Why is it that children have such an inherent sense of what is fair, and what isn't, but so many adults do not?
Is it because unfairness is learned?
If so, what lessons then are these laws teaching our children?
To be unfair. That's what the lesson is.
Is it because unfairness is learned?
If so, what lessons then are these laws teaching our children?
To be unfair. That's what the lesson is.
The origin of felony disenfranchisement was race-related. The origin of cotton production was slave-labor related. The origin of mixed race sex was rape. Give the vote to felons. Wear polyester. Break up interracial couples. Present reality doesn't matter. Act as if it were still 1850.
The argument that voting laws racially discriminate is an argument about disparate outcomes/impact, not discriminatory intent. But then how do you explain that in 2012, when voting ID laws were in place and in full force, African Americans turned out to vote at higher percentage rates than even whites! And even in the Southern states that have those laws!
The truth is that there is no meaning disenfranchisement of African Americans. There is, by contrast, concrete evidence of voter fraud, which not only skews election results, but also decreases confidence in the democratic process and thereby reduces voter turnout altogether. It just so happens that most of the fraudulent votes go to Democrats. That's one reason why "disenfranchisement" has become an issue now, around election time.
But alleged disenfranchisement is also part of the broader racial grievance industry that Jason Riley (a courageous, independent thinker and African American scholar criticized as "Uncle Tom" for daring--God forbid!--to dissent from the Party line) has chronicled so well in his recent book.
There used to be a time when liberals were the ones who were able and willing to ask "who benefits" and "what interests are behind this"? This is a Democratic Party cause. You can support it, but don't pretend that it isn't purely political and self-interested.
The truth is that there is no meaning disenfranchisement of African Americans. There is, by contrast, concrete evidence of voter fraud, which not only skews election results, but also decreases confidence in the democratic process and thereby reduces voter turnout altogether. It just so happens that most of the fraudulent votes go to Democrats. That's one reason why "disenfranchisement" has become an issue now, around election time.
But alleged disenfranchisement is also part of the broader racial grievance industry that Jason Riley (a courageous, independent thinker and African American scholar criticized as "Uncle Tom" for daring--God forbid!--to dissent from the Party line) has chronicled so well in his recent book.
There used to be a time when liberals were the ones who were able and willing to ask "who benefits" and "what interests are behind this"? This is a Democratic Party cause. You can support it, but don't pretend that it isn't purely political and self-interested.
3
Is the fraud in the voter or in the legislature?
2
It is interesting to look at the history of these voting laws and realize that originally they were to prevent African-Americans from the franchise of voting simply because they were Black.
Now it is different. They are being prevented from the franchise by Republicans because they tend to vote for Democrats. Is this racial progress? Maybe. But it is still racist, since the denial of voting rights is still based on ethnicity.
It is disgraceful that this continues in the U.S. and particularly disgraceful that the GOP doesn't feel it can win on the basis of the issues or the merits of its candidates, so it has to cheat.
Now it is different. They are being prevented from the franchise by Republicans because they tend to vote for Democrats. Is this racial progress? Maybe. But it is still racist, since the denial of voting rights is still based on ethnicity.
It is disgraceful that this continues in the U.S. and particularly disgraceful that the GOP doesn't feel it can win on the basis of the issues or the merits of its candidates, so it has to cheat.
2
Yes, end racist voting "laws," but re-instate voter rights, with an amendment to the Constitution. Right wing conservatives should not be able to keep certain people from voting (the ones who will Never vote for them,) who have every right to do so.
Here's an idea. If you don't want to lose your right to vote due to criminal activities, don't commit a criminal act !! Let's be clear. Voting is a right only given to some people. For example, children cannot vote because they are not considered sufficient mature. Is it really such a stretch to say that if you violate this nation's laws, you should not be able to express a voice in the creation of those laws ?
By the way, when this nation was founded, only land holders could vote. While this may sound anachronistic, the argument (at least from an economic viewpoint) is that citizens vote to express their view of how their tax dollars should be spent. Some purchases are inherently collective (e.g. military). But when a significant portion of this country pays no taxes, should they really have the same rights as those who do ? I'm not calling for rule by aristocracy. But shouldn't everyone pay at least something ?
By the way, when this nation was founded, only land holders could vote. While this may sound anachronistic, the argument (at least from an economic viewpoint) is that citizens vote to express their view of how their tax dollars should be spent. Some purchases are inherently collective (e.g. military). But when a significant portion of this country pays no taxes, should they really have the same rights as those who do ? I'm not calling for rule by aristocracy. But shouldn't everyone pay at least something ?
This practice should be changed but it should be done to assure fair representation of poorer people regardless of racial considerations because the people singled out were poor first, in racial minorities, second. The felon disenfranchisement was not per se racist since it was based upon a conviction of a felony crime rather than upon the race of the defendant. It was most often applied to crimes more likely to be committed by people who lived in poorer communities where the distress of want produced more dysfunctional families and agitated people who had far less ability to deal with material challenges because of poverty. The social conditions were the consequence of racial bigotry and legal segregation which made it extremely hard for those in the discriminated minority to avoid poverty and the result were higher rates of crime. The racist legal system also prosecuted and punished minorities more intensely and with less tolerance than those in the majority. However, poor whites were mostly treated with like intolerance. Here the felon disenfranchisement served the ruling elites by excluding the people of all races who had been excluded from the greater prosperity of the nation and so tended to weight voting towards far more conservative policies and candidates in these areas.
It is interesting that today I printed a voter registration and noticed the felony provision...and wondered about that. This article answers some questions.
This also points out that racism is a system and not a trait of a person all the time. Calling someone racist seems to be where we are today. But the real insidiousness is in the laws that keep the ruling white culture in supreme control.
That is some kinda hate we got in this culture.
This also points out that racism is a system and not a trait of a person all the time. Calling someone racist seems to be where we are today. But the real insidiousness is in the laws that keep the ruling white culture in supreme control.
That is some kinda hate we got in this culture.
1
We, as a nation, have been struggling for over a century to achieve a "free ballot" going back to the corrupt election campaign of Benjamin Harrison that defeated Grover Cleveland. It seems no matter how many legislative fixes are made politicians find new ways like Voter ID laws, restricting the vote for those in prison and on and on that "rig the system." The only way to end this is through a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote by multiple means for every citizen and prohibiting the states for passing any legislation that would infringe those rights.
I really am getting fed up with these articles all focusing on racism. The problem.is that felons are being disenfranchised. It's not racist, it's classist.
Felons are a CLASS of people. As a class, they are being discriminated against. They all deserve to vote. There are blacks,.whites, women, men, Asians...basically all races and genders.
When the NYT makes it all about racism, they are saying that they don't care about white felons, or Asian felons, or Native American women felons. No, all they care about is black felons because most of the felons in America are black.
This whole making every narrative about race is starting to go to far. Race baiting is just going to create anger and rioting. We need to start talking in terms of class.
Class brings people together. You are white and I am black, but we are both part of the class of felons. We can build bridges that will simultaneously heal racial tensions.
Instead, the narrative is that this newspaper only cares about black felons, and implying either that they don't care white/asian/hispanic feons can't vote, or, more insiduously, that they would prefer only black Felons be allowed to vote.
Felons are a CLASS of people. As a class, they are being discriminated against. They all deserve to vote. There are blacks,.whites, women, men, Asians...basically all races and genders.
When the NYT makes it all about racism, they are saying that they don't care about white felons, or Asian felons, or Native American women felons. No, all they care about is black felons because most of the felons in America are black.
This whole making every narrative about race is starting to go to far. Race baiting is just going to create anger and rioting. We need to start talking in terms of class.
Class brings people together. You are white and I am black, but we are both part of the class of felons. We can build bridges that will simultaneously heal racial tensions.
Instead, the narrative is that this newspaper only cares about black felons, and implying either that they don't care white/asian/hispanic feons can't vote, or, more insiduously, that they would prefer only black Felons be allowed to vote.
5
While I totally agree that the bigger issue is of class and not race, historically speaking it was a tool of disenfranchisement used against blacks. Legally speaking they have to use race to get the practice overturned because being a Felon is not a protected class.
1
How about if people that want to vote so badly stop committing felonies?
8
So simplistic. So an 18 y.o who goes to jail for having drugs (that are now legal in more and more states), serves his time, gets out and goes straight shouldn't vote when he's 40 ? Need to think things through a bit more before posting
3
Antonin Scalia will be remembered in infamy for many reasons, but one of the worst of his offenses from the bench of the Supreme Court was to gut the Voting Rights Act.
He made the specious argument that the nearly unanimous vote in favor of extending the entire historic Voting Rights Act legislation in Congress was the result of "racial entitlement."
This was his half-baked, incoherent theory that members of Congress were powerless to vote against a bill that protected the right to vote, which he interpreted as being a special racial entitlement for minorities.
I thought the right to vote applied to everyone regardless of race?
Justice Roberts agreed - racism in America was dead.
Archie Bunker from Queens could not have made up such an absurd argument for overturning the express and near unanimous will of Congress.
Just to prove how wrong the justices were, the very states prevented from passing laws making it more difficult for minorities to vote by the Voting Rights Act passed new laws making it more difficult for minorities to vote the very same day of the decision.
Republicans are so desperate to keep racism alive in America that they refused to hold hearings or confirm President Obama's centrist choice for the Supreme Court.
They want another Archie Bunker on the Supreme Court.
He made the specious argument that the nearly unanimous vote in favor of extending the entire historic Voting Rights Act legislation in Congress was the result of "racial entitlement."
This was his half-baked, incoherent theory that members of Congress were powerless to vote against a bill that protected the right to vote, which he interpreted as being a special racial entitlement for minorities.
I thought the right to vote applied to everyone regardless of race?
Justice Roberts agreed - racism in America was dead.
Archie Bunker from Queens could not have made up such an absurd argument for overturning the express and near unanimous will of Congress.
Just to prove how wrong the justices were, the very states prevented from passing laws making it more difficult for minorities to vote by the Voting Rights Act passed new laws making it more difficult for minorities to vote the very same day of the decision.
Republicans are so desperate to keep racism alive in America that they refused to hold hearings or confirm President Obama's centrist choice for the Supreme Court.
They want another Archie Bunker on the Supreme Court.
3
Citizens who have paid their debt to society should be re-integrated as full citizens. If we really believe that convicted felons cannot vote, then most of Wall Street would be barred from the polling booth for life.
From our happy American history textbooks we learned that bad, intentionally racist voting restrictions had been left in our more brutally discriminatory past. Not so. The cancer remains. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave us some moral reprieve of remission, but our Supreme Court has brought the illness back, in all its terminal ugliness.
If these restrictions fail to produce the desired electoral results, not to worry. We can just shoot errant voters in the streets for broken tail-lights or selling loose cigarettes.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
From our happy American history textbooks we learned that bad, intentionally racist voting restrictions had been left in our more brutally discriminatory past. Not so. The cancer remains. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave us some moral reprieve of remission, but our Supreme Court has brought the illness back, in all its terminal ugliness.
If these restrictions fail to produce the desired electoral results, not to worry. We can just shoot errant voters in the streets for broken tail-lights or selling loose cigarettes.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
NYT you forgot to mention over-application of Felony Charges. Minorities are more likely to be charged with a felony when a choice between a Misdemeanor and Felony is applicable and vice versa for non minorities. A textbook case; Former CIA Director David Petraeus. Charges were originally lying to the FBI and violating a section of the Espionage Act.- both felonies punishable by years in prison. Final charges;misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material. Voting is the one activity where everyone is equal; one person; one vote. This is terrifying to many.
2
Another example of where States Rights needs to end. Everyone is a citizen of this country - and should all be treated equally everywhere in it.
2
There goes the stuffy, self-absorbed, stuck in 1968 NYTimes Editorial Board.
Here.
Lemme help clarify some of your embarrassingly out dated half truths.
You'll feel better.
#1. Jim Crow was NOT just in the South. There was an equally oppressive Jim Crow NORTH.
Admit it....move on. Stop singling out the South for the sins of Jim Crow.
#2. Many northern states Including NY had poll taxes and literacy tests well into the 20th century.
#3. I am not sure the comparison of 1900 Alabama to 2016 eltist fantasy land NYC is a fair comparison, especially when it seems like a black man is safer from police brutality in Birmingham than in Haarlem these days
Here.
Lemme help clarify some of your embarrassingly out dated half truths.
You'll feel better.
#1. Jim Crow was NOT just in the South. There was an equally oppressive Jim Crow NORTH.
Admit it....move on. Stop singling out the South for the sins of Jim Crow.
#2. Many northern states Including NY had poll taxes and literacy tests well into the 20th century.
#3. I am not sure the comparison of 1900 Alabama to 2016 eltist fantasy land NYC is a fair comparison, especially when it seems like a black man is safer from police brutality in Birmingham than in Haarlem these days
4
In many states in this country you can be disenfranchised and lose your constitutional right to vote for driving under the influence, multiple traffic tickets, disturbing the peace and even jay walking. We are the only democracy in the world that disenfranchises people because they've been convicted of a crime. Almost all other nations allow even their currently jailed citizens to vote. The origin of the disenfranchisement of our citizens is the Jim Crow laws that were purposefully designed to keep our black citizens from voting. It's incomprehensible that we deny a basic constitutionally guaranteed civil right to our citizens because they've been convicted of an offense, major or minor.
1
If you pin down politicians, supporting laws meant to make it harder or impossible to vote for certain parts of the public, they very well know why they want those laws. The people, supporting politicians pushing through those laws, know as well. Racism still exists. Carried by a lot of people believing in it, and an even larger group of people not seeing the true impacts of racism because they have never experienced it and are completely unfamiliar with the concept of being treated differently.
With racism, open and latent, carried over generation by generation there is only one logical place to start to educate people. School. Only education will prevent kids from blindly accepting their parents views. Will make them ask questions. Will make them understand that there are groups of people treated differently. Educate children and problems with racism will slowly fade away. Politicians, supporting laws meant to make it harder for people to vote, would no longer have support.
And equally important: Call out people. If a politician is supporting racist policies and laws, call them out. Ask them questions over and over again and pin them down. Until they finally have only one answer left. To acknowledge that they are indeed racist.
With racism, open and latent, carried over generation by generation there is only one logical place to start to educate people. School. Only education will prevent kids from blindly accepting their parents views. Will make them ask questions. Will make them understand that there are groups of people treated differently. Educate children and problems with racism will slowly fade away. Politicians, supporting laws meant to make it harder for people to vote, would no longer have support.
And equally important: Call out people. If a politician is supporting racist policies and laws, call them out. Ask them questions over and over again and pin them down. Until they finally have only one answer left. To acknowledge that they are indeed racist.
4
If your behavior has been so bad that your fellow citizens have been forced to remove you from society for a period of time, why would anyone think you had anything to contribute to the political debate? There are mechanisms to restore the franchise where it is warranted.
Governing is a practical exercise. Removing those who have demonstrated their inability to meet a minimal standard makes perfect sense.
Governing is a practical exercise. Removing those who have demonstrated their inability to meet a minimal standard makes perfect sense.
11
fred; do you realize the *ability* to violate a law is endless. One law can have multiple levels of consequences. Perhaps your silly drunk uncle who would not harm a fly lands in jail after FINALLY getting DUI racked up and the local judge says enough. One year in Jail. Should he lose his right to vote forever?
"after finally"? multiple offenses? then YES to your question
Do the crime and YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE!
6
Exactly! It you cannot conform to society's rules you lose the rights that being part of society confers.
4
So what happens when they do their time and are released? Are they then not a part of society?
ALL rights should be restored. If any one right is denied, it justifies denying other rights.
2
"ALL rights should be restored"
Exactly. If you can't deny them the right to vote then you cannot deny them the right to own firearms.
Exactly. If you can't deny them the right to vote then you cannot deny them the right to own firearms.
2
I don't think too many people are advocating for the elimination of gun rights, just common sense regulations that would keep us all safer.
With the exception of voting, people are required to show an ID. What's so difficult about getting a driver's license or a state ID card?
5
I work a regular job that I have been at for years. I live in a house in which I have lived for years. I can take off time during the day to renew my Driver's License, which I have had for over 30 years. I have my birth certificate in a safe deposit box, a passport ($140, at the last renewal). All very easy. Costly, too, but I make enough that it is not a concern.
Now imagine someone who moves every six months. Whose driver's license does not have the right address. Who cannot afford to have it updated. Who might place rereigstering to vote in their new living location. Who can't afford a passport. Who might have lost their birth certificate in a tumultuous childhood. Who can't take time out during work hours to renew a DL. All these are common. The right to vote should not be made more difficult for those with the least and least flexibility, than it is for the well to do, right?
Why can't people imagine how others live?
Now imagine someone who moves every six months. Whose driver's license does not have the right address. Who cannot afford to have it updated. Who might place rereigstering to vote in their new living location. Who can't afford a passport. Who might have lost their birth certificate in a tumultuous childhood. Who can't take time out during work hours to renew a DL. All these are common. The right to vote should not be made more difficult for those with the least and least flexibility, than it is for the well to do, right?
Why can't people imagine how others live?
2
OK just for argument sake.
When you vote, you vote for local as well as national candidates.
If you just moved into a new community, should you have the right to vote on the local officeholders.
Of course, all of this is academic.
In the big cities it is the Democratic Patronage Armies who get out the vote.
They are also the ones who will help you get registered to vote.
Most of these voters have no idea who they are voting for.
When you vote, you vote for local as well as national candidates.
If you just moved into a new community, should you have the right to vote on the local officeholders.
Of course, all of this is academic.
In the big cities it is the Democratic Patronage Armies who get out the vote.
They are also the ones who will help you get registered to vote.
Most of these voters have no idea who they are voting for.
1
Of course, convicted criminals should not be allowed to vote. This is only common sense, something in short supply these days. In fact, law abiding citizens are now realizing voting has little meaning in a hopelessly corrupt politically correct system. Perhaps this is why thinking people are quietly withdrawing from participating with the entire scheme. But everyone already knows this..
6
Can you explain your "common sense"? It seems merely conclusory, not logical.
1
I have some direct experience of courts and DWB (Driving While Black) and financial shenanigans that work towards stealing from the poor (many of whom are handworking disadvantages people of color) and putting them in jail when the escalating fines add up and they can't pay.
The effort is not always "exactly" intended to jail these people, but all too often it ends up that way.
I also have some experience of criminal credit enterprises who buy debt and threaten victims. They don't always notify the victim, but they sure do pile on the debt. This debt can add up to disenfranchisement via criminal courts too.
Municipalities make a lot of money victimizing the poor, and often the process is so heavily weighted it ends up with jail time. A false arrest can cost more than the victim can afford, so they can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.
This direct experience was in New Jersey, and NJ is a moderately color blind state. I suspect things are harsher in more authoritarian and racist states.
All too often, the bias is hidden in blaming the victims. When it also takes away votes, that is adding insult to injury.
The effort is not always "exactly" intended to jail these people, but all too often it ends up that way.
I also have some experience of criminal credit enterprises who buy debt and threaten victims. They don't always notify the victim, but they sure do pile on the debt. This debt can add up to disenfranchisement via criminal courts too.
Municipalities make a lot of money victimizing the poor, and often the process is so heavily weighted it ends up with jail time. A false arrest can cost more than the victim can afford, so they can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit.
This direct experience was in New Jersey, and NJ is a moderately color blind state. I suspect things are harsher in more authoritarian and racist states.
All too often, the bias is hidden in blaming the victims. When it also takes away votes, that is adding insult to injury.
16
The "poor" are exceedingly poor at paperwork and obtaining car insurance. Expired tags, expired licenses, lights broken-- that's why they get stopped time and again.
Driving while not cognizant of state auto laws is a more apt descriptor.
Driving while not cognizant of state auto laws is a more apt descriptor.
4
Ryan. No. This was an entirely false accusation, one of many. And while I was in court, I saw many other cases where the victim had done nothing wrong except not to be able to pay excessive fines.
3
I am in a caregiving situation that involves a lot of driving, and I've had a small number of tickets. When I do it (a white woman) I get a pat on the back and a small fine. I got stopped for a broken taillight too, and that was one of the towns that is notorious for using these fines to make money.
Black people know to obey the law, and they don't speed. Sandra Bland was so badly victimized for not using her turn signal (and most people don't) that she ended up losing her life. The material is on tape, and you cannot tell me that that officer was not a corrupt bully.
Black people know to obey the law, and they don't speed. Sandra Bland was so badly victimized for not using her turn signal (and most people don't) that she ended up losing her life. The material is on tape, and you cannot tell me that that officer was not a corrupt bully.
2
I wonder if Edward Snowden can get an absentee ballot?
1
Be careful what you wish for. I think there are plenty of white felons in prison who are white supremaists who get the right to vote also,
11
Fine.
3
". I think there are plenty of white felons in prison who are white supremaists who get the right to vote also,"
And it won't take long before they sue to get the right to own a firearm back.
And it won't take long before they sue to get the right to own a firearm back.
2
They have a right to vote too after serving their time.
Racist voting laws that prevent people from voting are a problem. But the fact that a huge number of people who could vote sit at home is a bigger problem and a disgrace to the nation.
15
Alabama... isn't that the state where all three branches of government are being sanctioned for abuse of office? One wonders what it costs the citizens of that poor state to defend its elected leaders in court.
More to the point, one wonders how the United States of America can guarantee equal protection to the people in third-world states like Alabama.
More to the point, one wonders how the United States of America can guarantee equal protection to the people in third-world states like Alabama.
9
In Canada and most European countries people actually currently in prisons vote.
12
Disenfranchisement of felons is just part and parcel of the disenfranchisement plans we see everywhere. Yes, this was very effective in the Jim Crow South, but it is now prevalent in several states. The alternatives have become as effective; distict gerrymandering, poll challenges in Pennsylvania, restriction of polling places in "certain areas" in Ohio, extreme restrictions on documenting eligeability in Texas and Wisconsin....but remember, peple of color, Republicans are the party of opportunity...
7
I upvoted you because I interpreted your last sentence as sarcasm based on the rest of your comment.
In California, the recent change only applies to felons serving time in county jails for "low level" crimes. People serving time or on parole for felonies in state prison still are barred from voting . They can vote as soon as they are released from prison or parole.
People with felony convictions in California still aren't allowed to serve on juries, and they also lose the right to own guns.
People with felony convictions in California still aren't allowed to serve on juries, and they also lose the right to own guns.
3
Once again, the New York Times editorial board has demonstrated its' intellectual dishonesty. A person becomes a felon by their criminal actions; race has nothing to do with it. Losing the vote is an appropriate punishment. Do we want convicted felons deciding our elections? Of course not. If the editorial board is really concerned about the rights of felons, does it support a right for convicted felons to possess firearms?
On the other hand, the New York Times editorial board has been silent about an Illinois law passed by the lame duck Democrat legislature in 2014 that had extremely disproportionate impact on whites and conservatives. This law provided for counties with populations of over 100,000 (predominantly Democrat and minority) to have same day voter registration. Other counties were excluded. Why didn't the editorial board come out against this law? Of course, it would dampen the vote of white, rural conservatives who the Times wants to stay home from the polls, while making it is easier for predominantly minority and Democrat populations to register to vote.
Fortunately, a judge has just overturned it in the last few days. For two years, the hypocritical New York Times editorial board was silent on this blatant discrimination
On the other hand, the New York Times editorial board has been silent about an Illinois law passed by the lame duck Democrat legislature in 2014 that had extremely disproportionate impact on whites and conservatives. This law provided for counties with populations of over 100,000 (predominantly Democrat and minority) to have same day voter registration. Other counties were excluded. Why didn't the editorial board come out against this law? Of course, it would dampen the vote of white, rural conservatives who the Times wants to stay home from the polls, while making it is easier for predominantly minority and Democrat populations to register to vote.
Fortunately, a judge has just overturned it in the last few days. For two years, the hypocritical New York Times editorial board was silent on this blatant discrimination
12
Ari Berman reported that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that investigated the 2000 presidential election in Florida found the suppression of black votes to be "outcome determinative". In plain English, the election was stolen. It was done by striping thousands of black voters who were not actually felons of their voting rights by calling them felons. This kind of voter suppression appears to be the single greatest threat to our democratic process, unless the Russians successfully hack the next one.
All of the voter suppression schemes we have seen have come from Republicans and target primarily black voters. The scheme in Florida in 2000 worked and got us the worst president ever.
All of the voter suppression schemes we have seen have come from Republicans and target primarily black voters. The scheme in Florida in 2000 worked and got us the worst president ever.
12
The editorial board is obviously convinced that convicted criminals will vote overwhelmingly for "progressive" politics.
Why?
Why?
8
You are not asking a question, you are stating an opinion, something like "democrats love criminals and want more crime and their mission is to help criminals." You are dead wrong, of course, but are probably not interested in having your viewpoint challenged.
7
And you deduced this by reading tea leaves? There's nothing in this editorial to support your comment.
3
The republican governor of my state disenfranchised felons as his first act in office the last time he was elected. Why is it so important for republican leaders to prohibit voting? I have never figured out any other reason for it than bigotry. They pretend to be so religious, but in fact they are haters.
12
So, in Alabama all they have to do is keep jailing blacks whether they really break the law or not to keep them from voting.
Shame. Shameful.
A bunch of white people afraid of democracy is what this says.
Shame. Shameful.
A bunch of white people afraid of democracy is what this says.
8
Felon disenfranchisement laws not only affect potential voters they also stop those who have done their time from legally purchasing and carrying firearms, another Constitutional right denied.
3
When the morals and ethics of the average politician are higher than those of the average felon, then I'll support restrictions on voting by the latter. Until then this is the height of hypocrisy.
10
I guess this is what the right wing means when they bang the drum of "American Exceptionalism".
7
Alabama is an awful example of persistent republican abuse in trying to disenfranchise folks with a history of felonies and/or prison even for minor transgressions, clearly seeking to block the voting of democratic leaning fellows, a grave discriminatory injustice that is a deep shame of the perpetrators, however 'decent' they may appear to us, masking malfeasance with a false virtuosity. Enough already. We need a definitive resolution via the Supreme Court, another vital reason to vote for a democrat.
10
More disinformation from the Times's editors.
Felon disenfranchisement laws date back to time immemorial. They existed in England when no Englishman had ever seen an African.
In Virginia they date back well before the Civil War. How can felon disenfranchisement be racist when only a handful of blacks had the vote? If black Virginians couldn't vote anyway, then what racist purpose was served by disenfranchisement laws?
The Times is back to re-writing history to serve its political agenda. It sees the world through its black and white spectacles. That way of seeing is not just false; it has deeply corrupted our political system. And the Times is in the van when it comes to pressing for policy to be made on the basis of race.
Felon disenfranchisement laws date back to time immemorial. They existed in England when no Englishman had ever seen an African.
In Virginia they date back well before the Civil War. How can felon disenfranchisement be racist when only a handful of blacks had the vote? If black Virginians couldn't vote anyway, then what racist purpose was served by disenfranchisement laws?
The Times is back to re-writing history to serve its political agenda. It sees the world through its black and white spectacles. That way of seeing is not just false; it has deeply corrupted our political system. And the Times is in the van when it comes to pressing for policy to be made on the basis of race.
28
Of course there is felony disenfranchisement in other countries. But it is uniquely extensive and ferocious in the US, where it is is yet another aspect of voter suppression -- a practice unknown in the rest of the developed world
1
Right. GO ahead and deny that whatever the origins, they have come in handy to disenfranchise black citizens here. The icing on the cake is that crack cocaine possession was made a felony where high-class "blow" was not. Or did you not notice from your privileged perch—or hidey hole, as the case may be?
2
This same clause says that states cannot count disenfranchised felons for the purpose of electoral apportionment; including the number of representatives and electoral college votes allocated to these states. Yet this clause is routinely violated. We need to reduce the number of Representatives from states that disenfranchise felons.
2
I'm still seeking therapy after clicking on a AL.com (Alabama's main newspaper) article and happening upon the comment section. The racism was breathtaking and the paper was doing nothing to moderate these comments (I looked at past articles and even comments with the n word hadn't been removed). AL (and KY) are rotten from the top down and eradicating racism must begin with the laws. It must also begin with holding that paper and the news media accountable for language on their sites. They are the roots of systemic racism.
30
I hope you feel better soon. There is racism everywhere in the US. California has a very diverse population, especially in coastal areas. You would think that living in cities and neighborhoods with so much diversity would elinminate racism and ethnic hatred by whites. For some, yes. However, I witnessed overt racism with my own eyes in California. I feel so sad about this. I pray for a future with no racism, overt or implicit, in my state. I ask God to do something, to open people's hearts and minds. I am waiting for His answer no matter how long it takes.
1
Felons, like the dead, are reliable Democrats. From this paper:
"The ex-felons were indeed overwhelmingly likely to register as Democrats. In North Carolina, they registered as Democrats by 55 percent to 10 percent. The tallies were similar in two other states where the study was conducted: New Mexico, at 52 percent to 19 percent for Democrats, and New York, at 62 to 9."
Times advocacy explained.
"The ex-felons were indeed overwhelmingly likely to register as Democrats. In North Carolina, they registered as Democrats by 55 percent to 10 percent. The tallies were similar in two other states where the study was conducted: New Mexico, at 52 percent to 19 percent for Democrats, and New York, at 62 to 9."
Times advocacy explained.
17
Given that democrats seem to be the only ones trying to provide rehabilitation services, that would not surprise me. If repubs want their vote, give them a reason.
When you consider the many people who received 20-year sentences (or longer) for nonviolent drug offenses, and if you consider that drug laws have been shown to be applied with strong racial biases, then it is hard to deny that disenfranchisement of felons has a racial basis.
The main reason I voted to legalize marijuana in Colorado was because the laws restricting its use were applied unequally against blacks. Using drug laws specifically to incarcerate blacks has a long history, going back to Nixon's war on drugs and to actions many decades before that. To then use that to deny people the vote is either genius or evil.
The main reason I voted to legalize marijuana in Colorado was because the laws restricting its use were applied unequally against blacks. Using drug laws specifically to incarcerate blacks has a long history, going back to Nixon's war on drugs and to actions many decades before that. To then use that to deny people the vote is either genius or evil.
9
More like evil genius if you ask me. And it is not just against African Americans, either. Although these laws have less of an impact on white voters, when you take a state like Alabama that is over 70 percent white and less than 30 percent black, the numbers of white voters being blocked from voting based upon these laws is close to the number of blacks. I think the politicians and legislators behind these laws realize that people who have been incarcerated and marginalized in society, regardless of race, would be inclined to vote against them and for candidates that are more progressive and liberal. Especially with regard to positions on criminal justice and prison sentencing.
4
You confuse cause and effect. Barring felons from voting was not done to exploit disparities in drug sentencing.
1
While I agree with the right of the individual states to set non-racial restrictions on who can vote, and I do not see the concept of baring felons as racist, I do believe that the 'moral turpitude' clause mentioned herein in unconstitutionally vague. Any law needs to be written in such a fashion to allow a person to be able to determine if his contemplated actions will be in violation of it. and this one should be no different. Either is should bar all felons from voting or it should explicitly list those offenses which result in removal of voting rights.
Personally, I feel that New York's method of automatically restoring voting rights once all prison and parole is completed is the fight balance, but article 1 section 4 gives each state the right to set their own rules based on the desires of the citizens of the several states.
Personally, I feel that New York's method of automatically restoring voting rights once all prison and parole is completed is the fight balance, but article 1 section 4 gives each state the right to set their own rules based on the desires of the citizens of the several states.
5
We should stop using the census to count prisoners who can't vote as citizens who live in the community where these large prisons are located. This gerrymanders districts and gives extra representation to towns that have large prisons in them. Many of the people in these towns are dependent on the prisons for their livelihood and this extra representation may well have something to do with mandatory sentencing and the ridiculously high incarceration rates we have in this country.
7
The 14th Amendment, which grant Americans the right to vote regardless of race, specifies that criminals can be denied the right to vote. The intent of the amendment is clearly not racist since it applies equally to all races. Today, felon disenfranchisement if deemed racist because it disparately impact black Americans. However, most laws have disparate impact. For example, income tax increase disparately impact white Americans, who are more likely to pay income taxes. This doesn’t make tax hikes racist. Law that put those convicted of murder are not racist because they disparately impact black. The 2015 FBI Uniform Crime Report shows blacks, who comprise about 13 percent of the population, make up 51.1 percent of those arrested for murder. We see the same sort of illogic at work when it comes to immigration laws. Immigration laws that call for deportation are deemed racist because those who violate immigration laws are disproportionately Hispanic.
13
The Supreme Court in Hunter v. Underwood (1985) specifically invalidated your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as is their right.
In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the Supreme Court cited the 14th Amendment to uphold the constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement. The Court ruled in Hunter v. Underwood that a state's crime disenfranchisement provision violate equal protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both an impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact."
1
Texas allows convicted felons to vote 2 years after time and and parole has been served. Most states allow felons to vote after time was served and parole completed. How did Jim Crow laws become a major reason of the rules? Do these laws have deeper roots?
The democratic party sihoud figure out how to get white working class voters instead of the convicted felons vote. It's shows what they think of us.
The democratic party sihoud figure out how to get white working class voters instead of the convicted felons vote. It's shows what they think of us.
2
Let us never forget that Republicans, by their own admission, take great delight in preventing the poor and minorities from voting. We must face the fact that Republicans do not believe Democrats have a right to vote, and they pursue any means to keep them from the ballot box. Given the constant stream of exonerations, and that even the innocent have little choice but to take plea deals in order to avoid more lengthy prison sentences, it really seems that almost every adult American citizen should have the right to vote- incarcerated or not. We must take away politicians ability to disenfranchise the powerless for political gain.
2
I can now see why police departments with WHITE MAJORITY police officers target and harass black communities with impunity. The more blacks they can "convict" the less black voters there are to vote. This goes along with gerry mandering of districts for the benefit of whites, and closing down of Offices of Motor Vehicles mainly in black only neighborhoods to make it harder for blacks to get IDs and vote.
You cannot make this stuff up!!! We are becoming a banana republic!!!
You cannot make this stuff up!!! We are becoming a banana republic!!!
5
Congress should be doing that NOW. But THIS Congress has been working to undermine voting laws for many years, now. That is one of the reasons we have that cesspool in Washington, today. I hope this brings the voters, who failed to show up last time, out of the woodwork on Nov. 9.
5
Just goes to show what I have thought all along, the Democrat party is the party of criminals.
7
The state should not be in the business of suspending constitutional rights just because a citizen has embarrassments in their past. Dangerous precedent.
Imagine if a state actor could put your freedom to worship on hold if you had a prison record. What's the difference?
Imagine if a state actor could put your freedom to worship on hold if you had a prison record. What's the difference?
3
Don't break the law and you won't lose your privilege to vote.
Yup, just like the Southern traitors during the War of Southern Treason. No prosecutions, no convictions, just mass amnesty.
That set the moral and ethical bar. Today's black felons easily surpass it. If killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the worst act of mass treason in American history won't keep you from voting, nothing can.
Yup, just like the Southern traitors during the War of Southern Treason. No prosecutions, no convictions, just mass amnesty.
That set the moral and ethical bar. Today's black felons easily surpass it. If killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the worst act of mass treason in American history won't keep you from voting, nothing can.
3
I can get behind forfeiture of the right to vote for persons actually incarcerated. But if one assigns an additional role of rehabilitation to incarceration and parole, there is an argument for restoring the right to vote to those who are on a path to rehabilitation. Participating in our democracy is a right and a responsibility...it should be restored to rehabilitated felons as both...as part of the process of becoming productive citizens.
To those who propose a restoration of the right bear arms along with a restoration of the right to vote (fair is fair, right?) I would submit that the loss of the right to own a firearm responds to safety concerns, and falls under the "well regulated militia" qualifier.
To those who propose a restoration of the right bear arms along with a restoration of the right to vote (fair is fair, right?) I would submit that the loss of the right to own a firearm responds to safety concerns, and falls under the "well regulated militia" qualifier.
1
The right to vote is a Constitutional right and, as such, is not a States' right issue: all American citizens are initially born with the right to vote. Voting, therefore, should not be subject to various interpretations by various States or sub-units thereof.
These laws may or may not be racist in nature or origin, but they have been allowed to exist because there is a vacuum - there is no FEDERAL decision that must be followed by everyone which would eliminate these laws (whether racially-motivated or not)...so just decide - on the FEDERAL level - according to the nature of the crime whether or not ANYONE who commits said crime does, or does not, have the Constitutional right to vote after having committed said crime.
Allow or disallow the felony vote - either way - but make sure it is uniformly applied - as part of the existing FEDERALLY-GRANTED Constitutional right to vote.
These laws may or may not be racist in nature or origin, but they have been allowed to exist because there is a vacuum - there is no FEDERAL decision that must be followed by everyone which would eliminate these laws (whether racially-motivated or not)...so just decide - on the FEDERAL level - according to the nature of the crime whether or not ANYONE who commits said crime does, or does not, have the Constitutional right to vote after having committed said crime.
Allow or disallow the felony vote - either way - but make sure it is uniformly applied - as part of the existing FEDERALLY-GRANTED Constitutional right to vote.
4
Please read the 14th amendment. Clearly put, you're wrong. It clearly spells out that the right to vote MAY be removed through due process of laws, with equal protection.
2
If by taking the vote away, Republicans believe they are reducing the numbers of people who would likely vote Democratic, they are probably wrong. Simplistic answers to life's challenges go hand and hand with criminals and Republicans alike.
3
None of the states with the harshest voter disenfranchisement laws are former Confederate states. Only three states—Iowa, Florida and Kentucky—permanently disenfranchise all felons while Massachusetts permanently disenfranchises voters for voter fraud. These states were not part of the Confederacy. Three of the six states that permanently disenfranchise felons for certain crimes, including murder, rape, treason, and crimes involving children, were Confederate states. The felon disenfranchisement laws in the other former Confederate states are the same as in most other states. They restore voter rights to felons who complete their sentences, including parole and probation.
16
Florida was part of the Confederacy. It seceded from the Union on January 10, 1861.
The core principle of democracy is "consent of the governed" as our own Declaration of Independence spelled it out, government "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
This is practical, not just philosophy.
First, legitimacy. That means government accepted, "Yeah, we voted for these losers doing these stupid things" is legitimacy too. Laws work only if a large percentage of people go along. Enforcement seeks to catch outliers.
Second, responsive. However slow or imperfect, government must pay some attention to most people most of the time. When everybody gets mad, politicians notice or are replaced by someone who at least pretends to notice.
As a practical matter, we can leave out from consent a few individuals that nobody else likes anyway. Their opinions are not likely to represent much of anyone else, and they are not likely to accept everyone else as legitimate anyway.
However, in our present mass incarceration, we have large percentages of whole groups convicted. Whole groups excluded undermines the acceptance of legitimacy among those whole groups kept out of voting. Whole groups excluded allows government to be unresponsive to those whole groups of us (which is why they want to do it, to avoid being responsive to that group).
It goes too far. It has become a part of the Occupying Army appearance of police and government as Them, intent on hurting Us among our own people. We've become King George III to too many of our own.
This is practical, not just philosophy.
First, legitimacy. That means government accepted, "Yeah, we voted for these losers doing these stupid things" is legitimacy too. Laws work only if a large percentage of people go along. Enforcement seeks to catch outliers.
Second, responsive. However slow or imperfect, government must pay some attention to most people most of the time. When everybody gets mad, politicians notice or are replaced by someone who at least pretends to notice.
As a practical matter, we can leave out from consent a few individuals that nobody else likes anyway. Their opinions are not likely to represent much of anyone else, and they are not likely to accept everyone else as legitimate anyway.
However, in our present mass incarceration, we have large percentages of whole groups convicted. Whole groups excluded undermines the acceptance of legitimacy among those whole groups kept out of voting. Whole groups excluded allows government to be unresponsive to those whole groups of us (which is why they want to do it, to avoid being responsive to that group).
It goes too far. It has become a part of the Occupying Army appearance of police and government as Them, intent on hurting Us among our own people. We've become King George III to too many of our own.
13
So that they can vote conveniently, prisoners would like polling places near their places of work.. Burglars would like to vote in your house after midnight. Child sex offenders would like to vote in your kids' schools. And rapists would like a polling place at the YWCA.
4
Southerners always tell us the "New" south is emerging and attitudes are changing....
Voter suppression and now this....
Social attitudes still seem to be lagging in the 1950s....freedom means just that...for all and not for white men.
We are having a Presidential election over this...but the red states don't seem to understand that...."go back" instead of forward....
Sad and pathetic.
Voter suppression and now this....
Social attitudes still seem to be lagging in the 1950s....freedom means just that...for all and not for white men.
We are having a Presidential election over this...but the red states don't seem to understand that...."go back" instead of forward....
Sad and pathetic.
1
Do we want felons to be the critical voting bloc that sways elections? To curry favor with convicted felons, what sweeteners would politicians offer? Will convicted felons start receiving special tax breaks, entitlements, legal privileges, and patronage jobs, just like other critical constituencies? Should foxes elect henhouse keepers?
Not long ago, this same editorial page advocated placing illegal immigrants on juries. It's a relief to learn today that any idea, no matter how foolish or ill-considered, still earns the NYT's approbation if only it is calculated to advance Democrat hegemony.
Not long ago, this same editorial page advocated placing illegal immigrants on juries. It's a relief to learn today that any idea, no matter how foolish or ill-considered, still earns the NYT's approbation if only it is calculated to advance Democrat hegemony.
9
Amen
1
The stripping of the voting rights act by the Supreme Court indicates to me that it was purely political decision. And the fact that so many minorities are still disenfranchise because of prior felony convictions only reminds us of how much discrimination still resides at the state and local level. We need federal legislation to distribute voting rights to all citizens regardless of where they reside. And yes this means a larger federal agency to manage voting rights. It's obvious we can't trust the states.
2
How can we talk about rehabilitation and reintegration into society for ex-offenders if you bar them from voting? What stake do these people have in our system if they can't vote? With no stake in the system and the future, recidivism increases.
10
Actual Right-to-Vote:
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude[Slavery].
-
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XXIV, which was ratified by the states in 1964:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
. . . shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax
-
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XXVI, which was ratified by the states in 1971:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age
= = = =
There is absolutely nothing racist in requiring people to identify themselves with standard State IDs
-
FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT: "In Western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek / Roman traditions: disenfranchisement imposed on those convicted of "infamous" crimes"{wiki}
BACK IN THE DAYS THIS PRACTICE WAS DEVELOPED, no slaves were even imagined to ever be allowed to vote, so it obviously has no *racial*
motivation
ACTUAL RACIAL COMPONENT: 1901 Ala expanded disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — misdemeanors & even acts not punishable by law.
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude[Slavery].
-
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XXIV, which was ratified by the states in 1964:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
. . . shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax
-
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XXVI, which was ratified by the states in 1971:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age
= = = =
There is absolutely nothing racist in requiring people to identify themselves with standard State IDs
-
FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT: "In Western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek / Roman traditions: disenfranchisement imposed on those convicted of "infamous" crimes"{wiki}
BACK IN THE DAYS THIS PRACTICE WAS DEVELOPED, no slaves were even imagined to ever be allowed to vote, so it obviously has no *racial*
motivation
ACTUAL RACIAL COMPONENT: 1901 Ala expanded disenfranchisement to all crimes involving “moral turpitude” — misdemeanors & even acts not punishable by law.
4
If you have to pay for an id to vote, it's a form of poll tax. Make the IDs free, make the requirements for getting them slim, make documents available for free. If you want the state to issue IDs, then make the state issue them - the state, if it has a compelling interest in protecting the sanctity of the vote, should do the work to confirm a person's citizenship. It should not be the responsibility of the citizen to prove s/he is a citizen when new requirements are created. If the right-wing spent a small percentage of the money it's spending to defend these laws on just getting everyone an id, we wouldn't have an argument. But then it seems that *getting* everyone an id isn't the issue--it's finding ways to *not* get people ids.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-levera...
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/earl...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-levera...
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/earl...
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment specifies that Americans who commit treason or other crimes can be denied the right to vote. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
3
North Carolina's ID law states that any person who says they cannt afford the ID gets one free.
Not only that but you can make an appointment to get one with DMV and if you do not have transportation the state will provide transportation.
There is n excuse for any one to not have gotten an ID for the last 3 1/2 years since the law was passed. Many of these people have IDs they use for social services and Medicaid and Medicare but refuse to use one to vote.
You must have ID to go to the doctors office because they want to make sure you don't use someone else's insurance or receive a prescription you shouldn't have. The pharmacy does it for the same reasons. You can't can't fly or take a bus any more without an ID.
In fact there is little you can do anymore without showing an ID.
Not only that but you can make an appointment to get one with DMV and if you do not have transportation the state will provide transportation.
There is n excuse for any one to not have gotten an ID for the last 3 1/2 years since the law was passed. Many of these people have IDs they use for social services and Medicaid and Medicare but refuse to use one to vote.
You must have ID to go to the doctors office because they want to make sure you don't use someone else's insurance or receive a prescription you shouldn't have. The pharmacy does it for the same reasons. You can't can't fly or take a bus any more without an ID.
In fact there is little you can do anymore without showing an ID.
1
As terrible as what this article describes is, there is something related and even worse to which the Times needs to apply its reportorial skills: the possibility that electronic voting machines can be tampered with so that votes that have been cast can be flipped for the opposing candidate. Books have been written about this subject and many irregularities have been alleged, including that vote flipping plus gerrymandering is what keeps Republicans in power on the state level and has even won presidential elections. This is a serious subject but the Times has not ventured to explore it. Now more than ever you need to go there.
4
Another liberal making excuses early just in case Trump actually wins. I am conservative but will vote Hillary so I have no axe to grind here, just pointing out the obvious
Piece should have been titled: "How dare anyone even think about enacting de minimums identification requirements {similar to those needed to pick up a welfare check} to prevent leftists from getting as many dem voters from casting {illegally?} a ballot". Please.
12
Where have you been? There is no voter fraud except the fraud perpetuated by the republican party that there is voter fraud.
2
Actual proof of voter fraud in any substantial way before any of this ID nonsense started? Or since many states have launched investigations? Not accusations, but proof?
1
As a former prosecutor, I find it laughable that you are seriously suggesting that there have been no voter fraud prosecutions in the last eight years. BTW, if you have to show an ID to collect government benefits, purchase liquor, or get on an airplane, is it too much to ask that we do likewise at the polling place?
1
The acceptance of slavery and involuntary servitude mocks the original intention school of constitutional interpretation proving it defends antiquated attitudes. Modern penology, as practiced in Europe, habituates offenders in socialized behavior. Frequent conjugal visits, schooling and cooking meals are a constant. Prisons incorporate elements of normal life so that prisoners can learn to operate in social settings. What unites prison staff and the convicted is the focus on change helping prisoners to manage life on the outside. That is why European prisoners have access to cooking knives and weekends only a handful of guards are present. Evaluations center on the automatic reactions implied by the word habit, and constant encouragement when a person fails. In short, society must offer a helping hand, and not the wrath of an outrage public. In this system more than half of American prisoners would never go to jail because they aren't anti-social people. Allowing prisoners to vote would help bring modern penology to the United States.
8
Just allow voting by everyone even those in prison, then you wouldn't have this issue.
1
The thought of investing felons still serving a sentence for their bad decisions with the right to vote could only have been concocted by the extreme left bleeding heart liberals that want to transition us into a society that empathizes with all criminals. There is extensive data on repeat offenders, which demonstrates the oftentimes ineffective methods of rehabilitation in our prison system. I would propose a mandatory three year waiting period after release from prison or any half-way house assignments after being released. If the individual has not been brought up on any new charges, then they have they have earned their right to vote again. This is not a perfect system because some repeat offenders just wont be caught, but it is better than just irresponsibly handing out voting rights.
4
Racist voting laws is beyond repugnant. They erode the foundation of our nation and they are a slippery slope.
Who knows, perhaps freedom of the press or the right to assemble.
As someone once said, 'whatever it takes'!
Who knows, perhaps freedom of the press or the right to assemble.
As someone once said, 'whatever it takes'!
1
Complete nonsense. Linking a behavior (committing a felony) to a race (African Americans) is despicable; it is the definition of racism. Whatever happened to King's (quite right) idea of content of character as the basis for judgment? If you're a felon, black, white, Asian, Latino, whatever, you don't get to vote. That's the law. The law has nothing to do with your race.
The left's quest of using race and the bankrupt concept of desperate impact is devoid of morals and betrays a fundamental requirement of law enforcement and judgment: objectivity concerning the facts of a specific case. Laws are enforced on an individual basis, and therefore must be judged on an individual basis. There is nothing racist about barring a felon's right to vote.
The left's quest of using race and the bankrupt concept of desperate impact is devoid of morals and betrays a fundamental requirement of law enforcement and judgment: objectivity concerning the facts of a specific case. Laws are enforced on an individual basis, and therefore must be judged on an individual basis. There is nothing racist about barring a felon's right to vote.
4
Just spitballing here, but I'm pretty sure, as kids, we were told in school that some guys started a war because of taxation without representation. Do these former inmates pay tax? Income, realty, sales, personalty...?
3
tbs....those former inmates pay at least the same income taxes as Donald Trump - zero - and Trump gets to vote - why shouldn't they be able to vote, too ?
32
Is there some reason you think that former inmates never work, own property, buy things...or are you being sarcastic?
2
Excellent point Socrates!
If any otherwise qualified adults are denied the right to vote due to a felony conviction, they should also be relieved of any obligation to pay taxes to the disenfranchising state government. This American Revolution was based, in part, on the ethic of "no taxation without representation."Disenfranchisement should be made an "absolute defense" to tax evasion prosecuted by the disenfranchising state government; make the states pay for making convicted felons "non-persons" with no right to representation in government. Perhaps, the loss of revenue will make them consider the wisdom of their bigotry!
If any otherwise qualified adults are denied the right to vote due to a felony conviction, they should also be relieved of any obligation to pay taxes to the disenfranchising state government. This American Revolution was based, in part, on the ethic of "no taxation without representation."Disenfranchisement should be made an "absolute defense" to tax evasion prosecuted by the disenfranchising state government; make the states pay for making convicted felons "non-persons" with no right to representation in government. Perhaps, the loss of revenue will make them consider the wisdom of their bigotry!
1
"... the suit argues that the moral turpitude provision is unconstitutional because it was written with discriminatory intent. "
Here we go again ... what the suit is really saying is that the provision is unconstitutional because the plaintiffs have divined a "motive".
But a law is either constitutional or not, as written, of course subject to interpretation by courts, and motive has nothing to do with it.
Here we go again ... what the suit is really saying is that the provision is unconstitutional because the plaintiffs have divined a "motive".
But a law is either constitutional or not, as written, of course subject to interpretation by courts, and motive has nothing to do with it.
2
I don't understand why these laws are considered racist. Oh, that's right blacks commit way more crimes proportionally compared to any other race. Maybe we ought to look at that as a problem before we start fighting for these criminals to have the "privilege" of voting.
8
Cliven Bundy couldn't have put it better.
Of course, all those white pain pill addicts in rural America are given medical treatment instead of being gunned downed or locked up.
White privilege still rules.
Of course, all those white pain pill addicts in rural America are given medical treatment instead of being gunned downed or locked up.
White privilege still rules.
1
That's what all of these videos of unarmed black citizens being shot and denied rights is showing....blacks don't necessarily commit more crimes but are punished more often. In the south, just being black is grounds for no "moral turpitude." Certainly there are black criminals that need apprehending (and white, asian, hispanic). But our nation is currently taking a good hard look at the many that are persecuted for doing everyday things. We have a race problem. Being denied the right to vote is only part of the problem.
Perhaps the answer to felonious restoration of voting rights would be restoration of the franchise after say five years with no repeat jail time or other convictions. This would keep the felons who have a high recidivism, who've broken the laws, thumbed their noses at the system, unable to vote, but will give those who have paid their debt to society re-integration into mainstream society.
8
There are too many comments that use the " then don`t break the law " excuse. When the some cops see being black a moral turpitude situation then Jim Crow wins. At one time it was a crime for a Black person to look a white person in the eye, and it was a hanging offense to gaze on or address a white woman.Eventually Jim Crow will come for all that don`t belong to the proper caste or live in the wrong place. Eventually even disagreeing politically with the ruling caste will bring Jim Crow to your door.
2
George--Crooked cops break the law everyday in every village, town, and city. Crooked cops have become state sanctioned murderers.
1
Disenfranchise laws mean that you can be accused on hyped up charges, convinced to take a plea deal, serve time (whether six months or six years), successfully complete your sentence, fully re-integrate yourself into society, obtain a job, have a family, and become a productive member of society.
But 20, 30, 40 years later, you still cannot vote.
Some comments here suggest or even say outright that this is all just fine...since it is being applied to black people.
Imagine a world in which these laws were being applied solely to whites. The whole scenario I have just described above would be considered absolutely outrageous and intolerable.
These laws were specifically designed, from the beginning, to be racist. The goal was and remains a political one. It has no relevance to any actual crime committed. The idea is to deny forever a citizen who has paid their debt to society to be punished forever anyway, and to never have a say in their own government on any issue of any kind that applies to themselves and their families.
But 20, 30, 40 years later, you still cannot vote.
Some comments here suggest or even say outright that this is all just fine...since it is being applied to black people.
Imagine a world in which these laws were being applied solely to whites. The whole scenario I have just described above would be considered absolutely outrageous and intolerable.
These laws were specifically designed, from the beginning, to be racist. The goal was and remains a political one. It has no relevance to any actual crime committed. The idea is to deny forever a citizen who has paid their debt to society to be punished forever anyway, and to never have a say in their own government on any issue of any kind that applies to themselves and their families.
12
> "These laws were specifically designed, from the beginning, to be racist"
REALITY-CHECK:
"n Western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman traditions: disenfranchisement was commonly imposed as part of the punishment on those convicted of "infamous" crimes, as part of their "civil death", whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property. Most medieval common law jurisdictions developed punishments that provided for some form of exclusion from the community for felons, ranging from execution on sight to exclusion from community processes.[4]"
{Wikipedia}
THESE LAWS WERE DESIGNED back in an era when it was unimaginable that ANY Black person, or Slave-of-ANY-Race would EVER be allowed to vote
And back when they were "designed", because slaves couldn't vote in the first place, they only applied to whites, white-males specifically, since females, likewise were not allowed to vote either.
REALITY-CHECK:
"n Western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman traditions: disenfranchisement was commonly imposed as part of the punishment on those convicted of "infamous" crimes, as part of their "civil death", whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property. Most medieval common law jurisdictions developed punishments that provided for some form of exclusion from the community for felons, ranging from execution on sight to exclusion from community processes.[4]"
{Wikipedia}
THESE LAWS WERE DESIGNED back in an era when it was unimaginable that ANY Black person, or Slave-of-ANY-Race would EVER be allowed to vote
And back when they were "designed", because slaves couldn't vote in the first place, they only applied to whites, white-males specifically, since females, likewise were not allowed to vote either.
1
It's telling to see that the Democratic Party sees convicted felons as another special interest group inclined to vote for their candidates.
10
Nyalman....it's telling that voter suppression and low voter turnout is the heart and soul of Republican tyranny of the right-wing minority.
It's telling that Republicans have deep admiration for Putin's dictatorship and contempt for America's open participatory democracy.
Russian Republicans are blossoming all over Republistan.
It's telling that Republicans have deep admiration for Putin's dictatorship and contempt for America's open participatory democracy.
Russian Republicans are blossoming all over Republistan.
12
Meanwhile, the GOP sees the Cliven Bundys of the world as a natural constituency, to be treated with kid gloves.
3
Nyalman--It's telling that Republicans like to CONVICT innocent people and sentence them to DIE. Better yet, they like to skip the trial and just execute them on the street.
3
One of the great building blocks of the 2000 Presidential Election hijacking by the Grand Old Pirates was Governor Jeb Bush's illegal and fraudulent purging of the Florida Central Voter File.
This is well documented.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded that many Florida leaders were responsible, including Bush, for the "unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters."
The most dramatic undercount in Florida’s election was the uncast ballots of countless eligible voters who were turned away at the polls or wrongfully purged from voter registration rolls.
Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement.
Republicans actively support voter suppression and suppression of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.
Republicans believe strongly in the tyranny of their Whites R Us minority and GOP voter fraud.
It is impossible to be less American and less patriotic than it is to be Republican.
This is well documented.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded that many Florida leaders were responsible, including Bush, for the "unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters."
The most dramatic undercount in Florida’s election was the uncast ballots of countless eligible voters who were turned away at the polls or wrongfully purged from voter registration rolls.
Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement.
Republicans actively support voter suppression and suppression of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.
Republicans believe strongly in the tyranny of their Whites R Us minority and GOP voter fraud.
It is impossible to be less American and less patriotic than it is to be Republican.
79
Can there be a less appetizing argument that obviously foresees that if six million felons, in and out of prison, could vote, then those who bothered to vote likely would vote Democratic? Because that’s the message that anyone reading this editorial takes away: Democrats are fishing for the felon vote.
A decent argument exists for immediately restoring the rights of former felons who have served their sentences; but we have always been taught that one of the things one loses by conviction of serious crimes and imprisonment is the right to participate in our elections with a vote. Frankly, I see no reason for changing that.
Moreover, the effect of laws that deny the vote to felons may disproportionately fall on African Americans and Latinos because they are disproportionately represented in our prisons, but that’s really a separate problem. We need to do far better at mainstreaming our minority populations so that this isn’t the case, but until we do those men and women are in prison for crimes they committed, and losing the vote traditionally has been part of the punishment we impose for commission of serious crimes.
A decent argument exists for immediately restoring the rights of former felons who have served their sentences; but we have always been taught that one of the things one loses by conviction of serious crimes and imprisonment is the right to participate in our elections with a vote. Frankly, I see no reason for changing that.
Moreover, the effect of laws that deny the vote to felons may disproportionately fall on African Americans and Latinos because they are disproportionately represented in our prisons, but that’s really a separate problem. We need to do far better at mainstreaming our minority populations so that this isn’t the case, but until we do those men and women are in prison for crimes they committed, and losing the vote traditionally has been part of the punishment we impose for commission of serious crimes.
33
Frankly I see every reason for changing that. The end reality of disenfranchisement for any reason is a 'Jean val Jean' world where a starving man is given the death penalty for not starving himself to death.
7
Can you tell me where in any of our founding documents that a felony conviction results in the loss of voting rights for life? You are making a huge assumption with nothing to back it up with except your own assumption.
9
What I'm getting from the comments here is that many people are missing the point entirely. The point of this column was to describe how this "tradition" came to exist in the first place. In the deep south, this custom of depriving felons of their right to vote was invented with the specific intent to assist white people in preventing black people from voting.
The concept of felon disenfranchisement didn't always exist. It wasn't passed down on stone tablets from the mountain on high. It was invented by white racists. Cooked up. Concocted. And for a very specific purpose, a very specifically discriminatory purpose. It provided a tool to disenfranchise that, historically, was subjectively applied to black citizens. At it's foundation, it was supported by the simple reality that white police and sherrifs and prosecutors and white judges and juries arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted blacks for many things whites were never arrested for, charged with, prosecuted for, and convicted of.
You people get that, don't you?
Either commenters here are playing coy, or their just revealing their astounding ignorance about the discriminatory history behind why we ever started denying felons the right to vote in the first place. But listen, whether people are being coy or they're just ignorant, I don't care. Both are critical pillars of institutional racism.
I'll ask again: you people DO get that, don't you?
The concept of felon disenfranchisement didn't always exist. It wasn't passed down on stone tablets from the mountain on high. It was invented by white racists. Cooked up. Concocted. And for a very specific purpose, a very specifically discriminatory purpose. It provided a tool to disenfranchise that, historically, was subjectively applied to black citizens. At it's foundation, it was supported by the simple reality that white police and sherrifs and prosecutors and white judges and juries arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted blacks for many things whites were never arrested for, charged with, prosecuted for, and convicted of.
You people get that, don't you?
Either commenters here are playing coy, or their just revealing their astounding ignorance about the discriminatory history behind why we ever started denying felons the right to vote in the first place. But listen, whether people are being coy or they're just ignorant, I don't care. Both are critical pillars of institutional racism.
I'll ask again: you people DO get that, don't you?
79
If felons have paid their debt to society through jail time, they should be allowed to vote like any other citizens
102
Should they also be allowed to purchase firearms?
2
I find it amazing that when sentenced, these individuals are told the time they need to serve, and any expected probation for their crimes.
And yet, I have NEVER seen a Judge say "this includes barring you from ever voting again..."
The laws are an example of double jeopardy.
And yet, I have NEVER seen a Judge say "this includes barring you from ever voting again..."
The laws are an example of double jeopardy.
47
You have no idea what double jeopardy means then.
5
Convicted felons are forbidden by federal law from owning firearms. Is that also "double jeopardy".
3
I have never heard it express this way but you are absolutely right losing your voting rights after conviction is double jeopardy. Thanks for your insight
Good. They don't deserve to vote.
4
Voting is an unalienable right of every single citizen, prison time notwithstanding.
2
Being a felon does not deprive someone of his Constitutional rights. Not only should felons not be deprived of the right to vote, they should not be deprived of their right to own a gun.
The history of attempts to ensure that blacks in the post Civil War South could not arm themselves is as egregious as the attempts to deny them the vote.
The history of attempts to ensure that blacks in the post Civil War South could not arm themselves is as egregious as the attempts to deny them the vote.
13
Although I actually agree that former felon should have full voting rights, I'm not getting how these laws themselves are implicitly "racist" simply because African-Americans have a higher incarceration rate. The corollary to that argument is that African-Americans are implicitly more criminal, which is just stupid.
8
No Glenn. After 30 years as an attorney, my observation is that the criminal justice system targets black people, that they get less due process and are given harsher sentences for the same crimes than whites.
1
The enhanced scrutiny of African Americans for the chance to charge them with anything that would eliminate their ability to vote is one of the reasons there are more African Americans in our jails and charged with crimes that whites seem to shed easily.
The actual corollary is perhaps that the US justice system disproportionately prosecutes, convicts and imprisons African-Americans and Latinos in comparison to whites. And people of colour who are convicted receive proportionately harsher sentences.
The US also has a history of writing implicitly racist laws -- the penalties for one form of cocaine is far harsher than for another. Guess which form has historically seen more prevalent use among populations of colour.
The US also has a history of writing implicitly racist laws -- the penalties for one form of cocaine is far harsher than for another. Guess which form has historically seen more prevalent use among populations of colour.
Convicted criminals, of any race,religion or gender, lose their right to vote because of their own poor choices.
When they cannot obey the law, allowing them to decide the law is nonsense.
Actions have consequences.
When they cannot obey the law, allowing them to decide the law is nonsense.
Actions have consequences.
16
jck
Where EXACTLY, did any judge include "you can never vote again" in a sentencing?
They don't.
Where EXACTLY, did any judge include "you can never vote again" in a sentencing?
They don't.
22
@ Paul P
Where is it written it has to be explained at sentencing. Do you want the judge to explain they never could hold a secret clearance, become a lawyer, a professional engineer or architect or a police officer?
Where is it written it has to be explained at sentencing. Do you want the judge to explain they never could hold a secret clearance, become a lawyer, a professional engineer or architect or a police officer?
2
jck need to read the New Jim Crow so he'll understand how blacks get charged with crimes disproportionately. And what ever happened to redemption? No longer a judeo christian ethic?
Perhaps voting and the well-being of democracy wasn't these people's top priority when they committed a FELONY? How about the victims from whom these felons stole freedoms and rights (i.e. abuse, assault, murder, arson, larceny, kidnapping, child pornography, violating parole, rape, etc.). Before you happily cheer for re-instituting voting rights for felons, perhaps you should consider what exactly a felon is, and consider the victims of those felonies.
Furthermore, but albeit less important than the aforementioned point, I really enjoyed the history lesson that is completely irrelevant, despite the 'foundation' label that it is given, because "poll taxes, literacy tests, white-only primaries, registration restrictions, and exemptions for whites" don't exist today. Furthermore, fines, court costs, and restitution are not poll taxes. They are fines, court costs, and restitution. As with what crimes are labeled felonies, you should look at what can be ascribed to fines, court costs, and restitution - they aren't taxes. The NYT EB focuses in on a Alabama voter law that only applies to felons, and they somehow believe that "never determining which felonies are disqualifying" is an affront to a felon's right to vote. Are you kidding me? See the aforementioned list at the beginning of this comment. Which of those violent/awful crimes do you find less offensive, and thereby forgivable in the eyes of the victims who had their rights stolen by a felon?
Furthermore, but albeit less important than the aforementioned point, I really enjoyed the history lesson that is completely irrelevant, despite the 'foundation' label that it is given, because "poll taxes, literacy tests, white-only primaries, registration restrictions, and exemptions for whites" don't exist today. Furthermore, fines, court costs, and restitution are not poll taxes. They are fines, court costs, and restitution. As with what crimes are labeled felonies, you should look at what can be ascribed to fines, court costs, and restitution - they aren't taxes. The NYT EB focuses in on a Alabama voter law that only applies to felons, and they somehow believe that "never determining which felonies are disqualifying" is an affront to a felon's right to vote. Are you kidding me? See the aforementioned list at the beginning of this comment. Which of those violent/awful crimes do you find less offensive, and thereby forgivable in the eyes of the victims who had their rights stolen by a felon?
13
Gadsen,
Still waiting for you to point out where the Judge in any case has specifically barred someone from ever voting as part of their sentencing......
They don't. Your views are extra judicial punishment is somehow 'acceptable' because YOU say so.
Still waiting for you to point out where the Judge in any case has specifically barred someone from ever voting as part of their sentencing......
They don't. Your views are extra judicial punishment is somehow 'acceptable' because YOU say so.
13
Paul, from the NYT article... the first sentence... "state laws will bar nearly six million Americans with criminal convictions from voting in the presidential election."
Therefore, I'm not saying it. The laws in these states are saying it. What I am saying is that I agree with the laws.
Therefore, I'm not saying it. The laws in these states are saying it. What I am saying is that I agree with the laws.
4
The state laws prohibit felons from voting. Felons are forbidden by state and federal law from a host of activities. Are they all invalid because a judge didn't include that in the sentence?
I believe that all should have the right to vote, excepting felons serving sentences. That being said, state provisions to disenfranchise felons are recognized in the Constitution and change must come through the political process, not from judges.
2
Requiring identification - which is necessary for nearly everything you do today - is not racist or discriminatory, unless you use complicated mathematics to determine the fraction of a percentage of people who are actually incapable of finding the time or the energy to get a government-issued photo ID.
Liberals should be in favor of this, because it injects government into yet another part of everyone's lives, which is their apparent goal.
Liberals should be in favor of this, because it injects government into yet another part of everyone's lives, which is their apparent goal.
10
You (conveniently) left out the accompanying reduction in registration locations, periods, voting hours in some precincts, and other obstacles placed in the way of the process.
4
Another weak excuse for a red shot across the bow.
Contrary to popular conservative opinion, liberals are not slavering for government control of every aspect of our lives. I believe it was a conservative administration which invoked the Patriot Act and moved us far closer to a police state, including, as just one example, such actions as FBI agents going into libraries demanding records to see what books had been checked out by certain individuals of interest, and threatening library staff if they revealed or discussed such FBI visits. Which of course pales in comparison to the NSA vacuuming up all domestic communications records. Not to mention voter suppression laws as outlined by this article.
If, however, you mean that liberals want to use the legal system and government to redress grievances caused by social, political, and economic manipulation, then I guess liberals must assuredly be in favor of "government control."
Contrary to popular conservative opinion, liberals are not slavering for government control of every aspect of our lives. I believe it was a conservative administration which invoked the Patriot Act and moved us far closer to a police state, including, as just one example, such actions as FBI agents going into libraries demanding records to see what books had been checked out by certain individuals of interest, and threatening library staff if they revealed or discussed such FBI visits. Which of course pales in comparison to the NSA vacuuming up all domestic communications records. Not to mention voter suppression laws as outlined by this article.
If, however, you mean that liberals want to use the legal system and government to redress grievances caused by social, political, and economic manipulation, then I guess liberals must assuredly be in favor of "government control."
6
Conservatives only want to inject government into our lives when it suits their ends. Denying the people who might be disposed to not vote republican, is one such case.
3
Should we also end the law prohibiting ex convicts of owning guns?
If we allow them to vote... and we should... let's also examine their constitutional right to own a firearm... and restore that right as well.
If we allow them to vote... and we should... let's also examine their constitutional right to own a firearm... and restore that right as well.
2
Shameful False equivalence, Kimbo.
2
@Kimbo- Right to Vote = to Right to own a Gun(NOT a constitutional right for the general population!) In what alternate universe do you live? Let's guess....the NRA's, a gun for every man, woman and child?
3
Thank you, Kimbo for pointing out the obvious. This is yet another example of liberals wanting to pick and choose what they believe is "fair."
This story makes me wonder if the US sends black people to prison for no other reason than to disenfranchise them.
58
No, we do not John.
2
You're forgetting that prisons are a source of cheap labor and modern day slavery exists.
Not all manufacturing jobs are offshore.
Not all manufacturing jobs are offshore.
39
Yes.
3
The term "racist" gets thrown around like so much confetti these days. THe GOP isn't doing this because of race, but because of voting patterns. When democrats control state legislatures, they use gerrymandering by race to do the same well before people get to vote.
I was called racist because I questioned the use of quotas that ensure white students at my Ivy League alma mater are 48% of the student body despite whites being 65% of college-aged Americans and 80% of applicants.
It would seem name calling is the only argument left when the facts say otherwise.
I was called racist because I questioned the use of quotas that ensure white students at my Ivy League alma mater are 48% of the student body despite whites being 65% of college-aged Americans and 80% of applicants.
It would seem name calling is the only argument left when the facts say otherwise.
11
Republican legislatures gerrymander as well. I live in Austin. My congressman lives in Dallas.
2
The voting patterns are connected to race. Why do you think it is Republicans lose 90% of the black vote? Do you think that's just a coincidence? Look at the Republican use of the Southern Strategy and the switch in platforms after the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
I don't think what you suggested is "racist" but your comments seem really odd. Quotas have been illegal since the 1980s and racial affirmative action doesn't apply to all minority groups. If you're going to accuse your own university of breaking the law without evidence I could understand how you might not be the most popular kid on campus.
I couldn't think of an ivy league school where the black and/or hispanic rates are anywhere near 48%. Also, your denominator is off. It's the college population compared to the American population as a whole not college-aged students or applicants. It's an overall democratic argument suggesting our leadership should reflect who we are as a nation.
I'd hope you reengage with these ideas with maybe a less judgmental crowd. There are counterarguments to your points but I think you'll only find them if you're open to being proven wrong on some things.
I don't think what you suggested is "racist" but your comments seem really odd. Quotas have been illegal since the 1980s and racial affirmative action doesn't apply to all minority groups. If you're going to accuse your own university of breaking the law without evidence I could understand how you might not be the most popular kid on campus.
I couldn't think of an ivy league school where the black and/or hispanic rates are anywhere near 48%. Also, your denominator is off. It's the college population compared to the American population as a whole not college-aged students or applicants. It's an overall democratic argument suggesting our leadership should reflect who we are as a nation.
I'd hope you reengage with these ideas with maybe a less judgmental crowd. There are counterarguments to your points but I think you'll only find them if you're open to being proven wrong on some things.
1
This amounts to Obama, lame duck hysteria. Time is running out and he hasn't done enough, so lets ram through a lot of ill thought out laws that will release masses of criminals out early and give them all the right to vote. Making sure voters have proper credentials for voting is not racist and is really calling "racist" too often.
4
He could have accomplished more, except that Mitch and his cohorts swore an oath that they would obstruct everything he wanted to do. Case in point--the Supreme Court nominee.
3
Actions have consequences. If you have committed a felony against civil society you have CHOSEN to REMOVE yourself from its governance. Don't want to be disenfranchised? DON'T COMMIT A FELONY. Pretty simple.
8
Justice is not applied equally to blacks and whites. Blacks get more stringent punishment than whites for the same crime.
3
It is appalling to think that citizens with felonies on their records, are still refused the right to participate in the American process of voting. Apparently folks that have served their time are still not able to participate in our democratic process of voting, those folks are punished for the rest of their lives.
20
No just God would nor should ever bless the land of mass black incarceration and white supremacy. The United States of America was born enslaving Africans and denying their humanity and bred in Jim Crow racial discrimination defying their equality.
America has 25% of Planet Earth's prisoners with a mere 5% of the human beings. While blacks are only 13.2% of Americans they are 40% of America's prisoners. Black Americans are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison for doing the same things while black than garner a white pass to home, family, rehabilitation, church or medical care. The blacks are primarily in prison for non-violent minor property and personal crimes including drug possession, use and sale.
For decades more than twice as many white folks have been arrested for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. More whites are arrested for each specific type of crime as well except for robbery or gambling. Arrests, while not convictions, are not random events. They are supposed to be the beginning of the prosecution process. But for whites they start the white privilege procedure. And blacks are persecuted.
The goals of prison are supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation. Yet prisoners are burdened with a flaming Scarlet C that makes them forever worthy of much lesser equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An inhumane inhuman recipe for recidivism. Lucifer bless America?
America has 25% of Planet Earth's prisoners with a mere 5% of the human beings. While blacks are only 13.2% of Americans they are 40% of America's prisoners. Black Americans are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison for doing the same things while black than garner a white pass to home, family, rehabilitation, church or medical care. The blacks are primarily in prison for non-violent minor property and personal crimes including drug possession, use and sale.
For decades more than twice as many white folks have been arrested for all categories of crime as compared to blacks. More whites are arrested for each specific type of crime as well except for robbery or gambling. Arrests, while not convictions, are not random events. They are supposed to be the beginning of the prosecution process. But for whites they start the white privilege procedure. And blacks are persecuted.
The goals of prison are supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation. Yet prisoners are burdened with a flaming Scarlet C that makes them forever worthy of much lesser equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An inhumane inhuman recipe for recidivism. Lucifer bless America?
21
> "No just God would nor should ever bless the land of mass black incarceration and white supremacy
. . . While blacks are only 13.2% of Americans they are 40% of America's prisoners"
Fun-with-Numbers: Blacks are responsible for more than half of all "solved" murders
Numerous Studies have **shown** that the disparities between black/white sentencing almost entirely disappears when you factor in the criminal background records of the defendants
{NOTE: I highlighted the word "shown" above, because in general, I am super-extremely skeptical of most research & studies. This is because over the last couple of decades we have developed an army of people who produce endless faulty studies that nonsensically claim to "show" whatever the authors/funders want them to 'show'
The do this by many techniques: Invent new unusual definitions for common words, make fantastical claims & assumptions, cherry-pick data, INVENT data, skew sample, create surveys with Forced-Bias questions, & many other intellectually-dishonest practices}
AS REGARDS to the:
"Numerous Studies have **shown** that the disparities between black/white . . ." sentence which I wrote above, I have not read or reviewed those studies so I CANNOT speak to their validity.
But, from what I have read, the nature of those sources, and more importantly the 'apparent' logic of the argument, I am inclined to believe that there is 'some merit' to those findings
. . . While blacks are only 13.2% of Americans they are 40% of America's prisoners"
Fun-with-Numbers: Blacks are responsible for more than half of all "solved" murders
Numerous Studies have **shown** that the disparities between black/white sentencing almost entirely disappears when you factor in the criminal background records of the defendants
{NOTE: I highlighted the word "shown" above, because in general, I am super-extremely skeptical of most research & studies. This is because over the last couple of decades we have developed an army of people who produce endless faulty studies that nonsensically claim to "show" whatever the authors/funders want them to 'show'
The do this by many techniques: Invent new unusual definitions for common words, make fantastical claims & assumptions, cherry-pick data, INVENT data, skew sample, create surveys with Forced-Bias questions, & many other intellectually-dishonest practices}
AS REGARDS to the:
"Numerous Studies have **shown** that the disparities between black/white . . ." sentence which I wrote above, I have not read or reviewed those studies so I CANNOT speak to their validity.
But, from what I have read, the nature of those sources, and more importantly the 'apparent' logic of the argument, I am inclined to believe that there is 'some merit' to those findings
There are about 5.8 million disenfranchised felons. There are about 7 million felons released to the community. About 5 million of those on release will end up back in jail. Basically, we have disenfranchised career criminals. Giving the vote to full-time criminals is a peculiar priority. Rape, murder, pillage, and vote. The American way.
7
ALABAMA Outranks Mississippi as being the worst offender in the case of states purposely disenfranchising African Americans, an Ig-Nobel Prize that is a scarlet letter of shame. In fact since the gutting of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there has been a nationwide attempt by the GOP to deny access of people who should be eligible to vote because they have committed the Trumped up crime of "voting while being black." It's enough to make Donald flip his orange, creepy wig. As a Jew whose correlgionaries have suffered millenia of persecution, disenfranchisement and ghettoization, I cannot abide African Americans, or any other ethnic group for that matter, being made to suffer such persecution. Apparently, throughout the Bible Belt there is an insidious but ubiquitous plot to ignore the Biblical commandment to pursue justice relentlessly. It does not suffice that the GOP is killing off a mascot herd of elephants in the middle of its living room. The GOP will not be satisfied until it has imploded and left its brand atomized like a spent firecracker. We must speak out forcefully against this evil, for the only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing to conquer it.
26
Is there any evidence to support your statements John?
2
Hey, I got an idea, but it may be a little crazy. How about not breaking the law?
8
Once a sentence is served, rights should be restored. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a sentence?
2
The Civil War is still with us. Right outside the door.
How many dead at Gettysburg? Unspeakable.
History STICKS around, it's not easy to erase. It echoes.
And the historic division between African-Americans, former slaves, and a motley mix of self-righteous, relatively pale, German/Irish/Scottish/Italian descendants of immigrants, who over time defined themselves as True Blue Americans, ain't going away.
I wonder about Asian-Americans. What do they think of this ongoing racial game?
And it's very true that The North is shot through with racism.
Racism may be one of the key gears that energizes our country. That's a horrible idea, and I wish it hadn't occurred to me.
How many dead at Gettysburg? Unspeakable.
History STICKS around, it's not easy to erase. It echoes.
And the historic division between African-Americans, former slaves, and a motley mix of self-righteous, relatively pale, German/Irish/Scottish/Italian descendants of immigrants, who over time defined themselves as True Blue Americans, ain't going away.
I wonder about Asian-Americans. What do they think of this ongoing racial game?
And it's very true that The North is shot through with racism.
Racism may be one of the key gears that energizes our country. That's a horrible idea, and I wish it hadn't occurred to me.
5
@Deborah: right on. My boyfriend and I toured the Gettysburg battle field last week with a licensed guide who gave us over 4 hours of information.
I had approached this trip by preparing with films and books on the Civil War which only confirmed my feeling that war solved nothing on terms of how north and south view each other and issues of racial justice.
Such feelings aren't confined to state residents as we witnessed with attitudes, actions, and words against President Obama
This nation has a long way to go to overcome the nation's "originsl sin". Incarceration, voting rights, and treatment of African Americans seems to use an unequal scale.
I had approached this trip by preparing with films and books on the Civil War which only confirmed my feeling that war solved nothing on terms of how north and south view each other and issues of racial justice.
Such feelings aren't confined to state residents as we witnessed with attitudes, actions, and words against President Obama
This nation has a long way to go to overcome the nation's "originsl sin". Incarceration, voting rights, and treatment of African Americans seems to use an unequal scale.
4
Our country was quite literally built on racism. If you have not already read it, read "The Half Has Never Been Told..." by Edward E. Baptist. It is a very difficult book, because it lays bare the horrible crimes committed in the building of our nation. it tells us things that, maybe, we don't want to know, but it also shows how racism became part of our DNA, so deeply imbedded that we can continue to deny it, even in something as blatant as these laws that "were central to the architecture if jim Crow" .
It is a horrible mess, but it is our mess. We need to fix it. Eliminating voting restrictions is a good place to start. Restoring Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would be a good next step.
It is a horrible mess, but it is our mess. We need to fix it. Eliminating voting restrictions is a good place to start. Restoring Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would be a good next step.
3
No democracy should disenfranchise voters, because voting is the central power given to citizens.
We talk about American exceptionalism and talk of exporting our ideals, as if our Democracy is the solution to the world's ills. But if we cannot live up to those ideals domestically. how can we export them?
We have set up systems in states which look reasonable on the surface, but in implementation disenfranchise many who have no access to transportation, or have no flexible time to acquire documentation. We play petty games - which you'd expect from a petty tyrant - to make voting time consuming and difficult.
I read a letter to a local paper a few years ago, chastising our state senator for voting to allow marriage equality. "You were elected to represent us" the right-leaning writer asserted. But that really isn't true.
Elected officials represent all of us, even those who are likely to vote for the other party. That is part of democracy. But in these hyper-partisan times, it is a forgotten part of democracy.
We talk about American exceptionalism and talk of exporting our ideals, as if our Democracy is the solution to the world's ills. But if we cannot live up to those ideals domestically. how can we export them?
We have set up systems in states which look reasonable on the surface, but in implementation disenfranchise many who have no access to transportation, or have no flexible time to acquire documentation. We play petty games - which you'd expect from a petty tyrant - to make voting time consuming and difficult.
I read a letter to a local paper a few years ago, chastising our state senator for voting to allow marriage equality. "You were elected to represent us" the right-leaning writer asserted. But that really isn't true.
Elected officials represent all of us, even those who are likely to vote for the other party. That is part of democracy. But in these hyper-partisan times, it is a forgotten part of democracy.
18
"The way the law is administered magnifies the problem. Alabama has never determined which felonies are disqualifying — even though it requires citizens seeking to register to vote to declare under pain of perjury that they have not committed a disqualifying offense."
The pervasive attempts to disenfranchise strike at the heart of our democracy. Sure, one might ostensibly agree with the intent of the law, but when it's intent is one-sided, it just reaffirms to African Americans that Jim Crow is alive and well.
About the only disqualifier for voting, to me, would be convictions for murder. Given the severity of taking a life, it's plausible that anyone serving time should be denied.
But mass rulings that are selectively applied, with states simply using prison as an excuse to limit African American votes, insults the principles of this nation.
The pervasive attempts to disenfranchise strike at the heart of our democracy. Sure, one might ostensibly agree with the intent of the law, but when it's intent is one-sided, it just reaffirms to African Americans that Jim Crow is alive and well.
About the only disqualifier for voting, to me, would be convictions for murder. Given the severity of taking a life, it's plausible that anyone serving time should be denied.
But mass rulings that are selectively applied, with states simply using prison as an excuse to limit African American votes, insults the principles of this nation.
23
Systems have a way of self perpetuating themselves. An overwhelming goal of the right is and always has been suppression of minority voting. The system does this by:
Throwing black people in jail for next to nothing like smoking a joint. Stop and frisk to find reasons to throw them in jail. Three strikes and you are out so you get to thrown in jail forever for getting caught smoking a joint three times. Doing nothing to rehabilitate and reintroduce people back into society.
These practices generate a large pool of people that are now denied the right to vote which keeps these discriminatory practices in effect. It all feeds upon itself. Restoring the right to vote would be a big step towards correcting these systemic problems.
Throwing black people in jail for next to nothing like smoking a joint. Stop and frisk to find reasons to throw them in jail. Three strikes and you are out so you get to thrown in jail forever for getting caught smoking a joint three times. Doing nothing to rehabilitate and reintroduce people back into society.
These practices generate a large pool of people that are now denied the right to vote which keeps these discriminatory practices in effect. It all feeds upon itself. Restoring the right to vote would be a big step towards correcting these systemic problems.
72
Nobody gets thrown in jail for smoking a joint.
1
The real and most sensible solution is to end the registration system. To achieve that, the US Government at the cost of about $2.00 each citizen with eligible right to vote a credit card photo ID with full complete name, date of birth, address, ( state and County) Place of birth and few other essential particulars like real SS number etc in a hidden metrics. No state should be allowed to any preferences of party line etc. People under Federal control and auspices should be able to vote for any body of their choice. That is one person one vote , that being the law of the land. The RNC and DNC should never be allowed voter list or anything of that nature. Further more race of a person should not be listed any where.
41
Perhaps you might include in that list that they have paid their taxes.
2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but New York state is hardly free of guilt on this one. No need to go to the deep south.
20
That would lead to questions about why Mr. Schneidermann is spending his time playing in the presidential campaign instead of righting that wrong. And it's always easy to go after Alabama. Third time this week.
4
Don't forget "progressive" Wisconsin as well.
4
And NY allows no early voting while getting in a twist about others not allowing enough.
3
The book, "The New Jim Crow," by Michelle Alexander, places these felony disfranchisement laws in the context, suggested by the editorial, of a systematic effort, especially in the South, to deny black Americans their rightful role as a part of the political community. The 14th amendment made African Americans citizens of the US, with all the rights of other citizens, but white-dominated legislatures in Dixie (and more recently, in some other states) have never accepted the principle of equality across ethnic lines.
Even the Voting Rights Act could not prevent states from enacting measures that led to the incarceration of black men at rates far in excess of those that affected whites. So long as states determine the criteria for who can vote, the potential to circumvent equal access to the franchise will endure.
It may require a constitutional amendment, but America will not finally assume the status of an authentically democratic society until the states lose the authority to strip anyone of the right to vote. Voter id laws, moreover, should stipulate that government must bear the cost and responsibility to provide the required id to every eligible voter.
Even the Voting Rights Act could not prevent states from enacting measures that led to the incarceration of black men at rates far in excess of those that affected whites. So long as states determine the criteria for who can vote, the potential to circumvent equal access to the franchise will endure.
It may require a constitutional amendment, but America will not finally assume the status of an authentically democratic society until the states lose the authority to strip anyone of the right to vote. Voter id laws, moreover, should stipulate that government must bear the cost and responsibility to provide the required id to every eligible voter.
105
@James Lee
The government does not make anyone break the law.
The government does not make anyone break the law.
6
No offense, but blacks get congressional districts made to order. If they were subject to the ebb and flow of redistricting without regard to race, there would be less corruption--Rangel, Hastings, and Meek come to mind. It's hard to argue whites won't vote for blacks when a black president is completing his second term.
7
"No offense, but blacks get congressional districts made to order. If they were subject to the ebb and flow of redistricting without regard to race, there would be less corruption--Rangel, Hastings, and Meek come to mind. It's hard to argue whites won't vote for blacks when a black president is completing his second term."
Not at all. The race for the president being a case of one person one vote, it is not surprising at all that it is less affected by Republican gerrymandering, which, wherever it is practiced, disenfranchises minorities and not Whites.
Not at all. The race for the president being a case of one person one vote, it is not surprising at all that it is less affected by Republican gerrymandering, which, wherever it is practiced, disenfranchises minorities and not Whites.
2
The disenfranchisement on flimsy grounds like felony, moral turpitude, literacy or domicile requirement do mainly reflect the racist and premodern tribal mindset that not only is scared of the democratic diversity but also feels comfort with vaguely defined laws and their loopholes. Though post-14th and 15th amendments, there shouldn't have been any need for such voting restrictions yet such democratic anomalies do survive even today to the detriment of democratic expansion and enrichment of the evolving American democracy.
16
Yes, 'paid his debt," that's what we say.
So it's time we made it reality.
Voting, yes,
And get rid of that box on employment applications.
Guns? Well....
So it's time we made it reality.
Voting, yes,
And get rid of that box on employment applications.
Guns? Well....
33
You cannot have it both ways, if anti-felon laws are discriminatory for voting purposes, they are discriminatory for 2nd Amendment purposes.
1
@Here, re 2nd Amendment ref: It reads "a well organized militia." Non existent in today's society unless one visits the clandestine camps in the "Upper Peninsula".
3
A felon who has served his time in prison has clearly paid his debt to society and should get a clean slate.
What happened to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Under this Clause, all persons are afforded the equal protection of the law, including felons who have paid their debt to society. I am at a loss.
What happened to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Under this Clause, all persons are afforded the equal protection of the law, including felons who have paid their debt to society. I am at a loss.
92
I heartily agree with you, and wish the times would spend more time on things like sex offender registries and other measures that say that some debts are never paid, outrages against our constitution.
1
In states that don't allow felons to vote, part of the penalty imposed on those convicted of a felony is the loss of the right to vote, in addition most states also end that person's right to posses or purchase guns.
Under your equal protection argument, would you apply that to no longer have convicted felons losing the right to own guns?
Under your equal protection argument, would you apply that to no longer have convicted felons losing the right to own guns?
1
I agree that the debt has been paid, and that the person still retains their rights as an American citizen.
Either we all strive to assure everyone has their vote, everyone, or we, ourselves, have failed at being citizens of our democracy.
Either we all strive to assure everyone has their vote, everyone, or we, ourselves, have failed at being citizens of our democracy.
7
The authors of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to deny criminals the right to vote. Why are we even debating this?