement, the court has otherwise found (albeit inconsistently) that any significant justification for disenfranchisement is or should be invalid: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...8/24/case.html
But is the present court likely to be persuaded by such arguments?
And you'll find the democratic party is in favor for abolishing it for a lot of other reasons, too. :rolleyes:
By the way, over here people can be barred from voting (or standing for election) as an additional sentence imposed by a judge. It's rare though, last time it was done on a large scale was against members of the national socialist party after the second world war. Recently it was asked for by the prosecutor in a terrorism trial (but the defendant was acquitted anyway so no sentence was imposed ). It is only for people convicted of serious crimes that undermine the foundation of the state, which seems okay to me.
This is beyond stupid.
I agree paroled criminals should not lose their right to vote. However, it seems this restriction was written into the state constitution. So the executive order is arguably illegal and subject to court challenge. This should be changed by changing the law.
Another day, another Democrat subverting the political process in the name of "fairness", free stuff and votes. :rolleyes:
Doesn't mean much. The ruling just slams how fucking stupid our current process is. Basing your rights being restored on an interview to determine your possible political religious leanings. The Rs had a pretty twisted system in place.
On the flip side we will soon, as a state, vote to restore a felon's rights when their sentence is over. Need to be a really shitty person to be against a basic American right badly enough to vote against that measure.
That being that you don't give a damn about rights provided by the Constitution when it comes to people you don't like?
Looks like that judge trolled those snowflake conservetards good, lol etc
In Germany a judge has to actually make "loss of the right to vote" part of the punishment, otherwise you're still allowed to vote even while being in prison. As it stands, judges do this only 1.4 times a year on average (for all of Germany).
It hasn't led to Armageddon yet.
And there are also demands to get rid of this possibility completely, considering how few cases there are anymore.