Clinton Corruption is throughout Mccauliffes history; he is planning to be VP and get in on the pay for play like Al Gore did
3
It's pretty simple. More votes for Dems. Period. McAuliffe is so far up HRC's rear end he might as well be on the staff. Oh wait, he was. Next up. Illegals.
4
Such good news. However, the GOP will loathe this because they hate it when things reflect an active DEMOCRACY.
4
Pretty transparent. Since criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats (welfare, minimal punishments, lots of "rights" for the violent), he's just created 200,000 new Democrat voters. New group: "Felons for Hillary!"
2
seems like the only way republicans can win is by cheating.
4
Typical of Political dirty tricks.Why not use felons as votes , Kennedy used the Dead to win the Election,
4
I hate to break it to the Times editorial staff, but New York State voting rules are much restrictive than Ohio voting rules.
4
Smart! Gov. McAuliffe is not only fixing a historically discriminatory practice, but he is one step ahead of Mr. Trump, who is planning to remove voting rights for women by turning 25% of them into felons for choosing to manage their reproductive cycles. Two for one: 25% of blacks and 25% of women can vote again! Take that Cruz and Trump!
5
Somebody in America increasing the number of voters...who would have thought?
2
Let's just we want to conduct our government by executive orders.
Wait a minute! How did this affect history? NAZI Germany? Facist Italy? Currently, Putin's Russia.
But, that's okay. This time its by people who have our best interests at heart.
Relax, it's just "readjusting a wrong now made right."
Let one of these people sit on a jury related to their past criminal record, and let's see what decision is made.
So wrong, so wrong.
Can't people see this is pandering on a grand scale to assure a majority for the "granting authority?"
Wake up, America.
Wait a minute! How did this affect history? NAZI Germany? Facist Italy? Currently, Putin's Russia.
But, that's okay. This time its by people who have our best interests at heart.
Relax, it's just "readjusting a wrong now made right."
Let one of these people sit on a jury related to their past criminal record, and let's see what decision is made.
So wrong, so wrong.
Can't people see this is pandering on a grand scale to assure a majority for the "granting authority?"
Wake up, America.
4
Hmm, should felons be able to vote for crooks?
3
Even absent any political reason for this decision, it's abominable on purely moral grounds. Any action that benefits those who harm our society the most, while doing nothing to ameliorate the societal and individual pain felons cause is indefensible and benefits only the evil.
Better would be to make the aggregate punishment for a felony conviction so severe as to provide a strong incentive to not commit crime. That would serve the dual purpose of helping society and having fewer felons disenfranchised.
This policy benefits society's worst while doing absolutely nothing positive for either society or victims. Just awful.
Better would be to make the aggregate punishment for a felony conviction so severe as to provide a strong incentive to not commit crime. That would serve the dual purpose of helping society and having fewer felons disenfranchised.
This policy benefits society's worst while doing absolutely nothing positive for either society or victims. Just awful.
4
By standing up to the "fair and balanced" approach to voter suppression, Governor McAuliffe has struck a chord for an America which honors the ideals for which our soldiers fought- justice for all means we all are in this together and every citizen has the right to vote--- anyone who rails against this reform should take another look at the Constitution and the mirror.
5
Wow, great decision, Gov. McAuliffe!
(Is Hillary considering him for Vice-President?)
(Is Hillary considering him for Vice-President?)
3
Governor McCauliffe deserves recognition and thanks from all Americans. A person convicted of a felony has a defined sentence. If he has served his time for the crime, what basis in law could disenfranchise him for life? Disenfranchisement is a very serious measure that might be justifiable where the horrific crime of a person deserves a life sentence.
The U.S. system of criminal justice is extremely flawed and in its flawed condition it presents a danger to society. The nation's prisons are not correctional facilities, they take people who have the capacity for rehabilitation and transform them into hardened criminals. The victims of this system deserve a second chance and they deserve the right to vote to help correct the abuses that others don't see. 50 years ago Karl Menninger published his landmark book "The Crime of Punishment." The crimes committed against those that are in the system are often far greater than the crimes that they committed.
The U.S. system of criminal justice is extremely flawed and in its flawed condition it presents a danger to society. The nation's prisons are not correctional facilities, they take people who have the capacity for rehabilitation and transform them into hardened criminals. The victims of this system deserve a second chance and they deserve the right to vote to help correct the abuses that others don't see. 50 years ago Karl Menninger published his landmark book "The Crime of Punishment." The crimes committed against those that are in the system are often far greater than the crimes that they committed.
9
77% of felony offenders are back in jail within 5 years. On the whole, released felons are career criminals. These professional criminals will now get the vote in Virginia because they have paid their dues. But the notion that release offenders are deserving citizens is seldom accurate. Instead, they are crooks on the verge of offending again. McCauliffe champions released offenders as good citizens entitled to vote. It would help if he was realistic rather than an idealist without a clue.
5
Cites , please. This smells like wishful imagination.
2
WOW.......200,000 new Democrat Gruber voters, brilliant move
3
Count on the NYT to climb on their "voter suppression" hobby horse and ride, ride, ride. Barring voting of ex-felons has never fallen under the Voting Rights Act, before or now.
Regardless of whether one believes that felons who complete their public service should be allowed to reintegrate into society completely, the Governor's move is nothing more than another in a long line of baldly political move. Please, note the St. McAuliffe doesn't really want to let ex-felons integrate completely, as they will still be barred from owning guns.
No, overriding the State Constitution, circumventing the Legislature without even trying, is all about pumping up votes for the democrats, especially Terry's pal, Hillary.
It will be fought and will lose in the courts, thereby setting back legitimate efforts.
Regardless of whether one believes that felons who complete their public service should be allowed to reintegrate into society completely, the Governor's move is nothing more than another in a long line of baldly political move. Please, note the St. McAuliffe doesn't really want to let ex-felons integrate completely, as they will still be barred from owning guns.
No, overriding the State Constitution, circumventing the Legislature without even trying, is all about pumping up votes for the democrats, especially Terry's pal, Hillary.
It will be fought and will lose in the courts, thereby setting back legitimate efforts.
3
McAuliffe is a political hack and vote fraud enabler. Restore voting rights to mass murderers? How about restoring voting rights to those convicted of vote fraud, just so they can feel good about themselves. If McAuliffe were governor of California he'd be pardoning Charlie Manson and his henchwomen in time to vote for Hillary in the upcoming primary.
8
A step in the right direction. It gives meaning to rehabilitation.
4
It used to be an acceptable policy the rule breakers were punished and people who were responsible and lawful were rewarded.... Now it seems as though that has been turned on its head all in name of the democrat party.... Funny thing is everyone reading this including the writer of this oped sees it as though these Felons will all vote in lockstep with democrats which lends a lot of credibility to the statement that those on the left are naïve idealists who look reality in the face and laugh as if it is a just a made up boogeyman!
5
You do realize, of course, that the reason felons were stripped of voting rights in the first place was because the democrats wanted to disenfranchise African Americans, who voted Republican in those days.
No surprise that the GOP would be against this since it will allow more minorities to vote. The GOP's all white and mainly Southern base is hostile to minorities so the GOP as party cannot work to engage these voters. As a result, the GOP as a party has to pursue a policy of making harder and harder to vote.
3
Till Voting Right Act is amended , certain well known social organisation may create an umbrella organisation. Branches in all 50 states of such umbrella organisation be opened/tagged with already existing branches. Each branch may keep a vigil and inform head office of any effort to restrict voting in its state. In turn , that head office may communicate with leading people of the nation across various parties to build public pressure to stop any such move.
So felons can run for office in states where they can't vote? Does that make any sense to anyone? The rules are so crazy, and such a waste of time.
Every politician should have a net calculator sewed into their shirt that tabulates the number of net positive jobs they have brought to their state or district....the rest is just noise.
If they did their time. The debt is paid....let them vote.
Every politician should have a net calculator sewed into their shirt that tabulates the number of net positive jobs they have brought to their state or district....the rest is just noise.
If they did their time. The debt is paid....let them vote.
1
Voting rights are key to our form of government. They are an area I beleive should be in the control of the Federal Government NOT the States. We are the United States of America. How citizens register, how primaries are organized, the method of voting and how one might that privilege should be the same nationwide.
A government elected by criminals will be a government comprised of criminals. Is that not clear?
And, how exactly does a governor change the law regarding voting without the consent of the legislature? Is that how this country works now?
This country, especially under Democrat administrations on both the federal and state levels is becoming increasingly authoritarian. Are we at the top of the slippery slope and nobody's noticed yet that we're sliding down, or do people just not care?
Either way, if this decision stands, it does not bode well for any of us.
And, how exactly does a governor change the law regarding voting without the consent of the legislature? Is that how this country works now?
This country, especially under Democrat administrations on both the federal and state levels is becoming increasingly authoritarian. Are we at the top of the slippery slope and nobody's noticed yet that we're sliding down, or do people just not care?
Either way, if this decision stands, it does not bode well for any of us.
5
Is the prison bock voters all that important for Democrats? Would the state wheel in voting machines into the prisons and jails of Virginia? The next step would be the state of Virginia would have to fund prisoners to run for an office in the state. I'm sure that soon there will be a prison political party just for prisoners. They could call it the J-birds, or the Cons, or Three hots and a cot, or even Mr. Governor. Hey, it worked in the state of Minnesota in a U.S. Senate race, why not here? Could you think of the re-counts done on election day? This is just one way to cheapen the right to vote. Democrats just don't care about what price our votes can with. How much blood, sweat and tears the right to vote came with. I'm just glad I don't live in Virginia. I might want to start a recall petition drive to get someone to serve the state with dignity, and honor. But then, I'm not a democrat in the first place. ;)
3
All current discussions of voting rights should be mindful of the recent revelation from Nixon's henchman, John Erlichman, that the Nixon cabal concocted the War on Drugs specifically to disrupt African American and Leftie communities and to disenfranchise their members. (See April edition of Harpers's Magazine) Since then, the prison population has exploded along with the number of for profit prisons - which are usually in Red states, often so they can count their prisoner population as residents and thus increase their legislative representation.
It appears that cheating and rigging the system is the only way Republicans can remain in power and its high time their party got busted for the mountains of misery they have inflicted on their fellow citizens.
It appears that cheating and rigging the system is the only way Republicans can remain in power and its high time their party got busted for the mountains of misery they have inflicted on their fellow citizens.
2
Virginia did bot buck the trend. If this had been done early in his time as governor, it could have been seen as truly done to help reintegrate the released criminals. But in this year when his pals, the Clintons, are trying to win the highest office in our country, it is seen as just pure political sleaze. These are not just prisoners who sold or smoked some pot. These are some who murdered or raped. Why should someone who stole someone's life by murder have all their rights returned? The life lost can never be restored. Why should someone who raped and brutalized a woman have his rights restored. What was stolen from his victim can never be restored. Why should someone who scammed all of an elderly couple's life's saving have his or her rights returned. The couple will be desperately poor the rest of their lives. This has nothing to do with rehabilitation of criminals. It has everything to do with buying votes in the election The photograph of McAuliffe is disgusting but it exposes his character. Fortunately Virginia governors only serve one term.
3
Virginians, vote in a new governor and insure that only American citizens and non-felons can vote. This is not the time to make America weaker or more criminal.
3
I'm all in favor of what Gov. Terry McAuliffe has implemented. I know a few ex-offenders, and after they have done paid their debt to society, they have stayed on the straight and narrow--they've told me how much they never want to even be near a prison again.
Instead of permanently punishing people outside of serious crimes such as rape and murder, once a offender has done their time, they should be allowed to vote just like anyone else.
Instead of permanently punishing people outside of serious crimes such as rape and murder, once a offender has done their time, they should be allowed to vote just like anyone else.
4
This is all good but can you furnish us with a few more facts and a bit less emotion? Did the governor restore rights to ALL ex-felons regardless of the crime they had committed?
Here is the Wikipedia:
"On June 30, 2014, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe officially removed application requirements for non-violent felons.[66] Offenders with "violent/more serious" felonies must appeal to the governor 5 years after the end of completing the sentence in order to regain voting rights. Before appealing, they must satisfy several conditions:"
So it seems the governor was not really reckless and did not include violent offenders. My question is, with all your emoting, why did YOU not include this fact in your article? Your readers are not children. They are entitled to the facts and to make up their own minds.
Don't treat your readers as children. Do not supply us with conclusions. Supply us with facts and let US decide what to think.
Here is the Wikipedia:
"On June 30, 2014, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe officially removed application requirements for non-violent felons.[66] Offenders with "violent/more serious" felonies must appeal to the governor 5 years after the end of completing the sentence in order to regain voting rights. Before appealing, they must satisfy several conditions:"
So it seems the governor was not really reckless and did not include violent offenders. My question is, with all your emoting, why did YOU not include this fact in your article? Your readers are not children. They are entitled to the facts and to make up their own minds.
Don't treat your readers as children. Do not supply us with conclusions. Supply us with facts and let US decide what to think.
4
What was the "emotion" part you are talking about?
The Editorial Board pieces are editorials, ie, a POV.
The Editorial Board pieces are editorials, ie, a POV.
3
About 5 yrs ago I began to see how the politcally impassioned are animated by narcissism, fantasies of omnipotence, rehashing childhood and Oedipal conflicts.... Less than interest in gaining a collective improvement in life. The nytimes has been a good education for me in that regard. Far flung populations all seem to be obeying this same call to romantic, oppositional thinking. Weird!
I really don't expect more than a handful of convicted felons exercising their newly restored voting rights. However, the governor's action does put more names on the rolls the Democrats can utilize.
2
Regardless of McAuliffe's motives -- about which I know nothing -- the real effect, the real benefit from this is as a step toward reintegrating felons into society as productive members, as people with a stake in it. Whether you consider it more of an ethical or more of an economic issue, the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of felons who have served their time is of great advantage to the rest of us. Keep in mind that, though we may continue to legitimately argue over how much time a convicted felon should serve, whenever he or she gets out, it will be much cheaper if that person remains out, possibly paying taxes, than if we have to keep picking up the tab for recidivist incarceration.
17
If a citizen pays taxes they should have the right to vote.
5
No one should be surprised to see this executive action viewed by Republicans as a usurpation of power and executive over-reach by a Democrat governor. In fact some commenters to this forum see only that.
Too many state legislatures have spent endless hours seeking creative ways to disenfranchise citizens. Especially poor and minorities. Gutting of the Voter Rights Act by a conservative Supreme Court is especially revealing of the extremism of the right wing to maintain it's own brand of moral and white supremacy. Gerrymandering, voter registration requirements, reducing early voting and other discriminatory voter impingement is the trademark of the Republican party.
Although it was Bill Clinton who signed the extremely tough crime laws of the 1990s it is the Republicans, even in the face of evidence of the terrible effects of that crime bill who refuse to allow any changes to long sentences for minor crimes. Denying voting rights to convicted felons goes beyond the disastrous results of lengthy punishments and further restricts their entry into society and participation in our democracy.
Governor McAuliffe's courageous action deserves better than partisan, conservative criticism by Republican demagoguery.
What is most troubling is that Republicans claim that they are for small government, less intrusion, greater freedom and less taxes and spending. If that is the case then why do they oppose legislation and when necessary executive orders that achieve those ends?
Too many state legislatures have spent endless hours seeking creative ways to disenfranchise citizens. Especially poor and minorities. Gutting of the Voter Rights Act by a conservative Supreme Court is especially revealing of the extremism of the right wing to maintain it's own brand of moral and white supremacy. Gerrymandering, voter registration requirements, reducing early voting and other discriminatory voter impingement is the trademark of the Republican party.
Although it was Bill Clinton who signed the extremely tough crime laws of the 1990s it is the Republicans, even in the face of evidence of the terrible effects of that crime bill who refuse to allow any changes to long sentences for minor crimes. Denying voting rights to convicted felons goes beyond the disastrous results of lengthy punishments and further restricts their entry into society and participation in our democracy.
Governor McAuliffe's courageous action deserves better than partisan, conservative criticism by Republican demagoguery.
What is most troubling is that Republicans claim that they are for small government, less intrusion, greater freedom and less taxes and spending. If that is the case then why do they oppose legislation and when necessary executive orders that achieve those ends?
6
How long can the right continue to use racism to try to usurp democracy? How long can the right be on the wrong side of history? Congrats to McAuliffe for having the courage to do the right & democratic thing.
12
It may be bucking the trend as to voting rights, but it is right in line with the trend on government by executive fiat. There was a time when the executive branch concerned itself with enforcing the laws passed by the legislative branch, and convincing the legislature, or the voters, to change the laws if they disapproved of them.
Now, the trend is to simply abolish the rules that the executives do not like, and the liberals cheer because the right thing is being done. I am waiting for the howls of anguish when a conservative governor or president does the same thing against rules they disapprove of.
As to the Voting Rights Act, it is discriminatory to require preclearance in some places and not others. If preclearance is a good idea, which it is not in my opinion, it should be applied to all jurisdictions or to none. The other thing I would like to see incorporated in a reboot of the VRA would be a 90 day freeze, no changes to election law, districting, or anything else that affects voting can occur less than 90 days before an election, thereby avoiding last minute changes to people's voting rights.
Now, the trend is to simply abolish the rules that the executives do not like, and the liberals cheer because the right thing is being done. I am waiting for the howls of anguish when a conservative governor or president does the same thing against rules they disapprove of.
As to the Voting Rights Act, it is discriminatory to require preclearance in some places and not others. If preclearance is a good idea, which it is not in my opinion, it should be applied to all jurisdictions or to none. The other thing I would like to see incorporated in a reboot of the VRA would be a 90 day freeze, no changes to election law, districting, or anything else that affects voting can occur less than 90 days before an election, thereby avoiding last minute changes to people's voting rights.
2
Hooray for Virginia! An important contributor to recidivism is alienation from society caused by factors such as losing the right to vote. Unfortunately, this is characteristic of the punitive nature of our criminal justice system. Some felons are incorrigible, but most aren't and it's our responsibility to provide the latter a fair chance to re-integrate into society.
8
Overturning Shelby v Holder may help - but really - after 240 years we need a constitutional amendment that truly establishes the right to vote for all adults, that abolishes the electoral college, that establishes corporations are not people, and have no rights to be respected in the electoral process, that designates an entire weekend in November for voting in federal elections, that establishes a minimum # of days prior for early voting, that mandates early voting by mail, that requires automatic voter registration of all citizens at age 18, that makes it a federal crime to interfere with any citizen's right to vote, that establishes a minimum # of polling places with adequate capacity per million population, that specifies apportionment is to the total population of any voting district, excluding prisoners, non-resident college students and military personnel who would cast special mail-in ballots for their home districts, and that specifies the boundaries of such districts be constructed to minimize the perimeter to area ratio (anti-gerrymandering). I want to see any politician come out in public against such an amendment, or oppose its application to local elections.
9
BIG bravo - he's a loyal Clintonite, may be a VP pick.
3
No great insight or reform on McAuliffe's part. Done primarily to help with HRC's coronation.
4
Even if that's so, the right thing to do is still the right thing to do, and one can do it even for the wrong reason. Think of Mark "Deep Throat" Felt.
People of any race and any party can rightfully celebrate this Order to restore voting rights so there is no longer a lifetime sentence component to felony convictions in Virginia. But as noted, a similar Order was overturned in Kentucky and until McAuliffe's act becomes law in a more permanent way, it is at risk.
This inclusive Executive Order in Virginia stands in stark contrast to the exclusionary policies of nearby states and to the attempts at vindictive legislation in Virginia that failed to overcome Governor McAuliffe's veto earlier this month.
Virginia's governors serve only one four-year term - one and done - and McAuliffe's successor will be elected in 2017. The current Lt. Governor, Dr. Ralph Northam, is among the most honest, direct, & transparent public servants anywhere and he is running for the office. He is all about inclusion but his opponent may not be so inclined. Virginians take note: having the right to vote is great but if you fail to exercise that right, many citizens could very well lose it. The evidence is clear that there remain forces in our state and nation who would like nothing better. Register. Vote. Please do not take that right for granted!
This inclusive Executive Order in Virginia stands in stark contrast to the exclusionary policies of nearby states and to the attempts at vindictive legislation in Virginia that failed to overcome Governor McAuliffe's veto earlier this month.
Virginia's governors serve only one four-year term - one and done - and McAuliffe's successor will be elected in 2017. The current Lt. Governor, Dr. Ralph Northam, is among the most honest, direct, & transparent public servants anywhere and he is running for the office. He is all about inclusion but his opponent may not be so inclined. Virginians take note: having the right to vote is great but if you fail to exercise that right, many citizens could very well lose it. The evidence is clear that there remain forces in our state and nation who would like nothing better. Register. Vote. Please do not take that right for granted!
4
It should be obvious by now that Republicans feel that democracy hurts their chances of maintaining power. Any sensible person would term that "tyranny".
4
Frankly, I see no reason why citizens convicted of a crime should lose their right to vote at all, but I'm thrilled that Governor McAuliffe has taken this action and I'm especially thrilled for the people whose rights have been restored. Virginia is for voters.
8
How about they've abused their supposed "fellow citizens" by murdering, raping, and robbing them.
2
@Chilawyer
Leftoplexia, friend Chilawyer, is a mind numbing malady that afflicts many residents of Timesiana. To them the acts you've listed are just "mistakes" of the sort that anyone might make... They'll never understand you.
Leftoplexia, friend Chilawyer, is a mind numbing malady that afflicts many residents of Timesiana. To them the acts you've listed are just "mistakes" of the sort that anyone might make... They'll never understand you.
1
Being fair and reasonable, "Bucks the Trend"? It certainly does!
Hopefully the "trend" will continue all the way into November.
It's seem quite possible that the country is finally, slowly, returning to reason.
Hopefully the "trend" will continue all the way into November.
It's seem quite possible that the country is finally, slowly, returning to reason.
2
The Republicans are conducting an unending war on voting rights and, therefore, democracy itself. The biggest insult is gerrymandering, the shaping of House districts to favor their party (The Democrats are guilty of gerrymandering, too.), but excluding people from voting by making it more difficult is a way they think they can take the presidency away from the Democrats, even though the Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections.
They are desperate. They see the Republican party shrinking, swamped by a demographic onslaught of young voters, hispanics, blacks and newer citizens. Since they endeavor to always represent the interests of the richest first, this should be of no surprise. They have clung to power with coded appeals to racists, by talking constantly about the impact of taxes (rather than lower wages) and by falsely promising to Christian fundamentalists that the govt. could be used as an instrument to restore old time values. The world has either passed them by or is passing them, so what else can they do?
How long will it take until citizens rise up and defend democracy and endeavor to extend it? How long will we sit on the sidelines while the rights of others are impinged or taken away?
Doug Terry
They are desperate. They see the Republican party shrinking, swamped by a demographic onslaught of young voters, hispanics, blacks and newer citizens. Since they endeavor to always represent the interests of the richest first, this should be of no surprise. They have clung to power with coded appeals to racists, by talking constantly about the impact of taxes (rather than lower wages) and by falsely promising to Christian fundamentalists that the govt. could be used as an instrument to restore old time values. The world has either passed them by or is passing them, so what else can they do?
How long will it take until citizens rise up and defend democracy and endeavor to extend it? How long will we sit on the sidelines while the rights of others are impinged or taken away?
Doug Terry
6
You can tell the Democrats are starting to get nervous when felons become a major part of their Get Out the Vote plan.
It's evidence of how badly they're losing among tax payers and non-felons.
I see a Pyrrhic victory though - most people are going to see this for what it is, an absurd conflation of liberals' being soft on crime, with their desperate desire to win in 2016. The funny thing is, they wouldn't be so desperate to win if they weren't so soft on law and order. But they're apparently stuck in a downward spiral; the more they cave to career criminals, the more they drive away normal law abiding citizens, and so the more they need to court the habitual offender vote.
It's evidence of how badly they're losing among tax payers and non-felons.
I see a Pyrrhic victory though - most people are going to see this for what it is, an absurd conflation of liberals' being soft on crime, with their desperate desire to win in 2016. The funny thing is, they wouldn't be so desperate to win if they weren't so soft on law and order. But they're apparently stuck in a downward spiral; the more they cave to career criminals, the more they drive away normal law abiding citizens, and so the more they need to court the habitual offender vote.
6
Graham, this "soft on crime"line might have played in the early eighties but it doesn't any more. And your projection of the desperation of the imploding GOP onto the Dems belongs in a psychology textbook. The Dems are "stuck in a downward spiral"? According to whom?
And it's not just the left demanding a reappraisal of how this country treats its massive prison population. Even the Koch brothers admit that we need to focus on meaningful reforms to reintegrate felons into society; reenfranchisement is a small but significant step in the right direction.
And it's not just the left demanding a reappraisal of how this country treats its massive prison population. Even the Koch brothers admit that we need to focus on meaningful reforms to reintegrate felons into society; reenfranchisement is a small but significant step in the right direction.
1
Just proof that Republicans do not see America as a country where all citizens are treated equally.
1
This was a very magnanimous act by the Democratic governor since most of the former felon are overwhelmingly Republicans.
About time. Once your time is served for a crime, your punishment is supposed to be over and your full rights as a citizen should be restored. So, to the rest of the states who have not done away with your discriminatory laws, I ask - who got next?
5
When everyone gets a vote, Republicans lose. And they know it.
"If you can't win it, steal it!"
"If you can't control it, ignore the Constitution!"
"If you can't justify it, carefully craft some lies to support it!"
"When in doubt, just repeat the same big lies!"
"When you get caught, claim the whole thing is rigged!"
"And never, ever, try to imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes. After all, they're not $5000 hand made Italian loafers! So, why would you, right?"
The day this country comes to it's senses will be the last day of the Republican Party.
"If you can't win it, steal it!"
"If you can't control it, ignore the Constitution!"
"If you can't justify it, carefully craft some lies to support it!"
"When in doubt, just repeat the same big lies!"
"When you get caught, claim the whole thing is rigged!"
"And never, ever, try to imagine what it's like in someone else's shoes. After all, they're not $5000 hand made Italian loafers! So, why would you, right?"
The day this country comes to it's senses will be the last day of the Republican Party.
8
If you can't win it, steal it!" -- Exactly, Chicago 1960, when the dead got to vote more times than the felons.
2
CHICAGO, October 27, 2014 — As news circulated last week about an Illinois voting machine “calibration error” changing Republican votes to Democrat ones, a new report questions the integrity of thousands of GOP voting records in Chicago and whether or not they, too, have been compromised.
Early voting kicked off in scandal-ridden Cook County last week when Jim Moynihan, a Republican candidate for state representative, tried to vote for himself and found his vote had been cast for his opponent.
“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/breaking-news/more-voter-fraud-thousands-of-...
Early voting kicked off in scandal-ridden Cook County last week when Jim Moynihan, a Republican candidate for state representative, tried to vote for himself and found his vote had been cast for his opponent.
“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/breaking-news/more-voter-fraud-thousands-of-...
3
Because of the timing of this decision, after Virginia's primary, the Gov. must believe that had he done this in time for felons to register for the primary that most would vote for Bernie. Maybe, maybe not.
Now it seems most will vote for Hillary. Maybe, maybe not.
It does create momentum to begin the restoration of familiar voting numbers before the GOP's suppression of rights began.
Now it seems most will vote for Hillary. Maybe, maybe not.
It does create momentum to begin the restoration of familiar voting numbers before the GOP's suppression of rights began.
1
Interesting move but I hate to tell you, it won't make much of an actual impact. Voter turnout in 2012 was about 57% of eligible voters, so in a best-case scenario, something over half of these ex-felons would vote. But realistically, felons are people who tend not to have much education, and tend not to be involved in politics. If 20,000 of these 200,000 wound up voting, I'd be impressed with the turnout, and that few votes is not enough to sway things.
Particularly when delegates can vote however they want, regardless of citizens votes, and then we've got the electoral college as the final word, and then the Supreme Court can decide who's president when the vote's close enough. So really, voting barely matters to begin with.
Particularly when delegates can vote however they want, regardless of citizens votes, and then we've got the electoral college as the final word, and then the Supreme Court can decide who's president when the vote's close enough. So really, voting barely matters to begin with.
2
Are you kidding, 20,000 votes is more than enough to determine the outcome of any election in America, including Bush-Gore 2000 (< 1,000 votes).
We should look back at the classic scholars on this question, not opportunists in the political sphere. Our system has been hijacked by corrupt lobbyists and similarly bad interests for so long, how to recover a semblance of just and natural order? Aristotle once spoke to how people generally seek what they want politically not what they need. "When the public discovers they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the [American] experiment will be over"-Tocqueville 1838
2
Hahahahahahaha.
"A rebuke to voter suppression efforts?" What kind of liberal/Preogressive/Democrat drivel is this? People broke felony laws, damaged other people and/or their property and they still get to vote?
Thanks, Terry. You showed mainstream America just how kooky the Democrat Party has become.
"A rebuke to voter suppression efforts?" What kind of liberal/Preogressive/Democrat drivel is this? People broke felony laws, damaged other people and/or their property and they still get to vote?
Thanks, Terry. You showed mainstream America just how kooky the Democrat Party has become.
8
Not just damaged people, but murdered people, including blacks.
To McAuliffe, black lives don't matter, only felons' votes matter.
To McAuliffe, black lives don't matter, only felons' votes matter.
2
And how kookie people are that someone who has made a mistake can never again be considered a full fledged citizen no matter how much time they have served. And, I bet guys like you call yourselves good Christians.
2
Oh, first degree murderers and rapists just make "mistakes." Like a little boo-boo. Hey, who wouldn't excuse a "mistake."
I don't call myself a Christian because I'm not one. So you just lost another bet. Keep on jumping to conclusions like a lemming off the cliff.
I don't call myself a Christian because I'm not one. So you just lost another bet. Keep on jumping to conclusions like a lemming off the cliff.
1
Those fledgling and struggling democracies worldwide that look to America as a model have a great deal to learn from our version of democracy: restrict voting rights however possible; throw monkey wrenches into the voting process to ensure disruptions; load the courts with judges favorable to the most powerful so reasonable recourse is blocked; and arrange these maneuvers secretly to avoid public exposure. That's the least the world's greatest democracy can do for less advanced countries.
2
Voters on all sides should be concerned by this action. A lifetime ban on voting for non-violent felons may have been too harsh, but Governor McAuliffe didn't make any distinction between violent or non-violent, and he certainly didn't ask the elected legislature for their input or, heaven forbid, the actual law abiding citizens of the State.
This was another opportunity to pad the Democrat roles by royal fiat. Next step, aggressive citizenry drives for illegal aliens. At some point, the Democrats will run out of marginal groups to target. Hopefully.
This was another opportunity to pad the Democrat roles by royal fiat. Next step, aggressive citizenry drives for illegal aliens. At some point, the Democrats will run out of marginal groups to target. Hopefully.
3
Surely voter suppression efforts are a threat against the democratic process. Why aren't the people who are engaged in this practice prosecuted? I consider this treason. Could it be because it's the rich and powerful and justice only applies to the poor? Also why if someone has served time for a crime do their voting rights get rescinded? Isn't this being punished twice for the same crime? In most countries the convicted are still considered citizens of a country and are allowed to vote. My dad always said beware of those who preach democracy, because they are the first to subvert it when their power is threatened. Not very democractic as we go around the world preaching democracy. Hypocritical.
3
I've often wondered why someone who commits a crime and completes a sentence or penalty should then further be denied the rights of a citizen. By serving one's sentence, the person is complying with the law. That said, the most important portion of this article is the reason this law was enacted in the first place: "To keep those people from voting." It's just wrong. America, let's evolve on this one and keep freedom free.
2
Question - If we believe in no taxation without representation, shouldn't that mean felons who can't vote are exempted from taxation?
2
Gov. McAuliffe's brazen executive order flies in the face of Virginia's state Constitution. The exception allowing the governor pardon and commutation powers is clearly secondary to the provision that felons NOT be allowed to vote unless cases are INDIVIDUALLY considered. The arrogant and lawless McAuliffe, as the arrogant and lawless Obama, takes to abusing the powers of his office and acting as a dictator in ways never seen before or contemplated in ethical government.
That is the new reality of the Obama/Clinton/McAuliffe Democratic Party. It favors dictatorial edicts over constitutions, dictatorial powers over laws passed by the legislative branch, and insults to law abiding citizens in favor of concessions to thugs, drug dealers, rapists and murderers.
How many of these felons allowed their victims to vote about being murdered, robbed, raped, otherwise viciously assaulted, or consigned to a scrap heap of terrible drug addiction?
That is the new reality of the Obama/Clinton/McAuliffe Democratic Party. It favors dictatorial edicts over constitutions, dictatorial powers over laws passed by the legislative branch, and insults to law abiding citizens in favor of concessions to thugs, drug dealers, rapists and murderers.
How many of these felons allowed their victims to vote about being murdered, robbed, raped, otherwise viciously assaulted, or consigned to a scrap heap of terrible drug addiction?
4
Wait a minute. Here's the entire text of Article V, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution. I don't see anything that says that "felons NOT be allowed to vote unless cases are INDIVIDUALLY considered:"
"The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.
He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same."
You couldn't find anything to fit the right-wing narrative playing in your head 24/7 about executive over-reach in the Obama administration (and by extension, the McAuliffe administration, and so, you just made something up. Nice.
"The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.
He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same."
You couldn't find anything to fit the right-wing narrative playing in your head 24/7 about executive over-reach in the Obama administration (and by extension, the McAuliffe administration, and so, you just made something up. Nice.
1
So they can vote.
But they still can't be on a jury or own a firearm.
Virginia's Constitution is the source of these prohibitions and and I've never known of an executive order that can negate a constitutional amendment. This is a transparent attempt to embarrass the Republicans as the court will certainly rule that the governor cannot cancel a constitutional law and then he can blame them for not repealing it.
More phoney baloney Democrat shenanigans.
But they still can't be on a jury or own a firearm.
Virginia's Constitution is the source of these prohibitions and and I've never known of an executive order that can negate a constitutional amendment. This is a transparent attempt to embarrass the Republicans as the court will certainly rule that the governor cannot cancel a constitutional law and then he can blame them for not repealing it.
More phoney baloney Democrat shenanigans.
2
Someday we will have a Supreme Court who will have the courage to call all these neocon initiatives poll taxes and outlaw them again.
10
The effort to draw lines between every policy matter and racism is fraught with problems and this matter is no different. People who go to prison commit crimes. Blanket decisions that treat all offenders alike equate child rapists with someone who steals a pack of gum. This is hardly the right line to be drawn. Further, the very concept that someone has "paid their debt" by serving a prison sentence is absurd. A person who rapes a child can never "pay their debt" and under no circumstances should that person have a role in determine public leadership. We have legitimate reasons for different length sentences but that does not absolve violent offenders of what they have actually done. Violent criminals should not own guns (another "right"). Convicted embezzlers shouldn't be handling your pension and Pedophiles shouldn't be teachers. Fortunately, we are smart enough to distinguish criminal activities. The Times apparently can't when blinded by politics or the vague hazy of racism.
2
Long long overdue.
Felons are experiencing a new 'blacklist'. Regardless of the duration of their sentence, it is essentially a life sentence.
No voting rights, limited job prospects in extremis, staggering fines, and in many cases irreparable damage to their families.
Our criminal justice system is but one small step above feeding people to the lions. Its a disgrace. Its on steroids with no change in sight.
Felons are experiencing a new 'blacklist'. Regardless of the duration of their sentence, it is essentially a life sentence.
No voting rights, limited job prospects in extremis, staggering fines, and in many cases irreparable damage to their families.
Our criminal justice system is but one small step above feeding people to the lions. Its a disgrace. Its on steroids with no change in sight.
9
How can the NYT Ed Board and its readership be so obtuse?
Terry McAuliffe, an intimate friend and ally of the Clintons for decades, is the consummate politico. All we're seeing is him use his office to manufacture more votes very likely to favor Clinton.
It is no more complicated than that. Did the NYT really need to waste resources, including the time of its readers, to do this intricate dance around the obvious?
Terry McAuliffe, an intimate friend and ally of the Clintons for decades, is the consummate politico. All we're seeing is him use his office to manufacture more votes very likely to favor Clinton.
It is no more complicated than that. Did the NYT really need to waste resources, including the time of its readers, to do this intricate dance around the obvious?
4
Well, the GOP could have changed the felon restriction, then they could take credit and gain more votes. But they're too mean spirited. They get more satisfaction by suppressing our citizens, whether it be abortion, LGBT, Blacks, poor, women, middle class on down economically.
The Gov. created a win win situation, felons get to vote and Dems will get their vote.
The Gov. created a win win situation, felons get to vote and Dems will get their vote.
2
Do does that mean you would have supported the governor's decision had he waited to do it until after the election?
Isn't that the Va governor that is a) a multimillionaire and b) has been a Clinton close associate for more than a dozen years? The interest in felony penalties is rather more recent and doubtless connected to a burgeoning interest in criminal justice rather than the Clinton campaign effort, though she undoubtedly needs the help.
2
There are really three issues here. One issue is whether felons should be allowed to vote once they have completed their sentences and paroles. I think they should? The other issue is whether the governor exceeded his authority. I think he did. The other issue is whether Voting Rights Act just be amended to permit it to be applied differently in some states than others. I think the Voting Rights Act should apply equally to all states. Why could amend the Voting Right Act to require all states to permit those convicted of crimes to vote once their sentences are complete, but this might run afoul of the 14th Amendment which permits states to disenfranchise criminals.
The kind of incorrigible felon you wouldn't want voting isn't going to take the trouble to vote, either. But, in any case, what's the connection or harm with ex-convicts voting? What does one have to with the other? Unless you view yourself as belonging to an over-class keeping down an underclass by all legal means.
7
It is very sad to me to see this once proud NYT, and the overwhelming majority of the readers are all so deeply sickened with the poison of runaway PC/Liberal Marxism, and are completely dishonest intellectually
1. What the Governor did was in violation of Virginia's constitution and therefore he, certainly didn't have the power to do by executive order, in fact it requires more than normal legislation, the amendment process is detailed in "Article XII – Future changes" of the Virginia State Constitution, which is relatively short, but too long to post here
-
This is a very sickening runaway trend in lawlessness by Executives now at every level of government, to simply usurp powers that they don't legally possess, and know that it is difficult to hold them in check
While the use of Executive Orders has a long history, it was really only in the GWB/Cheney administration that Executives began acting lawlessly , and now Obama has followed suit, and so has this Governor
We should expect to see this trend explode in the future, with horrendous effects
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person." -Charles-Louis de Secondat
2. It is an absolute certainty that this was a politically motivated stunt, the governor didn't run on this platform, and it is very well known that whatever measly portion of these ex-felons register and vote, they are sure to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Virginia is just one of 4 recognized swing states
1. What the Governor did was in violation of Virginia's constitution and therefore he, certainly didn't have the power to do by executive order, in fact it requires more than normal legislation, the amendment process is detailed in "Article XII – Future changes" of the Virginia State Constitution, which is relatively short, but too long to post here
-
This is a very sickening runaway trend in lawlessness by Executives now at every level of government, to simply usurp powers that they don't legally possess, and know that it is difficult to hold them in check
While the use of Executive Orders has a long history, it was really only in the GWB/Cheney administration that Executives began acting lawlessly , and now Obama has followed suit, and so has this Governor
We should expect to see this trend explode in the future, with horrendous effects
"There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person." -Charles-Louis de Secondat
2. It is an absolute certainty that this was a politically motivated stunt, the governor didn't run on this platform, and it is very well known that whatever measly portion of these ex-felons register and vote, they are sure to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Virginia is just one of 4 recognized swing states
4
you're missing quite a bit of history if you think executive orders started in the 21st century
2
To paraphrase the governor yesterday on the Sunday news shows, it's the job of a judge and jury to figure out a criminal's appropriate debt to society. Far be it for lawmakers to impose additional forms of penitence.
2
I have an idea for all those against this simple principle. If a person is convicted, sentenced, serves their time and is released - and completes probation - if they aren't allowed to vote they shouldn't have to pay taxes- federal or state.
Their tax dollars are used for the good of the many, if they have no say - no vote - then they shouldn't have to pay taxes.
No taxation without representation. Seems like a principle this country was founded on. Good enough for our forefathers, should be good enough for us.
Their tax dollars are used for the good of the many, if they have no say - no vote - then they shouldn't have to pay taxes.
No taxation without representation. Seems like a principle this country was founded on. Good enough for our forefathers, should be good enough for us.
10
While many here, especially the NYTimes, applaud this governor's executive action, we would all be better off if we truly thought about activism and it's pros and cons. I don't believe the governor did this out of the goodness of his heart, but let's pretend he did. Even so, do you really believe a governor should be allowed executive action where he/she just decides what laws to follow and what laws not to follow?!
The new idea coming out of the left arm of the Democratic party is that the ends justify the means. It's as if the constitution and laws of this country to not matter, if they don't like them. Anarchy and the destruction of this country is around the corner if that continues.
The problem is that the majority have no voice at all when activists rule. This governor just destroyed hundreds of years of sweat and tears with a strike of his pen; ignoring the citizens he works for and is supposed to represent. I have no doubt that there are merits to allowing ex-felons to vote; they have served their time and presumably are ready to enter back into society. Except most get out and commit crimes again, then go back. But, let's be positive - LET THE PEOPLE VOTE, King governor has no right to be king.
The new idea coming out of the left arm of the Democratic party is that the ends justify the means. It's as if the constitution and laws of this country to not matter, if they don't like them. Anarchy and the destruction of this country is around the corner if that continues.
The problem is that the majority have no voice at all when activists rule. This governor just destroyed hundreds of years of sweat and tears with a strike of his pen; ignoring the citizens he works for and is supposed to represent. I have no doubt that there are merits to allowing ex-felons to vote; they have served their time and presumably are ready to enter back into society. Except most get out and commit crimes again, then go back. But, let's be positive - LET THE PEOPLE VOTE, King governor has no right to be king.
6
Hey Mary - what? So vote or no vote? You feel that a person who has been tried, convicted and served their time should be additionally punished for no apparent reason. If a person gets out , gets a job, pays taxes then they should have a say in how those taxes are spent. If you want to deprive them of that then ok, let them not vote and not pay taxes. Its called taxation without representation. We didn't abide by it over 240 years ago why abide by it now? no vote =no taxes. ok?
1
You make a grave error when you assign this point of view to only Democrats. I've watch Republican and Democratic legislatures and executives defy the Constitution at will. Understanding and abiding by the limits of separation of powers is much more complex than you apparently think, but I guess it doesn't matter as long "those people" (pick your minority group) aren't allowed to exercise the same rights you do.
1
Mary, you need not worry that "the destruction of this country is around the corner" or that this order "destroyed hundreds of years of sweat and tears with a stroke of [a] pen." This Executive Order is entirely legal within the framework of the Virginia State Constitution and also federal law. It can be undone as easily as it was enacted by some future governor. Nightmares of some sort of destruction should not keep you from sleeping quite soundly.
In your state of Georgia (as in most states), felonies do not carry lifetime bans from voting as part of the sentence. I'm glad that my state, however belatedly, is (on this issue) graduating from the ugly and explicitly racist policies of the Reconstruction Era in Virginia including (among other things) disenfranchisement of people of color. The current action, of course, helps people of all races. We have no king - just a governor acting entirely within the law.
In your state of Georgia (as in most states), felonies do not carry lifetime bans from voting as part of the sentence. I'm glad that my state, however belatedly, is (on this issue) graduating from the ugly and explicitly racist policies of the Reconstruction Era in Virginia including (among other things) disenfranchisement of people of color. The current action, of course, helps people of all races. We have no king - just a governor acting entirely within the law.
1
Another blight on our nation - the racist background and continued racism of disenfranchisement. Good for the governor.
4
“World Ends!! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit”.
Please. The left is not constrained by facts and lives in a fantasy world in which wholly reasonable and completely sensible requirements – like presenting an ID and proving you’re a citizen – morph into nefarious “voter suppression” efforts. A world in which purging voter lists represents an outrageous affront on “minorities” and in which banning convicted rapists, murderers, and other criminals from voting is controversial.
Witness the numerous SNAFUs in NY to see that incompetence is simply the hallmark of government; indeed, given that both NY and NJ have extremely limited “early voting”, it takes a good deal of chutzpah for a NY paper to bellyache about matters south.
It’s no surprise that a deeply partisan Democrat considers the felon vote important. Just as it’s no surprise the Democrats dismiss the relevance of fraud since, when it happens, Democrats are (almost) ALWAYS the perps.
(Too, this cycle demonstrated the hazards of “early voting”, with people who cast ballots early finding them useless, as the candidate they supported left the race before the date of the election.)
As with other areas of life, when power is involved, people – overwhelmingly Democrats – will cheat to get it. Those who support free and fair elections should support such reasonable precautions to ensure against such cheating.
Please. The left is not constrained by facts and lives in a fantasy world in which wholly reasonable and completely sensible requirements – like presenting an ID and proving you’re a citizen – morph into nefarious “voter suppression” efforts. A world in which purging voter lists represents an outrageous affront on “minorities” and in which banning convicted rapists, murderers, and other criminals from voting is controversial.
Witness the numerous SNAFUs in NY to see that incompetence is simply the hallmark of government; indeed, given that both NY and NJ have extremely limited “early voting”, it takes a good deal of chutzpah for a NY paper to bellyache about matters south.
It’s no surprise that a deeply partisan Democrat considers the felon vote important. Just as it’s no surprise the Democrats dismiss the relevance of fraud since, when it happens, Democrats are (almost) ALWAYS the perps.
(Too, this cycle demonstrated the hazards of “early voting”, with people who cast ballots early finding them useless, as the candidate they supported left the race before the date of the election.)
As with other areas of life, when power is involved, people – overwhelmingly Democrats – will cheat to get it. Those who support free and fair elections should support such reasonable precautions to ensure against such cheating.
3
“I want you back in society. I want you feeling good about yourself. I want you voting, getting a job, paying taxes.” Bravo, Governor McAuliffe. We call our prison systems "Department of Corrections," implying that some sort of correction is going on. Some would evidently prefer "Department of Punishment and Permanent Disenfranchisement."
48
The CDC ("California Department of Corrections") years ago ironically now calls itself and its 130,000 population under its private-industry iron-fisted rule the "CDCR" or "California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation".
Harty har har.
Harty har har.
I am thinking all the convicted felons will vote democratic!
1
It's hard enough, even in a contentious election year like this, to get the average citizen with no impediments to his voting status actually to go to the polls. Lots of people have an opinion and are loud about it, but when election day finally rolls around many don't follow up.
Of all the disadvantages imposed on ex-convicts, I don't imagine not being able to vote has been the one keeping them up at night. So relax, right-wingers. The polls will not suddenly be swamped by felons clamouring to cast their ballot.
Of all the disadvantages imposed on ex-convicts, I don't imagine not being able to vote has been the one keeping them up at night. So relax, right-wingers. The polls will not suddenly be swamped by felons clamouring to cast their ballot.
1
Very proud to be from Virginia today.
9
WOW! This opinion piece sure hit a raw nerve - several of them, I think. "We are just good citizens doing the sensible thing'". In other words, let's forget about the consequential injustices our sensible thinking causes. Little wonder there are so few black Republicans. Lifetime disenfranchisement makes about as much sense as the "Bathroom Bills" passed in North Carolina and Mississippi. That's another "common sense" bill. Little wonder there are so few LGBT Republicans. If enough women wake up to the fact that many Republican controlled state legislatures are acting as de facto medical supervising boards to their ob-gyn doctors, there might be faw fewer female Republicans.
10
Congress should restore pre-clearance for all jurisdictions. Voter suppression efforts are underway outside the boundaries of the old Confederacy. It's unseemly for the Editorial Board to fan the flames of sectionalism by promoting a law aimed only at the South.
4
Speaking of the old Confederacy, why do you suppose permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons is concentrated in states that were slave states during the Civil War? Do other states just not care about crime?
16
Why even mention the "old Confederacy?" If you meant "old" in the sense of "former," I suggest you rethink. The "Confederacy" is alive and well. It has in fact expanded to include some of the Mountain states. Regrettably, it is now a Confederacy of Dunces.
2
@Miriam
"Speaking of the old Confederacy, why do you suppose permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons is concentrated in states that were slave states during the Civil War?"
You mean like Delaware? I didn't know Delaware was a "slave state." How'd I miss that?
On April 16, 2013 the Delaware Senate passed the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act, thereby amending the state's Constitution by removing the five year waiting period for most felons to regain the ability to vote. People convicted of a felony (with some exceptions) are now automatically eligible to vote after serving their full sentence including incarceration, parole, and probation. But people convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense, remain permanently disqualified from voting.
South Carolina, on the other hand, has restrictions similar to New York. Voting rights in SC are restored after completion of period of incarceration plus parole or probation. New York restores after periods of incarceration and parole are completed.
Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina are the same as South Carolina. And there are some more "backwoods places" that are pretty good as well.
Research is good for the soul...
"Speaking of the old Confederacy, why do you suppose permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons is concentrated in states that were slave states during the Civil War?"
You mean like Delaware? I didn't know Delaware was a "slave state." How'd I miss that?
On April 16, 2013 the Delaware Senate passed the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act, thereby amending the state's Constitution by removing the five year waiting period for most felons to regain the ability to vote. People convicted of a felony (with some exceptions) are now automatically eligible to vote after serving their full sentence including incarceration, parole, and probation. But people convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense, remain permanently disqualified from voting.
South Carolina, on the other hand, has restrictions similar to New York. Voting rights in SC are restored after completion of period of incarceration plus parole or probation. New York restores after periods of incarceration and parole are completed.
Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina are the same as South Carolina. And there are some more "backwoods places" that are pretty good as well.
Research is good for the soul...
3
"Perfect freedom is as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it is to the health and vigor of citizenship." - Patrick Henry
Justice demands that one who has met fully their responsibility to society receive restored societal freedoms without additional conditions.
An ID requirement imposed by a state on its citizens is backward. It falls to the state to issue to its citizens any ID it requires to vote unless the state can prove ineligibility. Instead, we have states automatically disallowing a citizen's access to voting unless they can prove their eligibility. That turns freedom, justice, and citizenship on its head. If a state believes there's an issue with an individual voter, then it is the state's responsibility to prove so, not the other way around. A sacred principle in American justice is "innocent until proven guilty". Allowing states to ignore that principle flies in the face of liberty and justice for all and all citizens need to reject anything that does so.
Justice demands that one who has met fully their responsibility to society receive restored societal freedoms without additional conditions.
An ID requirement imposed by a state on its citizens is backward. It falls to the state to issue to its citizens any ID it requires to vote unless the state can prove ineligibility. Instead, we have states automatically disallowing a citizen's access to voting unless they can prove their eligibility. That turns freedom, justice, and citizenship on its head. If a state believes there's an issue with an individual voter, then it is the state's responsibility to prove so, not the other way around. A sacred principle in American justice is "innocent until proven guilty". Allowing states to ignore that principle flies in the face of liberty and justice for all and all citizens need to reject anything that does so.
4
Notwithstanding the merits of McAuliffe's move, the timing of this is fairly obvious: the governor has been a close ally of the Clintons for decades, and if this doesn't help Hillary in VA, I don't know what would. Especially if Trump is her opponent in the general election. Quid pro quo.
2
Why is it always Republicans who support voter ID and keeping the vote away from felons for life? 'Voter fraud' is simply does not exist (a moments honest reflection will yield the realization that there are far easier ways to rig elections), and criminals should not be criminals for life (if a newly released prisoner can't find a job, a way to eat, a way to participate in his world, he will guess what, return to crime).
Why can't those on the right see this?
Why can't those on the right see this?
5
Should we stop incarcerating murderers because more people of a given race murder? It is absurd to change policy because of a disproportionate effect on a given community if that given community is more prone to committing a certain offense. The motivation of the law is not to stop a racial group from voting- it is to stop a criminal from voting.
Perhaps we should focus more on getting individuals, any individual, to obey the law. Then this would not be a problem at all.
Perhaps we should focus more on getting individuals, any individual, to obey the law. Then this would not be a problem at all.
3
Hey Surgeon, how do you stop a criminal from voting? answer- you can't.
You can stop a convicted criminal though even after they have paid their debt to society per societies laws- why? If they have paid their dues, get a job and pay taxes, they should be able to vote. Period. Focus on getting individuals to obey the law? Really? Are you trying to be ignorant have you already achieved that goal....
You can stop a convicted criminal though even after they have paid their debt to society per societies laws- why? If they have paid their dues, get a job and pay taxes, they should be able to vote. Period. Focus on getting individuals to obey the law? Really? Are you trying to be ignorant have you already achieved that goal....
CONGRESS SHOULD ACT, Indeed, to restore voting rights in States such as OH, WI and 17 other states that have intentionally put in place acts that have the effect of disenfranchising large numbers of voters, a disproportionate amount of whom are African American. It is a national disgrace and blot on the Supreme Court that witch hunts have been undertaken in at least 19 states. As in the Salem witch hunts, those states will kill the voting rights in order to "protect" the voting process from crime, thereby perpetrating a huge number of crimes as legislative acts. In Salem, the suspected witches were tied to chairs and kept underwater to "save" their souls, often after having been forced to confess to sexual intercourse with the Devil. The current round of slaying of votes is due to getting in bed politically with current-day witch hunters, who have acted as the Devil by destroying voting rights in order to protect the "integrity" of voting. Getting any constructive action from GOP dominated legislatures is well-night impossible, as we've learned in PA, where the budget battle between the Democratic governor, Tom Wolf, was subjected to a disgraceful battle and veto override the GOP budget designed to take money from schools and social programs in order to "protect" taxpayers, mostly of the 1%, from paying any new taxes, as many in GOP had signed a no new taxes pledge set forth by Grover Norquist. The governor of VA has done the right thing by restoring felons' votes.
2
This article and the comments just underscore the fact that having voting procedures dictated by the states is antiquated and problematic in this day and age. US citizens should receive the same/similar experience when voting no matter what state they happen to live in.
7
I hope the Governor is ready for Karl Rove and his ilk and the Willie Horton ads they'll use to scare the electorate.
2
Seems to me if you've done the time for your crime, your voting rights should be restored. There's really no logical explanation to deny them, except as means to suppress voting.
11
"There's really no logical explanation to deny them, except as means to suppress voting."
I'm sure you'll feel the same way when they sue for the right to own a firearm and be on a jury.
I'm sure you'll feel the same way when they sue for the right to own a firearm and be on a jury.
1
National ID.
Use technology and policy to make voting easier for all. After all we have online banking. We should be able to vote easily using high tech.
And restore voting rights to felons.
Use technology and policy to make voting easier for all. After all we have online banking. We should be able to vote easily using high tech.
And restore voting rights to felons.
2
If anyone can vote without any proof of who they are, the right to vote becomes meaningless. We impose proof of identity requirements on many aspects of daily life. You cannot pick up a registered letter at the post office without providing proof of identity. You cannot open a bank account, get a driver's license, cash a check, enter many buildings in NYC, etc., without proving who you are, and, sometimes, more. Thus, it should come as no surprise that there should be some requirement of proof of identity to exercise one of the most important rights we have as a citizen. As long as the proof required is reasonable, it is clearly an acceptable requirement.
3
So you have never voted in your life? You didn't know about the book at the polling place where your information is kept and that you have to SIGN to be able to vote.
Funny that the ONLY people who want to keep minorities from voting are the same people who have never voted themselves... I wonder why that is?
Funny that the ONLY people who want to keep minorities from voting are the same people who have never voted themselves... I wonder why that is?
2
jpDuff in triplicate, buried in your diatribe is the the key word, "as long as the proof required is ... "reasonable". Unfortunately therein lies the mischief, and I suspect that you know that, and it's why you're taking the position.
1
Jpduff3, I can speak from personal experience on this subject. I was born and raised in New York City and have lived in New York City all my life. I got every job I ever had without an ID card, as well as the apartment I am renting now. I got the last of bpth in the early 90's. I have opened bank accounts and cashed many checks without having to present a government-issued photo ID. I even joined the Queens Borough Public Library without a photo ID. I did most of these things before the ID-mania that set in after the 9/11 attacks.
OTOH I don't drive and have not flown or been abroad since the 1970's. But I have voted in nearly every election since I became old enough to vote (at 21), even the runoff election for public advocate in 2013. My ID? My signature.
It was last year, after I retired, that I first got my DMV-issued non-driver's ID card.
So I've been there, and I have no trouble at all believing there are millions of undocumented native-born citizens just as I was until very recently.
To escape from that undocumented state, I had to pay a healthy price for a facsimile birth certificate and pay multiple visits to government offices. Which would have been far more difficult if I had been poor, or homebound, or without transportation, or had to show up every day without fail in order to continue receiving my meager sustenance, or if I'd never gotten a proper birth certificate when I was born.
OTOH I don't drive and have not flown or been abroad since the 1970's. But I have voted in nearly every election since I became old enough to vote (at 21), even the runoff election for public advocate in 2013. My ID? My signature.
It was last year, after I retired, that I first got my DMV-issued non-driver's ID card.
So I've been there, and I have no trouble at all believing there are millions of undocumented native-born citizens just as I was until very recently.
To escape from that undocumented state, I had to pay a healthy price for a facsimile birth certificate and pay multiple visits to government offices. Which would have been far more difficult if I had been poor, or homebound, or without transportation, or had to show up every day without fail in order to continue receiving my meager sustenance, or if I'd never gotten a proper birth certificate when I was born.
I'm sure former Virginia Republican governor Bob McDonnell and his wife are glad that Gov McAuliffe has restored voting rights to people convicted of a felony. Now they can keep their right to vote when their sentences are completed.
6
Assuming that "felons' are African Americans is unfair and reinforces a damaging stereotype.
Felons,of any race, forfeit their right to vote.
Felons,of any race, forfeit their right to vote.
3
I believe the point was that African Americans are over represented in the felon population, so they are more affected by the voting rights loss than European Americans.
2
To those commenters who fear a rash of murderers and rapists voting (and remember that they are on the streets anyway), you might want to see this list of NON-violent felonies in VA...and by the way, the GOP Gov. McDonnell restored the voting and other civil rights of 4,843 “non-violent” felons in Virginia since taking office, more than any other governor with that authority.
• Bank Fraud
• Breaking & Entering (Unless committed with a deadly weapon)
• Credit Card Theft/Credit Card Fraud/Credit Card Forgery
• Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated,
3rd or Subsequent Offense
• Drug Possession (must not be Drug Possession with the
Intent to Distribute)
• Embezzlement
• False Statement on Firearm Transaction Record
• Felonious Shoplifting/Concealment/Price Altering
• Felony Eluding Police
• Forgery
• Grand Larceny
• Habitual Offender
• Identity Theft
• Issuing Bad Checks/Worthless Checks
• Mail Theft/Mail Fraud
• Obtain Money by False Pretenses
• Perjury
• Petit Larceny, 3rd or Subsequent Offense
• Possession of Burglarious Tools
• Prescription Fraud/Obtain Drugs by Fraud
• Statutory Burglary (Unless committed with a deadly weapon)
• Unlawful Possession of a Concealed Weapon
• Uttering (misrepresenting and distributing a false document)
• Welfare Fraud
• Bank Fraud
• Breaking & Entering (Unless committed with a deadly weapon)
• Credit Card Theft/Credit Card Fraud/Credit Card Forgery
• Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated,
3rd or Subsequent Offense
• Drug Possession (must not be Drug Possession with the
Intent to Distribute)
• Embezzlement
• False Statement on Firearm Transaction Record
• Felonious Shoplifting/Concealment/Price Altering
• Felony Eluding Police
• Forgery
• Grand Larceny
• Habitual Offender
• Identity Theft
• Issuing Bad Checks/Worthless Checks
• Mail Theft/Mail Fraud
• Obtain Money by False Pretenses
• Perjury
• Petit Larceny, 3rd or Subsequent Offense
• Possession of Burglarious Tools
• Prescription Fraud/Obtain Drugs by Fraud
• Statutory Burglary (Unless committed with a deadly weapon)
• Unlawful Possession of a Concealed Weapon
• Uttering (misrepresenting and distributing a false document)
• Welfare Fraud
2
Good for the governor! He is absolutely correct!
2
If convicted felons can vote, the drunk driver who killed your family may be right in front of you in the voting line. Or maybe your daughter's crazed husband who shot her and paralyzed her. Liberals can be oblivious to reality. This is one example.
2
Why not? They're citizens, and when they've repaid their debt to society, they should have their rights restored. They pay taxes when they're back in the population and have other responsibilities as citizens, so why shouldn't they get to vote for people who determine public policy?
I just so dislike all the scare mongering going on, once again. Please look at the list of so-called felonies which excluded people from voting. Come on: we are talking about citizens after all.
1
They could be right in front of me at the grocery store too. What's your point?
1
I believe that all felons who have completed their sentences and probations should be allowed to vote, BUT I also feel that just as when people register for food stamps, a drivers license or to open a bank account, they and all voters should be made to show ID when voting. How can this be construed as impeding one's right to vote? Everyone who uses a cash machine, collects Social Security or other government benefits, or drives a car has ID. Come on America...lets use common sense here. Voter fraud does exist and it is VERY easily accomplished.
11
Keep pretending like it has anything to do with ID...we all know it has nothing to do with ID or they would allow any form of photo ID including handicapped license photo ID or VA photo ID or military ID for retired military or ID from State universities or the ones they issue at the welfare office or the photo IDs they hang around the necks of all nursing home patients when they take them on outings......or any of dozens of other photo IDs.
They would not require that the IDs ONLY come from the DMV, then close down all the DMVs in minority neighborhoods to keep them from getting an ID.
There is NO voter fraud... there is only election fraud and it is the republicans in office who are committing it and the white supremacists that are defending it.
They would not require that the IDs ONLY come from the DMV, then close down all the DMVs in minority neighborhoods to keep them from getting an ID.
There is NO voter fraud... there is only election fraud and it is the republicans in office who are committing it and the white supremacists that are defending it.
4
Just so you're clear, Mimi, the incidence of voter fraud is virtually ZERO. I've stated elsewhere in this comment string that I'm a resident of Colorado where every citizen can vote by mail and there is no voter ID. Our thankfully former tea party secretary of state (Scott Gessler) spent over a million dollars in taxpayer money -- some of it mine -- to catch all the fraudulent voters. After two years he came up with about 20 names, and all of them had nothing to do with fraudulent voting. On the other hand, all the states that have enacted these kinds of laws are already successfully disenfranchising people who would otherwise be 100% qualified to vote. And the 'disenfranchised' comprise "certain" people (minorities, poor, college students, etc.). This article is about restoring voting rights to felons who have served their time, so voter ID isn't the topic here, but since so many have raised the issue, I think it's good to have some perspective on the reality of the non-existent 'fraudulent' voter.
2
Mimi, you would have a point, if all reasonable forms of ID were accepted. Unfortunately, many forms of ID are summarily rejected, thus disenfranchising many people, including those who do not drive, many students, and those for whom a new ID entails a burdensome cost (e.g., the poor and disenfranchised!), among others. Voter suppression is an injustice whose scope is literally thousands of times worse than voter fraud. That it's happening in the USA is yet another ironic, man-made tragedy for our country.
1
pat knapp says, "You do wrong, and you're done -- for eternity". Perhaps in YOUR religious organization, pat. THAT is why America has separation of church and state - so people with medieval thinking like yours can't play "god".
6
If we have criminals in office why not let criminals vote? At least the criminals that have done time may have been rehabilitated. Besides, it seems rather unfair to tell someone that they have to pay taxes, be subject to our laws, etc., and then tell them that they can't vote because they committed a crime either in the recent or distant past. There is such a thing as forgiveness (for lack of a better word). Depriving a person for the rest of his life of the right to vote on things that will affect him does come across as vindictive and stupid. If we feel that we have no stake in things it changes our attitudes, not necessarily for the better.
I think we need to overhaul our entire voting system, at least in NY. If we want people to vote it should be simple to register, change parties, vote in a primary, vote on Election Day, etc. The commotion about illegal immigrants voting is just that: a commotion with no basis in fact. We have far more to lose when we block people from voting.
I think we need to overhaul our entire voting system, at least in NY. If we want people to vote it should be simple to register, change parties, vote in a primary, vote on Election Day, etc. The commotion about illegal immigrants voting is just that: a commotion with no basis in fact. We have far more to lose when we block people from voting.
5
Those who disparage McAuliffe's actions might remember that our penal system is SUPPOSED to rehabilitate. And we also might remember that many who were incarcerated were themselves victims of poor education, poverty, racial bias and ridiculous attitudes about marijuana. I believe in redemption....and maybe with these disenfranchised citizens having a voice, our whole penal and justice systems might get cleaned up.
4
We vote to elect our representatives. By what right or logic should we exclude ANYONE from representation.
4
It's the so-called Rule-of-Law doctrine but that's too Old School for your Party
From the American Bar Association: "The rule of law is intended to promote stability, but a society that operates under the rule of law must also remain vigilant to ensure the rule of law also serves the interests of justice."
It's that justice thing that "our Party" is concerned about as law and justice are two different things.
It's that justice thing that "our Party" is concerned about as law and justice are two different things.
Having a photo ID makes things like voting complicated? I would suggest that anyone without photo ID would have a very, very complicated life in 2016.
3
Well then, I guess you are are one of the privileged white people.
Millions of people between the ages of 18 and 25 still live at home with their parents and do NOT have 2 utility bills in their names...which is required to get an ID in many states now.
Or you were born AFTER birth certificates were a thing and born in a hospital and not at home like millions of people in their 60s, 70s and 80s...can't get any ID without birth certificate now.
You probably do not live in an apartment where the utilities are part of the rent like so much low income housing is... sorry...need TWO utility bills in your name and at your physical address... you have a post office box? ...so sorry, no voting for you either.
All the good people in this country are sick of these right wing lies that will never die, no matter how many times they have been proven to be lies. Heck, they have caught republicans on camera admitting that the ID laws were just election fraud and still the right wing zombies keep the lies alive.
Millions of people between the ages of 18 and 25 still live at home with their parents and do NOT have 2 utility bills in their names...which is required to get an ID in many states now.
Or you were born AFTER birth certificates were a thing and born in a hospital and not at home like millions of people in their 60s, 70s and 80s...can't get any ID without birth certificate now.
You probably do not live in an apartment where the utilities are part of the rent like so much low income housing is... sorry...need TWO utility bills in your name and at your physical address... you have a post office box? ...so sorry, no voting for you either.
All the good people in this country are sick of these right wing lies that will never die, no matter how many times they have been proven to be lies. Heck, they have caught republicans on camera admitting that the ID laws were just election fraud and still the right wing zombies keep the lies alive.
1
Whoa. Hold on there.
What about the 126,00 voters who mysteriously vaporized in Brooklyn just prior to their being able to vote for Bernie Sanders in the April 19 Democratic primary election in New York?
And what about the stories coming out of Maricopa County, Arizona where decisions by local elections officials closed so many polling places that many people who wanted to vote had to wait five hours in order to do so, while many others couldn't locate the few polling stations that remained open?
And what about the many states outside of the South cited by the Brennan Center report including Nebraska, South and North Dakota, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire?
When Congress renews the Voting Rights Act, let's make sure it applies equally and evenly to the entire country. If nothing else, including such a provision will deny opponents the tired, old -- by oft-heard nonetheless -- argument that the VRA discriminated against the South.
What about the 126,00 voters who mysteriously vaporized in Brooklyn just prior to their being able to vote for Bernie Sanders in the April 19 Democratic primary election in New York?
And what about the stories coming out of Maricopa County, Arizona where decisions by local elections officials closed so many polling places that many people who wanted to vote had to wait five hours in order to do so, while many others couldn't locate the few polling stations that remained open?
And what about the many states outside of the South cited by the Brennan Center report including Nebraska, South and North Dakota, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire?
When Congress renews the Voting Rights Act, let's make sure it applies equally and evenly to the entire country. If nothing else, including such a provision will deny opponents the tired, old -- by oft-heard nonetheless -- argument that the VRA discriminated against the South.
4
The idea that if a person has a felony conviction on their record can NEVER vote again, is antithetical to a country that is supposed to be a democracy. The premise is that a person will be punished for the rest of his life, they can never serve their sentence.
Republicans have also never shown any evidence of anyone committing voter ID fraud, they just passed laws and the five Republcians on the Supreme court supported their voter suppression efforts.
Republicans have also never shown any evidence of anyone committing voter ID fraud, they just passed laws and the five Republcians on the Supreme court supported their voter suppression efforts.
11
" antithetical to a country that is supposed to be a democracy."
The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The founders despised democracy seeing it as rule by mob.
The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The founders despised democracy seeing it as rule by mob.
1
Hey guys, you forgot: racism is over in amerika. The gang of nine said so.
2
Only four-fifths of the gang of nine said so.
Sorry, I meant only five-ninths of the gang of nine said so.
It's really simple: if you can physically get to your polling place or have them send you an absentee ballot then you should be able to vote. Personally I would let convicts vote but I'll settle for letting everyone else vote - easily.
3
It's political in GA and has been for years. I once encountered a woman who had murdered her husband and served time, back on jury duty as the governor had pardoned her because her family was political. I had to use a strike to get rid of her. And a transgender I had sent to jail on a plea bargain appeared on another jury panel and told me she had no grudge against me. I had to use a strike on her also. And a white male who had burned a courthouse in rural GA to try to destroy evidence against him on another case was pardoned by the governor because of his political connections. I tried and convicted him of murder, so at least now he's not absentee voting from prison, I hope.
Too much politics involved. And what do you do if all the people you've sent to jail over 28 years appear on jury duty, as they can do as well as vote, when pardoned? This is not marijuana, it's murder.
Too much politics involved. And what do you do if all the people you've sent to jail over 28 years appear on jury duty, as they can do as well as vote, when pardoned? This is not marijuana, it's murder.
1
At what point does "cruel and unusual" kick in with these guys? The incessant need to punish people must be hard wired into their heads.
7
"At what point does "cruel and unusual" kick in with these guys?"
You obviously have no idea what "cruel and unusual" punishment is. For your sake I hope you never have the opportunity to find out.
You obviously have no idea what "cruel and unusual" punishment is. For your sake I hope you never have the opportunity to find out.
1
Bravo, McAuliffe! We imprison felons for a set period of time as punishment. Once they have served their time they should be, and in Virginia will be, even with the society that has punished them. There is no reason in the world why they should be start again with a clean slate.
5
Beyond the fact that people who have paid their debt to society are being shut out of the democratic process here is another problem, "in the absence of a strong pre-emptive tool like Section 5, the only meaningful remedy to a discriminatory voting change is litigation". It costs hardworking taxpayers dearly for every one of these lawsuits - such a waste of money. Here is the solution, "Congress should amend the Voting Rights Act to restore preclearance and apply it to all jurisdictions with a recent history of discriminatory voting practices." One more VERY good reason to elect only socially conscious democrats and independents to restore democracy in America.
9
While yes, people who've served their time should get their citizenship rights back, I have to think that at least part of the story is that Governor McAuliffe thinks that these new voters are more likely to support Hillary Clinton. After all, McAuliffe built his career by raising money for the Clinton campaign back in the 1990s.
3
This would never happen in Nevada. You commit a crime here then you lose everything. And never commit a crime in a casino as OJ Simpson will tell you. The governor of Virginia is ultra liberal and I really do not like his policy of allowing felons to vote.
6
Perhaps a Presidential Medal of Freedom would be an appropriate response for this governor who campaigned for, fought for, and brought about a change for the better in our country. People make mistakes, some are caught, few should be branded for the rest of their lives.
5
Seems executive orders are not unique to the Federal government. Anyway, who needs the legislative branch of government as it seems to work real well in Cuba...!
2
Easy Billsays. You're standing once again, as always, on the slippery slope of silly conflation and sheer irrelevance.
Please invite the Carter Center to monitor our presidential election. No need to travel abroad to some "third world" dictatorship when all the hallmarks of a totalitarian society with its ownership of the press, its merciless suppression of any democratic impulse, its skewing of law to support the oligarchy, and its blatant concentration of power and wealth. Yes, the people can say what they want, but their voices are suffocated by voter suppression and private money in politics.
12
If one believes that permanently and unconditionally removing voting rights from felons is wrong, then this act is right. It is hard for me to fathom why someone who has served his or her sentence, all conditions of parole, and returned to life in society should be barred from voting forever. This seems like an overdue course correction to me.
13
Do you think they should be prohibited from owning a firearm forever?
1
Depends on what the crime was.
1
Absolutely the right thing to do, Gov. McAuliffe. What should be a no-brainer in the ideal world takes uncommon courage in the real one. Well and justly done.
11
Its disingenuous to say that the law was "racist" since committing a felony is something one gets caught doing. It is not the law but the fact that African Americans are more likely to be accused and convicted of a felony by police and the courts.
3
It's true that African-Americans are much more likely to be accused and convicted of crimes. A lot of people, though, falsely assume that the only reason this happens is that African-Americans are more likely to commit crimes.
For example, white people and black people use marijuana at approximately the same rates, but only black people are routinely accused and jailed for it, even when the police catch white people with dope (an acquaintance of mine stayed out of jail solely due to this phenomenon).
For example, white people and black people use marijuana at approximately the same rates, but only black people are routinely accused and jailed for it, even when the police catch white people with dope (an acquaintance of mine stayed out of jail solely due to this phenomenon).
7
@NYT Reader: So when are going to go after white collar criminals, who are predominantly white and who do far more financial harm than a robbery or drug felony? You may not say its racist, but it certainly is. Blacks go to jail, rich whites do not. Both convict felonies.
1
What could go wrong. IT will be promoting diversity and fairness to have convicted rapist sitting in the jury of a rape trial. It will be comforting for the women who are facing an accuser in court to know that some members of the jury have "experience" in rape trials.
Will the families of murder victims get two votes to make up for the one that was lost? Try to repackage this any way you can to help the Democrats but it is seen for what it is. A sell out of the law abiding people in order to get votes. Sick and selfish are the two words that should go to anyone trying to give voter and jury rights to convicted murders and child molesters.
Will the families of murder victims get two votes to make up for the one that was lost? Try to repackage this any way you can to help the Democrats but it is seen for what it is. A sell out of the law abiding people in order to get votes. Sick and selfish are the two words that should go to anyone trying to give voter and jury rights to convicted murders and child molesters.
5
Curiously, while the Gov is stalwart in protecting the voting rights of felons, the right of felons to sit of juries, etc., they are apparently NOT trustworthy enough to have their second amendment rights restored.
Perhaps that should be the standard: if the left won't trust you with a gun, you can't be trusted to vote.
Perhaps that should be the standard: if the left won't trust you with a gun, you can't be trusted to vote.
2
A convicted rapist would never be allowed to sit on a jury...any jury. Those called for jury duty are required to disclose past histories, and prosecutors would exclude that person from the pool of candidates.
If a convicted rapist was seated on a rape trail that would be the obvious error of the states attorney. Your snarky remarks aside these are US citizens who have served their time and should have the right to vote just like you and me.
I am consistently sickened by Republicans' blockage of voting rights. Somehow, I am unable to understand how fabricating ridiculous phobias about voter fraud and then instituting laws to deny participation in the democratic process falls under their dogma of "small government."
Fortunately, their true motives have been exposed in the past year, with their tireless efforts to block Donald Trump's nomination and orchestrate a brokered convention. Disenfranchising voters is no longer enough for party elites - they now need to actively overturn election results when they don't suite their desires.
Why doesn't the GOP just officially push for an oligarchy and be done with it?
Fortunately, their true motives have been exposed in the past year, with their tireless efforts to block Donald Trump's nomination and orchestrate a brokered convention. Disenfranchising voters is no longer enough for party elites - they now need to actively overturn election results when they don't suite their desires.
Why doesn't the GOP just officially push for an oligarchy and be done with it?
12
The main problem with voter suppression is self suppression - the huge number of people who don't vote for no other reason than they can't be bothered. Let's tackle that.
4
In Australia, failure to vote in a national election is an offense punishable by fine. If a voter finds all of the candidates repugnant, he or she, is free to cast a blank ballot, but a better alternative would be to make "None Of The Above (NOTA)" a perennial candidate, allowing voters to express their disapproval of the available choices.
1
I find it amazing that democrats feel compelled to pander to felons, 66% of whom will be reoffend and be re-incarcerated. At the same time, they malign and insult working class blue collar voters who've left the party to support Trump (calling them low information, stupid, etc).
Why don't you libs invite a felon to your home for dinner, or let one date your daughter, I mean, after all, they've paid their debt to society?
Why don't you libs invite a felon to your home for dinner, or let one date your daughter, I mean, after all, they've paid their debt to society?
6
There are a lot of people I wouldn't invite over for dinner. And my fictitious daughter is welcome to date anyone she chooses.
It seems unfair to restrict the voting rights of a poor, desperate, misguided person who robs a convenience store, while telling rich people who deceitfully contribute to the collapse of the American economy continue to vote with both their ballots and their money.
Let everyone vote. What possible position could a felon have and support through voting that would be detrimental to society? I mean, their support of anything truly bad would be overwhelmed by other voters, right?
It seems unfair to restrict the voting rights of a poor, desperate, misguided person who robs a convenience store, while telling rich people who deceitfully contribute to the collapse of the American economy continue to vote with both their ballots and their money.
Let everyone vote. What possible position could a felon have and support through voting that would be detrimental to society? I mean, their support of anything truly bad would be overwhelmed by other voters, right?
Democrats have consistently supported working class blue collar voters. Education, healthcare, unemployment protection, unions...these are all supported by the Democrats, and are demonstrably NOT supported by Republicans, who have traditionally favored business owners over the workers. Addressing the voting rights of felons is part of a bigger movement to enlarge the voting pool. We see too much voter restriction coming from the GOP. It is time to push back.
1
The lesson was in Florida in 2000. It was called caging. If on a national list of felons the name Jimmy Jackson Washington appears a list even of that felon was in another state all people with the name Jimmy Jackson Washington were purged even if there were several. So people who shared a name with a felon were caged with the felons and instead of blocking one likely Democratic vote you got a whole bunch.
Yah Hoooo, what an American idea and that American was
James Crow. What we need is a presidential executive order restoring the civil rights of all those FORMER felons who have served their time and a free and not on parole, in federal elections Otherwise we give up on the idea of rehabilitation. Even a doctor who lost his license to practice in one state can get licensed in another to practice medicine. We should not tattoo the foreheads of former felons with “once a felon always a felon.”
Yah Hoooo, what an American idea and that American was
James Crow. What we need is a presidential executive order restoring the civil rights of all those FORMER felons who have served their time and a free and not on parole, in federal elections Otherwise we give up on the idea of rehabilitation. Even a doctor who lost his license to practice in one state can get licensed in another to practice medicine. We should not tattoo the foreheads of former felons with “once a felon always a felon.”
23
"Congress should amend the Voting Rights Act to restore preclearance and apply it to all jurisdictions with a recent history of discriminatory voting practices"
Yes, Congress should. But it's not gonna happen when a majority of the residents of both houses are Republicans who owe their seats and chances of re-election largely to legislation which makes voting more difficult or impossible for minority voters who tend to vote Democratic.
Yes, Congress should. But it's not gonna happen when a majority of the residents of both houses are Republicans who owe their seats and chances of re-election largely to legislation which makes voting more difficult or impossible for minority voters who tend to vote Democratic.
16
This is a pro-progressive political move intended to give Hillary more votes and nothing more. It has nothing to do with voter suppression. If you can't do the time and accept the consequences, don't do the crime. Shame on the NYT.
7
But they did do the time. I don't remember ever hearing of any sentencing judge include a lifelong ban on voting on non-life sentences. It's the politicians who have done so, in order to control who votes and who doesn't.
Now, its time for the other three states to follow suit.
How can someone transition from ex-convict to private citizen if they are not able to consider themselves one? The next step should be to determine some path toward eliminating police records--at least for minor, non-violent offenses.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
How can someone transition from ex-convict to private citizen if they are not able to consider themselves one? The next step should be to determine some path toward eliminating police records--at least for minor, non-violent offenses.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
13
Committing a felony is a serious crime. Status and designation as a "felon" is permanent and can only be reversed upon appeal or clemency.
The Supreme Court has expressly held that felons can have their voting rights removed, permanently. They can also be ineligible to serve on a jury. These seem fine to me. If you want to vote, don't be a felon.
The Supreme Court has expressly held that felons can have their voting rights removed, permanently. They can also be ineligible to serve on a jury. These seem fine to me. If you want to vote, don't be a felon.
4
Some are lucky and are born on third base of life … some never really get to bat. This American Life -- http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-w... -- documented a single working mother raising her daughter beside Ferguson, MO, noting:
“Schools in Missouri get accredited by the state. Almost every district is accredited. But if you're doing really bad, you get put on notice. That's called provisional accreditation. That's supposed to be like a warning. But Normandy had provisional accreditation for 15 years. That means there are entire classes of students, nearly all of them black, who came in as kindergartners and graduated 12 years later without ever having attended a school that met state standards. In the Saint Louis area, nearly 1 in 2 black children attend schools in districts that performed so poorly, the state has stripped them of full accreditation. Only 1 in 25 white children are in a district like that. That's 1 in 2 black kids, 1 in 25 white kids.”
I fully support Virginia’s new voting law, but so many extreme inequalities (e.g., above) remain for Democrats to address while Republicans pursue Jungle Law.
“Schools in Missouri get accredited by the state. Almost every district is accredited. But if you're doing really bad, you get put on notice. That's called provisional accreditation. That's supposed to be like a warning. But Normandy had provisional accreditation for 15 years. That means there are entire classes of students, nearly all of them black, who came in as kindergartners and graduated 12 years later without ever having attended a school that met state standards. In the Saint Louis area, nearly 1 in 2 black children attend schools in districts that performed so poorly, the state has stripped them of full accreditation. Only 1 in 25 white children are in a district like that. That's 1 in 2 black kids, 1 in 25 white kids.”
I fully support Virginia’s new voting law, but so many extreme inequalities (e.g., above) remain for Democrats to address while Republicans pursue Jungle Law.
7
This sounds like something from a textbook on the fall of the Roman Republic.
We're well on the way to enfranchising illegal immigrants, little kids, and having surrogate voting for animals. The slope is quite slippery and people quite happy to take a ride on it.
There is a simple principle we seem to have lost here - voters must be law-abiding, sane, and self-sufficient citizens. Voting is already enough a a free-for-all of entitlement bribing. This will make it much worse.
I would be for a method of earning back your right to vote that was forfeited by a criminal conviction. But the wild celebration of an executive order that bypasses the legislative branch entirely in order to give the vote to criminals who will vote 90% vote one party . . . well, it sounds like a recipe for civilizational decline.
We're well on the way to enfranchising illegal immigrants, little kids, and having surrogate voting for animals. The slope is quite slippery and people quite happy to take a ride on it.
There is a simple principle we seem to have lost here - voters must be law-abiding, sane, and self-sufficient citizens. Voting is already enough a a free-for-all of entitlement bribing. This will make it much worse.
I would be for a method of earning back your right to vote that was forfeited by a criminal conviction. But the wild celebration of an executive order that bypasses the legislative branch entirely in order to give the vote to criminals who will vote 90% vote one party . . . well, it sounds like a recipe for civilizational decline.
9
Sorry buddy, but an enormous number of Americans are poorly educated (Trump and most other politicians love them) and too many are bigots, criteria, it seems to me, that should disqualify someone from participating in elections. Skin colour and socio-economic background already disqualify citizens caught in the sights of men and women with serious conservative values. The justice system penalizes mishaviour, but why should it also work to place second-class status on folks who have paid their debt to society and presumably want to go on to live law-abiding constructive lives? Finally, why wouldn't freed criminals not vote for a party that wants them to rather than horrible people who live to shame and punish?
1
While you may prefer the original Constitution giving the vote only to male property owners, the US Constitution has no requirement that a voter be sane or self-supporting (most present-day 18f-year-olds?) or even law-abiding, as long as bad behavior can be hidden (Hastert) or forgiven. One doesn't even have to be sane to run for President.
Self-sufficient citizens?
That's tbe next thing after felon disenfranchisement: bringing back the property requirement for voting.
That's tbe next thing after felon disenfranchisement: bringing back the property requirement for voting.
"Congress should amend the Voting Rights Act to restore preclearance and apply it to all jurisdictions with a recent history of discriminatory voting practices."
Virginia's law prohibiting felons from voting has been in effect since 1902; the preclearance clause of the Voting Rights Act was overturned three years ago. So, it is not as though Virginia took away felons' voting rights in the past three years. That rule endured without challenge or objection for over 100 years while, at the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress mandated and enacted busing, desegregation, minority set-asides, and racial quotas, to name a few. Amazing that they missed this one.
More likely, the sudden moral outrage has more to do with Gov. McAuliffe's politics than with righting a historical wrong.
Virginia's law prohibiting felons from voting has been in effect since 1902; the preclearance clause of the Voting Rights Act was overturned three years ago. So, it is not as though Virginia took away felons' voting rights in the past three years. That rule endured without challenge or objection for over 100 years while, at the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress mandated and enacted busing, desegregation, minority set-asides, and racial quotas, to name a few. Amazing that they missed this one.
More likely, the sudden moral outrage has more to do with Gov. McAuliffe's politics than with righting a historical wrong.
2
In the mean time....whatever happened to the litigation efforts to enforce the Voting Rights Act? After a long delay a few suits where filed. But it's been a long time since anything was heard of them. Isn't this a priority for the Justice Department or the courts? Are the good guys lying down on the job?
2
Congratulations to Gov. AcAuliffe and Virginia.
And a suggestion. The State funds programs to educate and ease felons back into society. Why not enfranchise them while they are serving their terms as part of the effort to give them a stake in society and reduce recidivism? Political education surrounding elections and parties could also be included. This requires little more than viewing voting as an act of civic responsibility and a step towards rehabilitation...
And a suggestion. The State funds programs to educate and ease felons back into society. Why not enfranchise them while they are serving their terms as part of the effort to give them a stake in society and reduce recidivism? Political education surrounding elections and parties could also be included. This requires little more than viewing voting as an act of civic responsibility and a step towards rehabilitation...
2
In 2008 and 2012, I was active in get-out-the-vote canvassing across the city of Richmond. It was disturbing to hear the lament of people -- black and white, male and female, young and old -- that they couldn't vote because of a prior conviction. As one elderly man told me (with tears running down his face), "I committed a crime over 50 years ago. Since then, I have led a crime-free life, not even a traffic ticket. But I still can't vote." This man's sentiments were expressed by countless others.
So kudos to Governor McAuliffe for taking this action. From my experience, I'm confident that many, many ex-offenders with take advantage of the restoration of their voting rights and become more involved citizens.
So kudos to Governor McAuliffe for taking this action. From my experience, I'm confident that many, many ex-offenders with take advantage of the restoration of their voting rights and become more involved citizens.
147
Seems like a common sense way to help reduce recidivism by giving ex convicts a chance at a full life.
Also a reasonable separation of powers, as the legislative branch should not be in the business of passing judgement on citizens for a lifetime.
Also a reasonable separation of powers, as the legislative branch should not be in the business of passing judgement on citizens for a lifetime.
54
Yes congress should do something to restore the voting rights, but guess what - congress is republican and they do not want people of color to have access to one of our guaranteed rights. Hopefully when we have a more sensible supreme court, we can revisit and fix many of the wrong decisions they have made in the past decade.
7
OTR truck drivers have long-called Va. the "Commie State" and for apparently-good reason: There's no separation of power between the executive and the legislative branches of State government!
But "what difference does it make?" because we'll likely have a would-be felon as our next president!
But "what difference does it make?" because we'll likely have a would-be felon as our next president!
3
"Would be felon? " You mean an innocent until proven guilty abiding to the Constitution person? We are all would be felons in theory, as we are all would be killers, would be anythings..... its a specious and stupid argument.
7
That Constitution thing continues to get in the way of your Party's thinking, now doesn't it?
2
There are countries in which people in prison are allowed to vote.
If one has done his or her time, then there should be no impediment to voting in any type of election.
Are former felons not required to pay taxes to state and country? Why should they not be allowed a voice in representation?
If one has done his or her time, then there should be no impediment to voting in any type of election.
Are former felons not required to pay taxes to state and country? Why should they not be allowed a voice in representation?
9
We need to restore the American Revolutionary principle of "No Taxation Without Representation," which sparked our war of independence. There should be a national voting rights standard for the conduct of state and national elections, irrespective of any history of past discrimination, providing for national enfranchisement. Under the 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities Clause," the Federal government should bar the taxation of the disenfranchised as a violation of national voting rights and disenfranchisement should be made an absolute defense to tax evasion. Any state which seeks to disenfranchise ex-offenders should be required to pay for the privilege!
What's the rationale for disenfranchising convicted felons?
2
This is Nina Castro:
Two can play that game. Nice way to "get out the vote" Mr. McAuliffe!
Two can play that game. Nice way to "get out the vote" Mr. McAuliffe!
In 1996 facing re-election, Bill Clinton granted citizenship to almost 7 millions with GC. McAuliff is following his master textbook. Lest we forget, he got to do whatever it takes-even let convicted felons vote-to help Evita Clinton win VA. The Clintons machine will not stop. From forcing superdelegates to pledge loyalty to now McAuliffe let felons vote.
5
No one can force a superdelegate to do anything. They are actually following the will of voters, despite not having to.
And we can assume from your post you are against American citizens casting ballots unless it is for the candidate you want elected. Which means you are just like every other totalitarian in history.
And we can assume from your post you are against American citizens casting ballots unless it is for the candidate you want elected. Which means you are just like every other totalitarian in history.
4
Voting should be a right exercised equally by all eligible citizens. A system in which each state determines who can vote, when and how, is rife for creating inequality and provides opportunity for those who wish to disenfranchise others. The Voting Rights Act should be amended to make the experience of voting, including eligibility, polling hours, absentee ballot rules, and availability of polling places the same for everyone, everywhere in the U.S.
59
Why stop there? Illegal alien voting would be the biggest gain for the Democrats in the history of the country.
4
ok, sure. because stopping there is correct. a person pays their dues, still lives in this country and then once out pays taxes. how abuts they can't vote, they don't need to pay taxes. no taxation without representation.
1
If this had been done early in his time as governor, it could have been seen as truly done to help reintegrate the released criminals. But in this year when his pals, the Clintons, are trying to win the highest office in our country, it is seen as just pure political sleaze. These are not just some who sold or smoked some pot. These are some who murdered or raped. Why should some one who stole someone's life by murder have all their rights returned? The life lost can never be restored. Why should someone who raped and brutalized a woman have his rights restored. Her since of safety has been stolen and can never return to that she felt before the rape, Why should a priest who raped and sexually abused young boys have all his rights restored? What he did to those children will stay with them the rest of their lives. They will never have what was stolen from them restored. What McAuliffe did has nothing to do with rehabilitation and everything to do with votes.
4
There is a principled position for restoring voting rights for convicted felons, but I have no doubt that the Times' Editorial Board is taking this position solely because it'll benefit Democrats, and not for any principled reason.
I support a moderate approach. Those who have shown that they cannot follow the rules of society should not get to vote and help shape what those rules are until they've shown that they've changed. A person who stays within the law for a certain period (say 5 or 10 years) after the conviction and becomes a productive member of society should absolutely get the right to vote back. But the day after his or her release? Absolutely not.
Also, the fact that the political left supports a permanent gun ban for all felons (including non-violent) provides even more evidence that the Governor's move was made out of political expediency, and not principle.
I support a moderate approach. Those who have shown that they cannot follow the rules of society should not get to vote and help shape what those rules are until they've shown that they've changed. A person who stays within the law for a certain period (say 5 or 10 years) after the conviction and becomes a productive member of society should absolutely get the right to vote back. But the day after his or her release? Absolutely not.
Also, the fact that the political left supports a permanent gun ban for all felons (including non-violent) provides even more evidence that the Governor's move was made out of political expediency, and not principle.
7
"But the day after his or her release? Absolutely not."
Well, the policy in question restores voting rights once parole is over, according to the article. If the the person completes all of that work, I don't see why you think there should be an additional 5-10 year period and why we shouldn't give ex-cons the benefit of the doubt as to how they have been behaving.
Well, the policy in question restores voting rights once parole is over, according to the article. If the the person completes all of that work, I don't see why you think there should be an additional 5-10 year period and why we shouldn't give ex-cons the benefit of the doubt as to how they have been behaving.
1
They are actually ex-felons, not felons, once their sentence is up.
2
Having paid their debt to society at the end of their criminal justice conviction and sentence felons should be restored to their status as persons and citizens including their right to vote.
White supremacy reigns and rules as the basic rationale for felon voter disenfranchisement. Although they are only 13.2% of Americans Blacks are 40% of the 2.3 million prisoners that make-up 25% of incarcerated Earthlings. Blacks are criminally persecuted for the same acts that garner a white pass. Jim Crow rested upon the myth that the white majority would be fair in creating separate but equal facilities and opportunities for the colored black minority.
The corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs need to rule offers a secondary but corollary reason for denying felons a voting role in our democratic republic. In a white majority nation where corporations are mythical people and money is deemed speech denying the franchise to those who are real poor non-white persons fulfills their base values and interests.
White supremacy reigns and rules as the basic rationale for felon voter disenfranchisement. Although they are only 13.2% of Americans Blacks are 40% of the 2.3 million prisoners that make-up 25% of incarcerated Earthlings. Blacks are criminally persecuted for the same acts that garner a white pass. Jim Crow rested upon the myth that the white majority would be fair in creating separate but equal facilities and opportunities for the colored black minority.
The corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs need to rule offers a secondary but corollary reason for denying felons a voting role in our democratic republic. In a white majority nation where corporations are mythical people and money is deemed speech denying the franchise to those who are real poor non-white persons fulfills their base values and interests.
4
I reiterate my previous comments on this subject: the Voting Rights Act must be reinstated, not just in areas with a "history of past discrimination." but across all 50 states in perpetuity. Our fractured, flawed voting system is an outrage - we use obsolete equipment, we permit partisan hacks to hijack and rig the vote, which invariably disenfranchises Democratic leaning voters, including students, people of color, the elderly, the poor, and disabled, through gerrymandering and onerous voter ID laws. Let us not mince words: there is no real evidence of in person voter fraud, and the purpose of these odious requirements is to stop those with whom the Republicans disagree from casting their votes. Among the arguments of those states previously covered under "pre-clearance" is that they were unfairly singled out: the solution is simple and guts that specious claim, by enforcing this law equally across all states. We need federally mandated polling access and time requirements; we need absolutely verifiable paper trails for all votes cast; we need motor voter and/or automatic voter registration; we need to standardize our methods of voting and invest in the technology to assure that it is equally available; and we need to put a permanent end to partisan gerrymandering through independent redistricting boards. Terry McAuliffe did what is right and just - it is time for the rest of the nation to do the same, for the welfare of us all.
26
Many, many people have been thrown in jail on ridiculous drug charges. People make mistakes when they are young. They get mixed up in the wrong crowd. Mentally ill people get arrested for stealing food. They end up as felons.
As a result, we have the largest prison population in the world.
Once released, allowing people to vote is a great way to integrate them back into society. Certainly, hardened career criminals aren't going to show up at the polls. Those with outstanding warrants don't make a habit of revealing their whereabouts to the authorities. But there will be some that are attempting to get straightened out. Letting them participate in the political process will help them on that path to responsible citizenship.
As a result, we have the largest prison population in the world.
Once released, allowing people to vote is a great way to integrate them back into society. Certainly, hardened career criminals aren't going to show up at the polls. Those with outstanding warrants don't make a habit of revealing their whereabouts to the authorities. But there will be some that are attempting to get straightened out. Letting them participate in the political process will help them on that path to responsible citizenship.
66
Your comment is an argument for repealing unnecessary drug laws, not an argument for allowing all felons to vote.
1
I haven't been declared a felon!, but then, I make every conscious effort to abide by the rules of prevailing law. Others apparently - not so much?
Let's do both.
Progressives continually and rightly rail rail against the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, but while different in nature, Shelby v. Holder is equally evil. The Court could not have been more wrong in believing that invidious racial discrimination was a thing of the past in those states previously subject to preclearance. Those states have boldly created voting restrictions accomplishing results that the original Voting Rights Act was intended to prevent. It makes so abundantly clear that if the person who eventually does succeed to Scalia's seat is conservative, things will become very bad for democracy in America.
79
The Voting Rights Act was using a 40 year old formula. It was not appropriate, and was thus unconstitutional. Congress has always been free to create a new formula. The fact that one could not pass in today's political climate does not make an inappropriate and outdated formula legitimate.
1
While our political system makes it difficult for elected officials to make decisions based on principle rather than partisanship, only cynics (including some readers) attribute their own partisan motives to every action taken by a politician. Unlike some mindreaders, I claim no insight into the reasons for Governor McAuliffe's decision, but his executive order clearly benefits democracy, and that remains the relevant fact.
This decision, in fact, sheds light on a major issue facing this country, the attitude of elected officials toward democracy. The efforts of local and state governments to limit the effective voting franchise strongly suggest that the officials behind those actions care more about shaping government policies than they do about preserving political democracy. These men and women, whether Democrat or Republican, have demonstrated their unfitness to govern a free people.
This decision, in fact, sheds light on a major issue facing this country, the attitude of elected officials toward democracy. The efforts of local and state governments to limit the effective voting franchise strongly suggest that the officials behind those actions care more about shaping government policies than they do about preserving political democracy. These men and women, whether Democrat or Republican, have demonstrated their unfitness to govern a free people.
177
Say What?: "... his executive order clearly benefits democracy, and that remains the relevant fact."
The only assurance evidenced by the Gov.'s action is that there will be less statutory law within the Commonwealth, rather than a more orderly society governed by "relevant" rules-of-law. But the reasonable person need look no further than the current Democratic Party to determine that "fact".
The only assurance evidenced by the Gov.'s action is that there will be less statutory law within the Commonwealth, rather than a more orderly society governed by "relevant" rules-of-law. But the reasonable person need look no further than the current Democratic Party to determine that "fact".
Which political system would make it easy for representatives of the People's Will to vote on their principles? Maybe we need no buffer at all. Let's just have direct democracy, as the lunatic fringe (or what once was the fringe) thinks.
"These men and women ... have demonstrated their unfitness to govern a free people." But have these nominally free people, such as they are, demonstrated a fitness to govern themselves? 'Tis the question. Down with democracy! perhaps. A rather large portion of the fools inhabiting this country wish to elect someone who has no respect for its institutions. Trump may not be a full-blown fascist, but he is fascistic. It wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last, that democracies have voted to end democracy.
McAuliffe's decision also clearly benefits Democrats; and his decision also sheds light on the attitudes of Democrats toward expanding their pool of potential voters (they're ecstatic about it). If most of the prison population wasn't African Ameircan, wasn't likely to vote for the Democrats but for the Republicans, would liberals still be singing the same tune (granted, it wouldn't be America if such was the case)? One has one's doubts.
But, okay, I agree. Once out of prison, one should be permitted to vote.
"These men and women ... have demonstrated their unfitness to govern a free people." But have these nominally free people, such as they are, demonstrated a fitness to govern themselves? 'Tis the question. Down with democracy! perhaps. A rather large portion of the fools inhabiting this country wish to elect someone who has no respect for its institutions. Trump may not be a full-blown fascist, but he is fascistic. It wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last, that democracies have voted to end democracy.
McAuliffe's decision also clearly benefits Democrats; and his decision also sheds light on the attitudes of Democrats toward expanding their pool of potential voters (they're ecstatic about it). If most of the prison population wasn't African Ameircan, wasn't likely to vote for the Democrats but for the Republicans, would liberals still be singing the same tune (granted, it wouldn't be America if such was the case)? One has one's doubts.
But, okay, I agree. Once out of prison, one should be permitted to vote.
1
There is an important discussion to be had regarding how much power we apportion to the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of both federal and state government. Governor McAuliffe has taken an action which the citizens of his state will have no say in, presumably because he believes their representatives will not support it otherwise. It may be the right decision, but is it the way we want government to function. Once we cross the Rubicon and begin permitting the executive branch to make decisions properly reserved for legislatures it is inevitable both parties will exploit the trend. Remember the executive power you applaud today may be wielded by someone of a very different political persuasion some day. In any case, the Governor has handed Republicans in Virginia a potent campaign issue to use in the future, namely that a Democratic governor will superimpose his beliefs over those of citizens.
38
Gov. Terry McAuliffe has taken an action which the citizens did, in fact, ‘have a say in,’ since he was elected statewide in 2013 by a clear majority of Virginians. He exercised his considered ministerial judgment under Virginia’s Constitutional ‘power to Pardon’ ex-convicts, which is vested in the Executive alone (not the Legislature). McAuliffe did so as an act of civic mercy, showing great courage in expending precious political capital in a hostile environment, with no natural political constituency to show for it. Like the poor, orphaned and disabled, ex-convicts are a marginal, powerless constituency with no one to speak for them. Just ask former-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS).
This article is a moral Parable for our time (and environment), which is the point of the OpEd. What Gov. McAuliffe did is remarkable precisely because the popular trend in many States is toward more disenfranchisement (in order to skew outcomes). To suggest that he should ‘punt’ his power to Pardon to the Legislature (‘in order to let the People decide’) both contradicts the Virginia Constitution, and is akin to summarily telling a sitting President that he cannot fulfill his responsibility to appoint Justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate, because an election is on the horizon.
This article is a moral Parable for our time (and environment), which is the point of the OpEd. What Gov. McAuliffe did is remarkable precisely because the popular trend in many States is toward more disenfranchisement (in order to skew outcomes). To suggest that he should ‘punt’ his power to Pardon to the Legislature (‘in order to let the People decide’) both contradicts the Virginia Constitution, and is akin to summarily telling a sitting President that he cannot fulfill his responsibility to appoint Justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate, because an election is on the horizon.
24
President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because he knew the congress of his time would have allowed people to own people. Of course, in the mirror of history, he did the right thing. And never started down a slippery slope. When a legislature is mired in partisan politics, sometimes the morally right thing cannot wait. I admire Governor McAuliffe for this bold action when our legislature is still trying to control women and minorities.
102
That's a ridiculous view. Virginia's constitution gives the power to restore civil rights to convicted felons to the executive alone. There is no Rubicon here.
22
My strong opposition to a Hillary Clinton presidency, notwithstanding, Terry McAuliffe for United States Attorney General.
19
My spouse and I went to one of our local libraries, not near our home, but inconveniently located in a predominantly African-American area across town, to exercise our right to vote early in our state's primary, but were told by the African-American lady at the information desk that voting had ended an hour earlier, at 1 p.m., so we had missed out. (We were going to be out of town on the regular primary day.) Given the inconvenience of the location, as well as the demographics of the area, I would suppose that we as white people could have claimed suppression of our right to vote, but we accepted responsibility for our error in assuming the polls would be open later. While some things are inconvenient, most are not prohibitively so, and blaming others helps no one.
With regard to voter ID laws, the main argument against any IDs is that some who would otherwise be entitled to vote do not have a photo ID. Everyone, including currently undocumented persons, should have an ID, if only so that health care and law enforcement personnel can notify family members should that person be incapacitated.
With regard to voter ID laws, the main argument against any IDs is that some who would otherwise be entitled to vote do not have a photo ID. Everyone, including currently undocumented persons, should have an ID, if only so that health care and law enforcement personnel can notify family members should that person be incapacitated.
3
Just wondering what being white voting in a black neighborhood has to do with anything else what you're posting here. And you do know that many states still don't require voter ID and they are free of voter fraud? Including my state of Colorado where my tea party secretary of state spent a million taxpayer dollars trying to prove the contrary?
3
Why is it, then, that states like Texas allow gun permits as an acceptable form of ID for voting, yet do not allow student ID's? Burdensome Jim Crow voter ID laws are specifically designed to disenfranchise voters. If This effort had been preceded by a vigorous campaign to distribute some type of National ID, Republicans would not have bothered.
4
Everyone should have their papers in order.
Just like in the Third Reich and USSR.
Just like in the Third Reich and USSR.
1
Is is utter nonsense to suggest that requiring a voter to show identification is an attempt to disenfranchise people. It is intended to prevent voter fraud. Applicants must provide identification when they apply for food stamps; is that a government attempt to starve the hungry?
23
Do you want your elected officials passing laws to solve nonexistent problems? To me that is a recipe for unintended consequences or (as the case may be with voter ID laws) un-American and immoral attempts to deny human rights.
I assure you that the policies regarding food stamps are informed by reasoned analysis of data. Even with all those rules, we still see some fraud in the food stamp system. Thus, one could reasonably argue that the food stamp rules are still not strict enough.
By contrast, incidents of voter fraud in this country are almost nonexistent, and voter ID laws aren't even designed to prevent the most damaging potential forms of fraud (such as tampering with voter rolls or machines). On those rare occasions when someone has managed to vote twice or under a false identity, there is absolutely no evidence that they altered the outcome in any way.
Many patriotic and informed Americans consider voting to be a fundamental right, even if it is not described as such in our Constitution. I.e., We believe that the right to vote is as basic as the right to free speech or free association. People DO lose most basic rights while incarcerated, so I'm okay with the notion of prisoners not being allowed to vote. But once freed, they should regain their rights. (The fact that only a fool would allow a freed murderer or armed robber to regain his right to bear arms calls into question the "conservative" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that's another story...)
I assure you that the policies regarding food stamps are informed by reasoned analysis of data. Even with all those rules, we still see some fraud in the food stamp system. Thus, one could reasonably argue that the food stamp rules are still not strict enough.
By contrast, incidents of voter fraud in this country are almost nonexistent, and voter ID laws aren't even designed to prevent the most damaging potential forms of fraud (such as tampering with voter rolls or machines). On those rare occasions when someone has managed to vote twice or under a false identity, there is absolutely no evidence that they altered the outcome in any way.
Many patriotic and informed Americans consider voting to be a fundamental right, even if it is not described as such in our Constitution. I.e., We believe that the right to vote is as basic as the right to free speech or free association. People DO lose most basic rights while incarcerated, so I'm okay with the notion of prisoners not being allowed to vote. But once freed, they should regain their rights. (The fact that only a fool would allow a freed murderer or armed robber to regain his right to bear arms calls into question the "conservative" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that's another story...)
6
Except, Dan, that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, but that having these laws disenfranchises many people who would otherwise be 100% qualified to vote. I'm from Colorado, and my (thankfully former) secretary of state, a tea partier named Scott Gessler, spent over a million taxpayer dollars to prove that there was voter fraud in our state (we don't have voter ID and most people mail in their ballots) and he found absolutely none. So enacting laws against a crime that never happens does sound kind of like trying to disenfranchise certain people.
5
Funny how we got by for a couple of centuries without the need for voter ID beyond a signature. Your argument is silly.
6
>>>>
Dems could take a lesson from McAuliffe.
He apparently has a pair, and he brings the battle to the GOP. He's open about it and defends and clearly explains his position.
Dems could take a lesson from McAuliffe.
He apparently has a pair, and he brings the battle to the GOP. He's open about it and defends and clearly explains his position.
212
Part of that hutzpah is that Virginia governors only serve for one term.
1
Funny how he refused to restore their 2nd amendments rights as well. I mean come on, they paid their debt to society right? (Although I doubt the murdered and raped see it that way.)
I guess maybe he's not sure they are the rehabilitated good citizens he pretneds they are.
Or maybe . . . he just wants their votes.
I guess maybe he's not sure they are the rehabilitated good citizens he pretneds they are.
Or maybe . . . he just wants their votes.
The Clinton machine is so caring about black folks. Is this reparations for jailing so many of them beginning under Clinton 42?
Juxtapose this story against the voter suppression one in the New York Primary last week, which hurt the Sanders campaign.
Yet Democrats like Clinton make a big deal about disenfranchisement. Only when it benefits them. When they see it could hurt them, they have no problem denying people the vote.
The only thing consistent about Mrs. Clinton's position on anything are inconsistency and doing whatever it takes to be President.
Speaking of which, Koch's endorsement of Hillary is priceless. He knows that any populist banter by Hillary is a pack of lies.
What folks like the Koch brothers want is predictability. Trump is a loose canon. When Hillary is elected it will be business as usual. And I mean Business with a capital B.
Juxtapose this story against the voter suppression one in the New York Primary last week, which hurt the Sanders campaign.
Yet Democrats like Clinton make a big deal about disenfranchisement. Only when it benefits them. When they see it could hurt them, they have no problem denying people the vote.
The only thing consistent about Mrs. Clinton's position on anything are inconsistency and doing whatever it takes to be President.
Speaking of which, Koch's endorsement of Hillary is priceless. He knows that any populist banter by Hillary is a pack of lies.
What folks like the Koch brothers want is predictability. Trump is a loose canon. When Hillary is elected it will be business as usual. And I mean Business with a capital B.
37
Hillary isn't for voter suppression, that's completely disingenuous. New York's law is - if you aren't a registered Democrat you can't vote in the Democratic primary. It's the same on the Republican side. However Independent's can vote j the General Election. It's your choice to select a party affiliation - that's not suppression. If you are taking about the ridiculous purging of Brooklyn voters - then yes - that's terrible - but again those would be registered for the party and Hillary won Brooklyn - so why is there an assumption those 100k voters would have voted for Bernie?
2
Koch did not endorse Hillary. Read the transcript.
1
Absolutely didn't endorse. My mistake. But the fact that the Kochs would entertain supporting Hillary still makes my point.
If voter suppression would help the Clintons, they'll do it. Probably have over the years in Arkansas, NY and nation at large. Remember their political idol. JFK
If voter suppression would help the Clintons, they'll do it. Probably have over the years in Arkansas, NY and nation at large. Remember their political idol. JFK
1
If this were not such an incredibly blatant act of partisanship by one of the Clinton's greatest supporters, perhaps it would be worthy of some honest debate. If you were engaging in a real debate, it is important to remember that there are three essential purposes of punishment for crime: deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation. The one that has statistically proven the least achievable, and that society seems to care least about, is rehabilitation.. The loss of a vote and other post sentence consequences, such as having to tell potential employers of your conviction, obviously serves the other two. The notion that someone who has served a sentence has fully paid for their crime is nothing more than a fallacy used usually by those whose cause it serves.
15
Then why do most states restore voting rights after completion of the felon's sentence? And why did the Republican predecessor of McAuliffe restore voting rights to more than 8,000 ex-felons in Virginia? A lifetime loss of civil rights should only accompany a lifetime prison sentence.
1
Deterrence: not effective. Retribution: pointless, really. Just harms the rest of us by keeping criminals criminal. Rehabilitation: actually has worked, it just isn't effective in all or even most cases. But a just and honorable society would devote more resources to it, as it is in the best interest of the public.
McAuliffe's actions are both partisan and in the public interest at the same time, which is notable if you think about it. Why should the public interest require partisanship? I'll let the GOP answer that one.
McAuliffe's actions are both partisan and in the public interest at the same time, which is notable if you think about it. Why should the public interest require partisanship? I'll let the GOP answer that one.
2
"Purely partisan?" So you freely admit that Democrats are the party of justice and democracy, while Republicans want to use any means necessary to keep the "wrong" people from voting. Thanks for clarifying.
"Congress should amend the Voting Rights Act to restore preclearance and apply it to all jurisdictions with a recent history of discriminatory voting practices."
No, stop at "all jurisdictions." All of them.
It is happening everywhere. Republicans are attempting voter suppression in every state. Even where they have no power, they try to purge the rolls with tricks like registered letters that if returned are used to "prove" that the voter does not live where registered to vote.
There is no place safe from vote suppression. Give no free passes.
The right to vote for a felon who has completed a sentence has a disproportionate impact on blacks. It hits 20% of them, according to this Editorial.
However, there are over eight (8) times more non-blacks. More total non-black votes would be affected. Who are they? How would they vote? This is more complex than just allowing those 20% of blacks to vote.
I think we should allow all adults to vote, even those still in prison. They are counted for calculating Congressional representation, so they should vote it. They certainly have interests, and unique interests.
However, the outcome, the total effect, will be more complex and have more moving parts than just a big block of black voters. In some places, it may be worse for blacks if a horde of rednecks gets the vote. We should do it anyway, but not expect some simple effect as outcome.
No, stop at "all jurisdictions." All of them.
It is happening everywhere. Republicans are attempting voter suppression in every state. Even where they have no power, they try to purge the rolls with tricks like registered letters that if returned are used to "prove" that the voter does not live where registered to vote.
There is no place safe from vote suppression. Give no free passes.
The right to vote for a felon who has completed a sentence has a disproportionate impact on blacks. It hits 20% of them, according to this Editorial.
However, there are over eight (8) times more non-blacks. More total non-black votes would be affected. Who are they? How would they vote? This is more complex than just allowing those 20% of blacks to vote.
I think we should allow all adults to vote, even those still in prison. They are counted for calculating Congressional representation, so they should vote it. They certainly have interests, and unique interests.
However, the outcome, the total effect, will be more complex and have more moving parts than just a big block of black voters. In some places, it may be worse for blacks if a horde of rednecks gets the vote. We should do it anyway, but not expect some simple effect as outcome.
109
Wow! Yes, Mark Thomason. Irrefutable logic.
1
The word on the street is that God won't let felons into heaven, whether they've served their time or not. So why in the world should we let them vote? Or let them drive on our roads. Or fish in our lakes and rivers. Or send their children to our schools. You do wrong, and you're done -- for eternity.
55
Wow. If that's not sarcastic, I'd like the name of your religious affiliation so I can avoid it like the plague. It's certainly NOT Christian.
1
@ Pat Knapp: you need to re-read what Governor McAuliffe just did; he reinstated the right to vote for felons who have completed their sentence. For those felons who haven't completed their sentence, they still cannot vote. Nor should they. I applaud the governor's decision, and wish this would happen elsewhere. We need forgiveness and bringing those who served their time back into the community. We can't keep bashing people after completing their sentence.
1
"You do wrong, and you're done -- for eternity."
That seems to be the case for sex offenders. Curiously, Gov. McAuliffe is unconcerned about lifetime monitoring requirements for them which, presumably, are more onerous than the inability to vote.
That seems to be the case for sex offenders. Curiously, Gov. McAuliffe is unconcerned about lifetime monitoring requirements for them which, presumably, are more onerous than the inability to vote.
Seemingly noble but likely done in order to give a boost to McAuliffe's closest friends the Clintons, who must win Virginia to reclaim the White House and will do anything possible in their cynical appeal to African American voters - while actually working to further the corporate interests which put McAuliffe and the Clintons in power.
I live in Virginia. I know all about Governor McAuliffe.
A rare instance of cynicism being the handmaiden of the good.
I live in Virginia. I know all about Governor McAuliffe.
A rare instance of cynicism being the handmaiden of the good.
28
Virginia state legislators have spent the last year proposing outrageous pieces of legislation designed to interfere with Virginian's personal lives...which the Governor was right to veto. Suppressing the vote among those who they believe support Democrats was accomplished some time ago immediately after loss of Section 5 protection. The Republican Speaker of the Virginia House paid an employee of the Virginia Republican Party over $200,000 of taxpayers money for his help in designing gerrymandered districts in 2010. I think the Governor's humanitarian acts regarding people's personal lives and voting rights are a required counterpoint to the prevailing autocratic inclination of the current state legislature.
So, kind of like Republican voter id laws. Apparently reasonable to prevent fraud (not that there really is much that anyone can prove) but done in order to suppress the Democratic vote and give a boost to Republicans.
1
Funny how every act of good sense seems to be greeted with contempt. Why were they denied the right to vote in the first place? Probably to deny the White House to Obama or Clinton or Sanders or any other Democrat running for office in Virginia. That's why it was done in Florida and Iowa and Kentucky. It's tough when, what you call cynicism, is in fact the reality. When the party of Lincoln denies votes to blacks, the elderly and students in order to win elections (by their own admission by the way) then McAuliffe might be right in correcting a wrong rather than being cynical. Don't you find it in the least ironic that the party of Lincoln is now in the hands of a republican party that has no use for him?
1
Similar to "Undocumented Democrats" would Gov McAuliffe and the Times be singing the praised of restoring voting right s to felons if it wasn't a sure thing most would be voting Democrat.
If a poll showed most Illegals would be voting Republican, Obama, Hillary & the Times would be screaming for a 50 ft wall on the border.
Please spare me your Democratic bias.
If a poll showed most Illegals would be voting Republican, Obama, Hillary & the Times would be screaming for a 50 ft wall on the border.
Please spare me your Democratic bias.
30
harry k- give me a break. Does the racism and bigotry ever end with you republicans?
There is nothing in the constitution that allows for the permanent barring of citizens from voting. Incarceration is paying your debt to society. Once the prison term is served isn't the "debt" paid? Isn't this how a "justice" system is supposed to work? Your party claims to be the "Constitution" party except when it comes to actually FOLLOWING it. From first amendment separation of Church and State as in part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:" I guess Mr. Cruz didn't read that one, to the fourth amendment which guarantees our right to privacy in part "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", to the fourteenth amendment which in part states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Yet your "constitution" begins and ends with the abridged form of the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your party can't even get THAT right!!
There is nothing in the constitution that allows for the permanent barring of citizens from voting. Incarceration is paying your debt to society. Once the prison term is served isn't the "debt" paid? Isn't this how a "justice" system is supposed to work? Your party claims to be the "Constitution" party except when it comes to actually FOLLOWING it. From first amendment separation of Church and State as in part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:" I guess Mr. Cruz didn't read that one, to the fourth amendment which guarantees our right to privacy in part "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", to the fourteenth amendment which in part states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Yet your "constitution" begins and ends with the abridged form of the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your party can't even get THAT right!!
97
The Democratic bias is to be expected at the NYT.
What conservatives lack is a conservative newspaper of the same quality as the NYT.
Another part of the problem is that Republicans limit the membership of the conservative group to white male conservatives.
If you look at the abortion laws in Latin America they are all pretty strict. But American Hispanics vote Democratic because they do not feel welcomed by the Republicans.
African Americans are not wild about gay sex. But they too tend to vote Democratic.
Republicans do not know how to harness the conservative sentiments prevalent in the US.
What conservatives lack is a conservative newspaper of the same quality as the NYT.
Another part of the problem is that Republicans limit the membership of the conservative group to white male conservatives.
If you look at the abortion laws in Latin America they are all pretty strict. But American Hispanics vote Democratic because they do not feel welcomed by the Republicans.
African Americans are not wild about gay sex. But they too tend to vote Democratic.
Republicans do not know how to harness the conservative sentiments prevalent in the US.
2
But then one has to ask "why was the law on the books in the first place?"
6
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court for good reason. The law was enacted to bar flagrantly racist tactics, like poll taxes and literacy tests. In the 1960's few blacks were allowed to vote in the South. Today such flagrant voting restrictions are a thing of the past Voting rights laws these days may affect blacks, but they are directed at Democrats, in general. Those who have no id's, for example, include many whites. Republicans have enacted multiple voting restrictions for partisan reasons, not racists reasons. Therefore, the rationale for Section 5 is outdated and preclearance is only justifiable based on an updated rationale, which has not been formulated, and will not be formulated as long as there is a Republican Congress.
As for Governor McCauliffe, he is not acting to help blacks. While 60% of Virginia felons are black, it is far more important that a majority of the 200,000 would likely vote Democrat.
This editorial assumes it's still the 60's and that voting rights are about race. Fifty years have passed and brought changes. Today, voting rights are about partisan advantage. There is no moral high ground here. Just more votes for your party and fewer for theirs.
As for Governor McCauliffe, he is not acting to help blacks. While 60% of Virginia felons are black, it is far more important that a majority of the 200,000 would likely vote Democrat.
This editorial assumes it's still the 60's and that voting rights are about race. Fifty years have passed and brought changes. Today, voting rights are about partisan advantage. There is no moral high ground here. Just more votes for your party and fewer for theirs.
24
A majority of the 200,000 won't vote at all: Estimates of ex-felon turnout range from 5-20%, or (at most) 1% of the total turnout in 2012 election. In Virginia, a presidential election hasn't been decided by 2% since 1976.
Possibly, Governor McAuliffe is simply doing the right thing.
Possibly, Governor McAuliffe is simply doing the right thing.
126
No. 1, it's McAuliffe, not McCauliffe. No.2, of the 200,000 or so granted voting privledges, be lucky to register 20,000, probably less. 3. Voting suppression created by photo I.D., which was enacted by Republican majorities in Richmond and signed by Bob McDonnell effects senior citizens of all races, inner city folks, more often African-American, students and new residents of Virginia who lack state sanctioned photo I.D.'s, considerably more people than newly registered ex-felons. This will be the first presidential election requiring photo
I.D.'s in Virginia, we will see what the impact is. The bottom line is once citizens have served their sentences and probation period, there is no legitimate reason to withhold voting rights. Voting rights restrictions for ex-felons was written into the Virginia State Constitution in 1902 along with poll taxes and literacy tests, openly for the purpose of keeping blacks from voting with some horrifying quotes admitting the aim. Some might say that correcting that is way overdue, 114 years overdue.
I.D.'s in Virginia, we will see what the impact is. The bottom line is once citizens have served their sentences and probation period, there is no legitimate reason to withhold voting rights. Voting rights restrictions for ex-felons was written into the Virginia State Constitution in 1902 along with poll taxes and literacy tests, openly for the purpose of keeping blacks from voting with some horrifying quotes admitting the aim. Some might say that correcting that is way overdue, 114 years overdue.
16
Tell that to the voters who waited up to nine hours to vite in Florida and Ohio in 2012, because of deliberately restricted early voting laws enacted just before the election.
7
Why would it not be reasonable to pass a law that would require preclearance for all states?
What is ironic, is that the changes that have been legislated in the states that formerly required preclearance bring their practices in line with the majority of the states and are consistent with SCOTUS rulings.
States like NY do not have early voting and yet object to another state from reducing early voting from five weeks to four. That change was done because people registering to vote 30-35 days prior to the election were running into difficulties early voting because the voter registers were not instantly updating.
The percentage of minorities who vote in Massachusetts are the lowest in the country. Doesn't that mean that Massachusetts is putting barrios to their voting?
What is ironic, is that the changes that have been legislated in the states that formerly required preclearance bring their practices in line with the majority of the states and are consistent with SCOTUS rulings.
States like NY do not have early voting and yet object to another state from reducing early voting from five weeks to four. That change was done because people registering to vote 30-35 days prior to the election were running into difficulties early voting because the voter registers were not instantly updating.
The percentage of minorities who vote in Massachusetts are the lowest in the country. Doesn't that mean that Massachusetts is putting barrios to their voting?
10
NY rules have been in effect for years and can be changed by state legislatures. They are not denying ex-prisoners the right to vote or demanding ids from everyone with the intent to suppress the vote, or even closing polling places to create long lines. These are uniquely republican states where this is happening. In any event I don't see where NY State has said anything about this but the Times has and the Times is more than a NY City newspaper.
Exactly. Northern States like New York and Massachusetts, with their dismal minority voting records, were all for the Voting Rights Act as long as only the South was globally included. The hypocrisy is truly amazing.
1
Governor McAuliffe's action could be considered an act of noblesse oblige.
For his predecessor, Bob McDonnell.
The republican McDonnell is the first, and only, Virginia Governor ever indicted and convicted of felony corruption, selling his office, for a mere $160K.
Now, McDonnell, and his also convicted wife, can vote, after they have served their time.
136
That's awfully convoluted thinking. He actually just did something good, and we don't always have to attribute some cynical motivation to politicians 100% of the time - just 95%.
3
Even given the fact that Sanders is now very unlike could become the Democratic presidential nominee, I would've been very interested to hear the professor's analysis of how Sanders react to an economic crisis, given what we know of his economic thinking, eg Wall Street is the source of all our economic ills. Would his impulse be to let the whole economic system come down so as to attempt to reconstruct from the rubble something more equitable, no matter what the cost to middle class portfolios? Or employment for that matter?
2