OK, I will tell you, if you are truly curious. Because they are criminals who are deprived of civil rights and freedoms as a punishment for their crimes, that's why. They are locked up in jail, deprived of their very freedom. Why is not letting them vote a problem? No, seriously, tell me.
2
I'm a longtime public defender in Maine. You are becoming my favorite NYT columnist, Jamelle. I'm not sure how many of my indigent clients sitting in the Androscoggin County Jail end up voting, but you are dead on in the premise of your article. The "collateral consequences" of being convicted of even the most minimal of crimes has ruined a generation. You can be convicted of stealing a box of Tampons from Walmart and: you can't vote in most states; you might not be able to travel to Canada and other countries; you might not be able to get a student loan, or public housing; it can cause you to lose a job opportunity; if you are not a citizen it can affect your immigration status, including future denial of citizenship or even deportation in some cases. If you've stolen a toothbrush from Walmart on three separate occasions, you can gain felony status, impacting your right to bear arms. The list goes on forever....
5
The problem is very simple:
1. If you have money and therefore can afford a good lawyer, you will probably beat the rap – ie: a criminal who doesn’t go to jail and can vote.
2. If you don’t have money and must deal with facing your charges without proper legal assistance – ie: you will go to jail without any help in reducing your conviction because you don’t know enough to properly provide a viable defense AND can’t vote.
3. If you are assigned a public defender, ie: a young and/or not very experienced lawyer, you will probably go to jail without any of the available defenses that could possibly get you off (because you are innocent) or get a shorter jail term because there are extenuating circumstances that your attorney didn’t have time to develop and then you can’t vote. .
4. So, if you are remanded, you will now be exposed to the harsh reality of prison where you will be open to harassment from both other inmates and guards without reliable recourses and you can’t vote, guilty or not.
Really, under none of these circumstances should anyone be deprived of their constitutional rights which include the right to vote.
Are there folks who will take advantage of this – sure. But are there folks who need a vehicle to speak out against injustices, just like every other citizen in this country – absolutely.
Let me ask one question: if you were in this situation, what would you do – what would you want?
The bottom line is every citizen should have the right to vote.
6
I agree with you, Jamelle, except in the case of treason.
2
Ok. I'll tell you again, if you want me to "tell (you) why prisoners can't vote:" Because they have chosen to not play by the rules of society. So they have been ejected from the game.
Next question?
5
This is the problem with mindnumbingly simplistic sports analogies: they completely dispense with all of the real characteristics of a situation and reduce it to a (often false, like in this case) juvenile narrative.
Voting is not a game. Being a citizen is not a game. There is no "winner" or "loser." We are talking about fundamental rights, not a recreational, playful event. The differences couldn't possibly be greater, rendering your casual analogy completely inappropriate.
4
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States answers the headline's question unequivocally. Read it all the way to the end.
1
Because they are prisoners. You would like the inmates to run the prison?
3
They can't vote because the law in many states does not allow that. And it many cases never voting is part of their punishment. Now they should not vote because they would be biased against the laws that they violated and their punishments.
3
The United States of America has the largest portion of its population behind bars , when compared with the rest of the world , with an incredible unjust distribution between the different races.
It is way to easy to commit somebody to jail even for minor crimes , the penitentiary administration is a business mostly run by private entities, for profit , just like most education and healthcare.
Something is not quite right with the way justice is administered in this country .
I wish the right to vote would be re established for everyone , not only prisoners but the many Americans who live in States where they are not considered part of humankind.
3
This is the sort of thing that keeps folks like Trump in office. Don't like your country? Sneak across the border. Break the law? No problem, you can still vote in the system you chose to disobey. I'm a Democrat, but we have got to get a grip on stuff like this or we are gonna get Trump again (or worse). We are a country of laws and we have to respect those laws. Period. I lived through the crime waves of the 1970s, the era when we said well there are no real criminals, just folks with terrible childhoods so it's understandable why they steal, mug and kill. NYC was a dangerous place to be. We don't want that again.
3
How would voting bring those days back?
2
If you let people in prison to vote why cant they run for an elected office where the prison is located
1) They have established residency , many cases 20 years to life
2) They have a built in voting block , usually cell block C
3) why cant a prisoner run for local office where prison is located ?
2
nope
let's be honest, most felons would vote Dem. Why is that?
ask youself, isn't that really the reason this issue matters to you?
let's let felons vote.
let's count in the census illegal immigrants
let's not check IDs at voting stations
dems need these votes since they have no platform to tout
sad, but true.
ask yourself, isn't this true?
4
The idea there is no “citizenship” penalty in the rare circumstance when 1) a person is convicted of a felony and 2) they are actually incarcerated in a state prison, is absurd.
On the one hand it is wrong to permanently disenfranchise a person, by the other token, it is equally absurd to suggest there should be non “civic penalty” for the relatively tiny percentage of the worst convicted felons in America.
In Oregon this number is a fraction of one percent of the population, and as in most of America roughly 75 percent of convicted felons do no actual prison time at all.
We are retreating from common sense if we refuse to call the tiny percentage of overwhelmingly men who commit often violent acts against often women or children the outliers they should be in a civil society. It is not a permanent scarlet letter, and in Oregon and 14 other states once they are out of state custody they re-acquire all the civil rights they temporarily forfeited through deliberate abuse of the rights of others.
1
Part of the problem with disenfranchising voting by anyone convicted of a felony is that at any time the government can declare any number of things illegal enough to have us all turned into felons overnight. I'm not suggesting it's an intent, but part of the "southern strategy" had to do with disenfranchising black families from voting. It may not have been explicitly stated, but it had the same effect none the less.
So what happens if minor infractions of law suddenly become felonies? Suppose marijuana laws suddenly start going backwards again. Suddenly millions of ordinarily legal citizens could become felons with the stroke of the pen.
2
I support the right to vote as one that cannot be infringed. That it is only speaks to the narrowness of our minds. I wish there was a case that goes to supreme court to settle this issue once for all.
2
I don’t know about other States, but in California, there are many prisons in rural areas. These prisons often contain many times more people than there are voters in nearby towns. Why should convicted rapists, child molesters, strong-armed robbers, wife beaters, and murders be allowed to vote for the local school board, much less be allowed to vote for President?
Allowing prisoner to vote is appallingly bad idea.
3
Interesting column...But what about a unified prison population (in a rural area) using their votes to gain control over a local government? Could they elect a fellow prisoner?
Hypothetically, I could envision a whole Mayoral administration working at the behest of a unified prison organization...Might be legitimate...
or maybe wacky...
4
Per usual, no one seems to address the question: Should INMATES have the right to vote. Ex felons are another question.
1
You ask why. I'll tell you why. Those who have chosen to live outside our laws shouldn't be allowed to influence those laws with their votes.
3
The primary reason I can think of for revoking the right to vote of convicted felons is punishment. It's certainly not a deterrent. But in fact it's not much of a punishment either. Perhaps prison inmates should be allowed to vote. It might draw them into the civic fabric of society.
1
The title of this made me mad enough to open it up and read. No way should prisoners be permitted to vote. They are not contributing members of society. And just as importantly, why on earth would be want politicians to have another group to pander to in elections. C'mon are we that desperate?
2
Because the State has a right, and an obligation, to sanction people who commit serious crimes.
And that comes from a very "left" person.
Still, once out on the street, a person with a record has a perfect right to vote.
Hugh
1
I disagree as when you go to prison you loose your rights because you have violated another persons human rights. Victims have less rights than prisoners by the sounds of it. Criminals aren't in prison because they were nice to another person.
1
Lots of commenters railing against an unfair justice system as a reason to allow prisoners to vote. But if you believe the system that put them in prison is corrupt, unethical and/or incompetent, why waste energy on giving them the vote? Get them out of prison, for starters. It’s like being upset at the quality of prison food instead of unfair incarceration.
I doubt too many prisoners spend much time thinking about voting. Why should they, when most of the country doesn’t?
3
When you're convicted of a serious crime, you lose rights. It's called punishment.
1
Ah - no, there is a very good reason they cant vote - they violated their social contract with society and they are, in terms Millennials will understand, on a "time out" - you don't get your milk and cookies then until you can learn to play nice. In fact every violent felon, if and when released, should permanently lose their right to vote. And even other offenders when released (and finish parole) should not be allowed to vote again until they take and pass some sort of course where they would prove they now indeed do "get" society's norms - why should society be penalized by the potentially serious lack of judgment such a person may show in the electoral process as they have in other things. And what kind of unseemly pathetic pandering does society envision by candidates going to prisons to campaign . . . really?! Really, Mr. Bouie please try to keep up - the only "inalienable rights" our founders intended were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not the vote. Since we have proven we can take the first, two nothing stands in the way of restricting the vote to un-incarcerated non felons, period.
3
Like most of you I have never committed a crime. Not because I have not had an opportunity to, I chose to not commit crimes because it’s unfair to the innocent and the hard working people of the world. But people who do commit crimes don’t care about those things. They care about their needs and step on the innocent and hard working to get their needs. So they really are the last people in any group who should have a say on who runs the show. Some will say people who have paid their debt to society deserve to have the right to vote again. But they are hypocrites when they make leave out rapist and murders. What about when rapist and murders pay their debt to society should they not also vote again?
Here's why: they committed crimes for which they knew or should have known were punishable....said punishment including prison and loss of several civil liberties including the right to vote.
3
My thoughts are that if you are not part of the civil society than you should have no say in how the civil society functions, governs, or enacts laws. Being a felon is a one way ticket out of the civil society.
2
As a political strategy, granting voting privileges to convicts is just dumber than dirt.
As a moral issue, it is just as onerous as Trump's subversion of law in this country.
Mr Bouie, like others, neglects to differentiate violent felonies from non violent felonies. He conflates all felonies and then comes to the buried lead that African Americans are incarcerated at rates greater than the rest of society.
He forgets that such people commit violent rates at multiples of other people, but that comes with the NYT territory. Such realities are not discussed in either opinion or news reporting on these pages. To do so is to acknowledge that individual are capable of making choices and some evil people make evil choices.
The people, regardless of ethnicity or race, who commit violent felonies deserve nothing from society other than punishment equivalent to what they inflicted upon their victims. All of them. White men in particular; they should know better and they since they are privileged by racial birth, they should be held to higher standards of civil conduct.
Everybody else, we should talk about.
Drug felony laws have been abused by too many police forces to ignore. Those who have been convicted on those charges might be worth saving.
I don't believe that misdemeanors disqualify a person from voting, but stand to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable.
"Tell Me Again Why Prisoners Can’t Vote"
OK: Because, they're prisoners.
More specifically, felons.
Loss of voting rights is part of the punishment.
It's easy to preserve your voting rights:
Don't commit felonies.
2
We don't think people who don't obey the law should have a role in making law.
3
@William Case
I assume you include Donald Trump in your viewpoint.
3
This may empower wardens, not prisoners. "Unless X wins, everyone's privileges are revoked!" "All prison TVs will now only play Fox News!" Will wardens allow independent election monitors? If not, how can we trust that wardens -- with near-total control -- aren't manipulating the vote counts?
1
Just think of it this way. If Trump hadn't bought his way out of 3 class action lawsuits that were on file against him for fraud and racketeering (FELONIES) in 2016, he'd more than likely be a convicted felon today instead of president.
3
The suggestion that the incarcerated have the vote is interesting, I wonder how jailhouse power structures of intimidation, goods dealing, social hierarchy of physical strength, corrupt guarding, and security would play out against the argumentation, divisiveness and gain that goes with voting.
If I ran a block (and unlike the outside everything in a jail is carefully managed for gain), I'd view being able to deliver the vote as a property that I'd want to own so I could get juice. Being able to tell a candidate's people you can deliver a few thousand votes would certainly add cache beyond trading contraband and violent threats.
Conversely imagine promoting a side of an issue or candidate in a jail! Who are white supremacists going to support, who are the Mexican Mafia's choice for president? And when your guy loses, do you lose big time? Are guards and inmates going to allow child molesters in protective custody vote freely? Do you get to vote without paying some price? If that were the case it would be a violation ... of prison etiquette.
3
The elephant in the room is that Maine and Vermont are the two whitest states in the Union, so the people in jail are whiter than anywhere else. It is not an effective method of racial voter suppression to prevent them from voting.
1
Unleashing illegal immigrants and convicted felons at the polls appears to be the Democrats' only platform. I think it's because they know it's their only hope.
1
With the racial disparities in the American criminal justice and prison system (African Americans are incarcerated at 5 times the rate of whites), voting disenfranchisement of the incarcerated begins to look an awful lot like race-based voter suppression.
https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/
2
There is a very good reason criminals should not vote. It is part of their punishment. I can understand why you would want criminals to vote because they will vote for the party that is soft on crime and doesn't want ICE to enforce our immigration laws. That party would be the Democrats in case it is not clear to you.
1
If criminals are allowed to vote, they might elect one of their own to public office. Then, where would we be?
Oh wait. One of their own has already been elected as President. The nice part is that you cannot be charged with a crime when you are President. And you still get to vote!
3
It is simple, you do the crime you lose the privilage.
1
Sure. I'll tell you again; I'll even type slowly so the author can keep up.
Prison inmates are criminals.
They are degenerates who are deserving of punishment and reduced rights.
These felons obviously do not share the values of our civilization and would only promote more crimes and reduced law enforcement.
Is this clear enough now?
Try to think before you publish.
1
When you go to prison you loose your freedom and being able
to vote/democracy is paramount to having your freedom
You loose both in prison
Once you are out and paid your dept, then you should be able to vote
1
Voting is the essential means of participating in society. Crime is the essential means of setting oneself against society. For that reason, I have no misgivings about suspension of rights while serving the sanction for crime. After the criminal sanction comes to an end, however, the person should be restored to the position of equal participant, with voting rights.
3
There is no inherent logic between committing a crime and the right to vote. Losing the right to vote when convicted of a crime makes no sense. More importantly, freedom of the press and the right to vote are the bedrocks of a free society. A citizen should never lose their right to vote. If I had to carve out any exceptions they would be for conviction for treason, espionage and voter fraud.
1
I am conflicted on this issue. Our criminal justice system is deeply flawed. Issues of wealth and race pervert the process. However, a convicted felon has been found to have broken the social contract and, as a result, is deprived of liberty, one of the unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence. It is reasonable to include the loss of the right to vote as part of the consequence of breaking the social contract.
Once the consequence has been completed, the citizen should resume full rights.
1
I think that the reason that felons can't vote is that we understand that these people are:
1. Unlikely to understand the issues as they cannot read uncensored news.
2. Easily intimidated by the warden and the guards to vote a particular way.
3. Their votes are easily bought for a few bags of potato chips.
So, if you think that it's a good idea to have people who are uninformed as well as easily bribed and intimidated vote then you are welcome to your opinion. To me, there's a need to insure that voters are informed and not easily bribed or intimidated when they go to the polls. How else can you be sure that the election is reasonably fair?
3
I never understood what I saw as a seemingly random & capricious policy of not allowing convicted felons to vote after they've served their sentence. We expect them to "normalize" and fit in after release (with the exception of those who are required to register as sex offenders) yet they can't participate in a basic civic duty?
There are plenty of folks who have done despicable, even criminal things but have never been caught who are allowed to vote.
That said, I understand the logistical challenges of allowing people to vote while incarcerated, particularly those in federal prison.
3
"Prisoners are neither more nor less rational than anyone else who is allowed to vote."
How are they just as rational if they are in jail? Didn't their reasoning fail at a very key point?
4
Let me see if I can, in one place, catalog all of the changes we now need to make to our electoral and governing processes due to the fact that Democrats made the unfortunate choice of running Hillary Clinton as their candidate in 2016:
1. Abolition of the Electoral College
2. Abolition of the Senate
3. Massive expansion of the House of Representatives
4. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote
5. Allowing foreign visa holders to vote
6. Allowing non-citizen green card holders to vote
7. Allowing undocumented immigrants to vote
8. Allowing disenfranchised prisoners to vote
9. Allowing people without any type of photo ID to vote
10. Packing the Supreme Court
Did I miss anything?
The question I have to ask is: if we make all these changes, and Democrats continue to lose elections, what then? Do we need to disenfranchise white men? No votes for millionaires and billionaires?
Mr. Bouie, I'm truly sorry that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election. She was a poor choice of candidate for the times; I think it was a mistake for Democrats to nominate her. That said, her loss doesn't precipitate a need to completely remake our country to dovetail with your proclivities.
Voting is both a right and a privilege, as you must know. I don't doubt that prisoners have the capability to make "considered political choices". That's not the point. The point is, in committing a crime serious enough to warrant jail time, those prisoners have forfeited their privilege.
7
If voting is a right, which seems in doubt, then, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, it's the government's job to protect these rights. If these rights are indeed endowed by our creator, then ballot boxes belong in prisons.
@Peters-Bleck. No, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote until they get out. Do you really want MS13 deciding anything?
I do agree that former prisoners should have voting rights restored once their sentences are over. I do not see a requirement for current felony inmates to have voting rights as defensible. It should be up to each individual state but voting while incarcerated is not an inalienable right.
2
Depriving a person of the right to vote for the term of his or her incarceration makes sense because the person has violated laws that indicate that the person is not to be trusted to exercise the right to vote responsibly as well as being punishment, BUT the problem is that we lock up people because we don't like what they are doing as well as because they violate important societal laws. We also do so in a way that targets minorities unjustly. This proposal is a backdoor effort to solve a problem that should be addressed through. the front door.
How would that work at the local level?
Our semi-rural town has a state correctional facility within its boundaries, populated mostly with young men from the state's urban areas. Should these people who have zero connection to or stake in our local community be able to cast a ballot for our town selectmen or state representative? Absolutely not.
People who are in prison are there because they have shown themselves unable to constructively participate in society.
Voting is NOT a God-given and inalienable right. Voting is a privilege bestowed on constructive members of society according to the norms of that society.
7
@A F
You might not realize that the prisoners in your state correctional facility count in the census toward the population in your locality, therefore adding to your locality's representation in your state legislature. That means that they do NOT have zero connection to your local community. They actually add to your district's voting power in your state legislature.
BTW, voting is a right that is legally withheld from slaves. That's why convicted felons cannot vote when they are in prison.
1
Because there are rules. And when you don't follow them, you go to jail/prison where the intent is to remove you from society. People will often know that there are consequences for their actions, but some people think that even though they did what they weren't supposed to, that they should get away with it.
4
A serious potential consequence of disenfranchising prisoners is the incentive to target individuals for prosecution for the purpose of disenfranchising them. I cannot say that this happens, but unless one arguing in favor of disenfranchisement can say that is will not and that it has not, the risk of this happening is unacceptable.
@Eleanor Harris Absurd
@Eleanor Harris
What do you think the original intent of the War on Drugs was for?
"You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon
1
Convicts in prison or still on probation should not be allowed to vote.
Once their sentence has been served and they are no longer on probation they should be allowed to vote.
No one is taking their rights away.
By deciding to commit their crime they
have chosen to forfeit the right to vote.
On the other hand violent felons should PERMANENTLY [even after completing their sentence] lose the right to own firearms.
Used to be federal law but NRA had law modified with disastrous results.
2
Many felons are in prison precisely because they never learned how to be a part of law-abiding society. Rehabilitation is one of the goals of the penal system, and that means teaching felons how to be part of law-abiding society.
In the context of voting, that means we should ensure that felons learn about public policy issues, our form of government, and the candidates for office. And then we should expect them to vote. With luck, they'll continue with it on the outside.
To the extend being in prison should curtail voting rights, the curtailment should be of the desire to avoid performing one's civic duty and voting.
Hopefully, those who wish to punish felons around voting can settle on this as a compromise. They HAVE to vote. That'll teach 'em....
Nope. They have chosen to act outside the norms of civilized society, they should not be able to participate in it's governance.
9
Because it's inconvenient to run a polling station in a prison, plus those in prison are not in a position to remain informed or even in many ways to make their own decisions. The thing is, if a right is taken it should be an explicit part of the sentence. If it's not part of the sentence the right should remain.
1
I have never understood this policy,which exists in Maryland. Many convicts and ex-convicts have suffered from a lack of a sense of agency in their lives. Denying them the vote certainly reinforces this. Who knows what the right to vote,to make decisions, to count as a human being and a citizen might result in? Not for every person, but maybe for some, this simple right could make a huge difference.
Prisoners are counted in the decennial census, the results of which are used to set congressional district boundaries and determine federal funding for the states. And they can't vote. A travesty!
Why not? Easy - those who do not follow the law should not elect the representatives who create the law.
More than obvious.
7
There is ethnic component to the process.
This seems to be understood by some and incomprehensible to others.
Inside that paradox, you will find your answer.
1
It’s called a social compact for a reason. When someone fails to abide by it, the other side no longer needs to either.
10
Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground, like allowing those with good behavior, show initiative to rehabilitate or otherwise regain the trust of society be allowed to regain voting rights.
3
Elizabeth Warren: "Once someone pays their debt to society, they’re out there expected to pay taxes..."
And here ladies and gentlemen we have the single most problematic trait of politicians who ascribe to "government-first" philosophies: the first responsibility they think of when considering an individual being assimilated back into society is paying taxes, i.e. surrendering money to pols like Warren herself to redistribute.
What Warren and her ilk fail to consider are the possible consequences of excessive taxation:
- that a household at the margins is pushed by taxation to such a state of desperation that they turn to crime
- that an individual of any income level and any political persuasion is so troubled by the myriad ways in which their tax dollars are squandered on unconstitutional endeavors from endless war to researching how cockroaches respond to Gregorian Chant that they are driven to lash out violently.
Taxaholics like Senator Warren often quote Oliver Wendell Holmes's bromide that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". But Holmes wrote those words in a dissenting opinion: he couldn't even get four other Justices whose salaries are paid by taxes to agree with it!
3
You may think that Senator Warren’s ideas about taxation are wrong, but you are missing the point of that specific reference to taxes. In fact, it’s logic would seem to be that most calculated to appeal to those favoring smaller government. She’s saying if you are taking on the obligations of an ordinary citizen, a significant one being paying taxes, surely you should get to have a say in how things are run. So unless you believe in no taxes at all, the point should resonate even if it does not ultimately persuade you.
2
@Charles
Don’t know if you’ve noticed the country’s infrastructure and educational systems falling apart, due largely to the uniquely American obsession with lowering taxes.
You get what you pay for, Charles.
2
"The best argument, outside of the case from custom and tradition, is that committing a serious crime voids your right to have a say in the political process. You lose your liberty — your place in civil society — and the freedoms that come with it."
The best argument is this: Most prisons are situated in small communities where prisoners comprise a large proportion of the adults. If prisoners are allowed to vote they will have to vote by place of residence (which in their case means the municipality where they are imprisoned). In other words, prisoners will effectively run the affairs of the people who keep them imprisoned. If someone can't see why that would be a problem I don't really know what to say.
6
Well, everyone in New York knows why they can't vote: the state established most of its prisons far from population centers; many of them in upstate very rural areas.
The prisoners count for population and districting purposes, so the political power of these rural politicians (uniformly Republican) is increased. For years this was the biggest factor maintaining Republican control of the state senate ...
Do you think the prisoners would vote the way the local politicians would like?
5
Citizens should all be encouraged and allowed to vote every year of their adult life even if incarcerated.
The "War on Drugs" as we now understand it was an effort to jail Blacks and Latinos primarily and quite possibly the entire charade was invented specifically to keep Blacks and Latinos from voting.
Worked like a charm didn't it.
6
@Joseph
Only one problem. There are far more whites in prison than any other race.
7
@Shamrock
Being a little disingenuous eh?
The % of POC inmates to gen. pop. is skewed heavily.
C'mon you/we all knew that.
2
Prisoners are in prison because they harmed others, period. They DESERVE punishment because they harmed others. They ARE different from law abiding, civilized citizens because they have deliberately harmed others. That is why they should not vote.
6
Corporations are people too, some corporations break the law, therefore corporations that break the law should not be allowed to buy elections.
4
@me
Does Trump University and its $25 million settlement mean Trump shouldn't vote or hold office?
Yes!
Yes it does.
4
It's a problem living in a society where the right to vote is not guaranteed. True, they can't take it away based on your race, your gender, or your age if you are over 18. But otherwise ... remember literacy tests and poll taxes? Still constitutional! Not used, but they could be.
1
Extending the vote to convicted criminals (and illegal aliens) effectively lowers the value of good citizenship.
9
I don't know, maybe it's me, but I have hard time allowing convicted murderers to vote.
Do candidates, then, proudly campaign in the prisons?
And which candidate wants to admit they want people who violate the law, some committing heinous violent crimes, to vote for them?
And doesn't prison seem like a ripe environment for voter fraud.
It seems like restoring their voting rights after they complete their time is more reasonable.
9
Let's deal with restoring rights those who were convicted but paid their dues. Let's also stop jailing folks for drug use.
4
In my country, voting is such a fundamental right that it can only be taken away by a judge if you commited a terrorist crime or similar. Thus, most felons can vote. It's also uncomplicated for them to vote, as you don't have to register.
4
The muddle-headededness that is the "progressive Left" and in particular the distinct form of it known to Mr Bouie remains on display, every day, for all to see. And yet somehow, he remains employed. The question also remains ---would tripe like this ever pass muster at a real university where standards prevailed? Let alone at the NYTimes which is, allegedly, our national Newspaper of record? Oh, well yes, because it's all the news that fits (the narrative).
9
@JMR
What's you thoughts/feelings about Trumps ripoff University? You know, the one that he is fighting to not pay the settlement of over $25 million dollars for grifting mostly aged folk?!
3
So silly. I hope dems run on this. When you are in prison, you have been taken out of society because you have proven yourself incapable of living in civil society. Of course you should not be allowed to cast a vote while serving your sentence. I am open to voting rights for those who are released from prison and reintegrated into society.
12
"...suffrage in prison may help incarcerated people maintain valuable links to their communities..."
Many prisons are located in relatively rural areas. To use Waupun Correctional Institution (a maximum security penitentiary in Waupun, Wisconsin) as an example, the prison holds 1,330 inmates. Bearing in mind that the U.S. Census counts inmates as residents of where they are incarcerated, the population of Waupun is 11,269. Therefore, over 1/10 of potential voters in Waupun are prisoners with no direct connection to ordinary civic affairs in their city of residence, which presumably is where they would vote.
2
@Carl Apologies for the duplicate comment ... the system indicated the earlier one was not accepted, so I reentered the thought.
@Carl That is easy prisoners get an absentee ballot from their previous place of residence.
Many prisons are located in relatively rural communities. To use Waupun Correctional Institution (a maximum security prison located in Waupun, Wisconsin) as an example, the prison population is reported to hold an inmate population of 1,330. The population of Waupun, presumably per census data, is 11,269. The U.S. Census counts prisoners at the location of the prison. Therefore, over 1/10 of the population of Waupun is a prisoner, with a fairly tenuous, if any, relationship to city governmental issues. Yet 1,330 votes might well swing a local election in this city. I could understand locals objecting to the enfranchisement of the prison population if it enables voting in all elections.
1
@Carl
Excellent point. The district in which prisoner votes would count is a complex question with a lot of practical consequences. I really don’t know what you do with a voter who had no choice to be in a certain political district.
1
I agree that permanent disenfranchisement is a bit draconian for most felony offenses, but it kind of seems like a stretch that current prisoners should be voting in elections. The right to vote is a decidedly less important right than the right to live outside of a cage. If we've made the societal determination that an individual belongs in a cage for a period of time, I think it's entirely logical that they would likewise be barred from voting until they serve their time.
Restoration of the right to vote after the prison term has been served is probably a good policy. Among other things, such a policy gives the convict "buy-in" with respect to the system of laws we expect the convict to abide by. Probably if anything reduces recidivism, and I doubt the punitive aspect of permanent disenfranchisement has much if any deterrent effect.
2
The real reason prisoners are denied the right to vote in most states (and have their rights restricted after being released) is, I suspect, as a legacy of the use of incarceration to substitute for slavery. Once emancipation (and Reconstruction) happened, the white power structure had to find a way to disenfranchise large segments of the black population. Hence mass incarceration and mass disenfranchisement.
2
@Francesca
Since white women didn’t have the right to vote until 1919 I’m not sure your theory backs sense. Black men were voting long before whites women.
6
@Shamrock 1920. Women got the right to vote in 1920. The 1919 bill was ratified in 1920 and that is the official year in which women were first allowed to vote.
1
Since the prisoners are held against their will, is it appropriate and just to have their vote count in a district not of their choice? Just a political science and philosophy question.
In Massachusetts, in 2000 voters overwhelmingly voted to prohibit prisoners from voting. This was the first time in the history of Massachusetts where voters took away somone's civil right. In the current legislative session, Sen. Adam Hinds (D-Pittsfield) has introduced S12, a constitutional amendment which would restore voting rights to incarcerated women and men.
1
@Jamelle Bouie
Are you serious? Do you have any idea how tough the next Presidential 2020 election is going to be and you chose to opine about the voting rights of 2 million incarcerated Americans [20% of which aren't even American citizens].
Let the liberal diatribe roll- but you are on the wrong track and the wrong train. All you are doing by writing this nonsense is re-electing Trump.
13
I have a cousin who is a convicted rapist. He has always been (and at 47 years old) will probably always be a terrible person. Period. Should he be allowed to vote if the vote has to do with rape sentencing or other crimes in any way? I can tell you right now if he can vote to "screw the system" it is exactly what he will do. He is, as my grandmother used to say, "Just a bad egg."
67
@Lauren
If a majority want to "screw the system", isn't that what a democracy should do?
14
@Lauren
There are many bad eggs walking around in society. "Goodness" is not nor has it ever been the basis of citizenship in the United States. Moreover, there many people who have not been convicted of crimes who may or have voted to "screw the system." One could argue, in fact, that that was the dominant theme of the 2016 Presidential election.
35
@Lauren
Just to play devil's advocate... Should the number of "bad egg" U.S. citizens who voted for Trump to "screw the system" be allowed to vote because they have not been convicted of any crime?
29
How about repeat offenders?
6
Two of the of the least populous and whitest states in America are not relevant to mass incarceration and mass disenfranchisement. Picking these two states as models is not as awful as using Scandinavia.
About 40% of the 2.3 million Americans in prison are black like Ben Carson. Because the 13 % of Americans who are black are persecuted for acting like white people do without any criminal justice consequences.
With 5% of humans, America has 25% of the world's prisoners. There are too many American prisoners who are not violent not career nor organized nor rich nor educated. But who are black and brown, poor, uneducated, unemployed and addicted to drugs, alcoholics and mentally ill.
2
One man one vote.
Who said a prisoner is not a man ?…
As for those who say men behind bars transgressed human and social tules and norms and should not be able to vote … they have a strange view of human nature and how society is organized : almost all of us committed a crime in our life, cheating, not telling the truth entirely under oath, reckless driving, DUI, etc…
In this regard few people in this country should be able to vote…
1
The issue of barring prisoners from voting merits a serious discussion; as is the case for any societal practice with such serious repercussions. For exactly the reasons Warren mentions, and Bouille cites, former convicts should, undeniably, be allowed to vote: “Once someone pays their debt to society, they’re out there expected to pay taxes, expected to abide by the law, they’re expected to support themselves and their families…, I think that means they’ve got a right to vote.” But for the same reason, current convicts shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Society is a contract. You pay taxes, abide by the established rules, and in turn are granted access to services and certain liberties, such as the privilege of voting. But by violating this contract, and committing a crime, it seems only reasonable that the relationship is not reciprocated. Bouille contends that “losing your liberty doesn’t mean you’ve lost your capacity to reason” nor does it render you incapable of making a considered political choice. But cleary it does. How can we expect someone who doesn't abide my basic laws to make a calculated political decision? We can’t.
4
If you look at the world as a finite pie, then prisoners can’t vote because they can’t be entitled to any pie. Men who “have” constantly look for reasons to “have” more and to keep everything out of the hands of others. Prison, race, sex, religion all become simple easy to determine justifications to keep the finite pie pieces in a finite number of hands. The only rationale is greed.
In addition to the element of vengeance embedded in incarceration and formalized with loss of voting rights, some would suggest the incarcerated would be easy prey to buy votes with simple favors like a cigarette or candy bar.
While that might be true in some cases, how much different is that from those who curry favor with large donations through superPACs and other "gifts"?
G.B. Shaw's rejoinder to a doyen deserves repetition:
Shaw: "Madam would you sleep with me for a guinea?"
Woman: "No."
Shaw: "How about 1,000 pounds?"
Woman: "What do you think I am sir, a hussy!"
Shaw: "We have already determined what you are. I am only negotiating a price."
1
"But doing it that way — subjecting prisoners to a kind of social death — is in conflict with the idea of “inalienable” rights that cannot be curtailed." , As defined in The Declaration " with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those who have committed a crime have removed themselves, by their own actions, from these precepts, for they have impinged on those same rights of others.
4
Someone served a jail sentence because he held a gun to my head. The notion that he deserved to vote after having violated all civil norms is sickening. Why are Dems trolling for votes among criminals?
10
@Enough Already
They must want Trump re-elected. What a losing political issue for Democrats.
2
Yeah let's let rapists vote that women should jailed for refusing them. Let's let heroine users decide they have the right of access to drugs for free. Let's let a murderer advocate the victim deserved it. Let's have the burglar decide locks and doors should be illegal.
Have you Dems truly lost your minds?
7
Let's extend this further. Let little kids vote. Let the whole world vote. Let the universe vote. This seems like the only way Dems can win elections.
4
Not being an economist, but being a political junky, to me it appears, you are spot on, Mr. Krugman.
The U.S. is not ready for a full socialistic approach to medicine. Nor is it ready for a full-on carbon tax. Trump's election alone, albeit the fault of the electoral college, should be an indication of the American inclination toward conservatism, and while Trump has brought about much mobilization of the Left, the rest of the country still carries a lot of clout and should not be ignored this time around.
Yes, all affected by laws, should be allowed to weigh in through a vote. Include also parental proxy votes for minors to assure that their interests are proportionally represented.
There is in fact one very good reason for denying the vote to those in prison. It's the same reason that they have forfeited their freedom - and the same reason that Donald Trump has no business being in the White House: they have damaged law-abiding citizens by knowingly having violated the law.
On the other hand, there is no good reason that they should not be allowed to vote after they have served their time.
(It's like being put into the penalty box in hockey: you can't participate in the game while being penalized, but you can get right back into the fray as soon as your sentence ends.)
6
So convicted felons can not vote but still have to pay taxes.
One of the basic principles of the American Revolution was: "No taxation without representation."
2
Perhaps Mr. Bouie has not heard of the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, except for prisoners. Sounds like a good reason to deny them the privilege of voting.
I suppose there could be crimes that warrant the restriction of a persons right to vote. But this shouldn’t be something that is automatic and applicable to all crimes.
A person guilty of treason, obviously, should not be allowed to vote for a period of time, or perhaps, indefinitely. Someone caught with a joint (in some states, but not others) should not have this right taken away.
Let the judge consider a motion by a prosecutor to deny or limit voting rights, as partial punishment for the crime committed, but it should never be automatic.
3
@Thomas Possessing one joint does not get you sent to prison.
One is in prison because they committed a crime, an act against society and its norms which, in the overall view, requires removal from that society for a designated period of time. Part of that removal is the loss of any ability to affect that society in any way. Voting does just that, affecting society, and therefore must be part of the removal process. When paroled, or released at the end of sentence then, as part of that process, the voting rights should be restored --- but not before.
1
"Prisoners are neither more nor less rational than anyone else who is allowed to vote."
The problem, of course, is that MOST people who vote are not rational, regardless of incarceration status.
2
@Glenn Ribotsky
Definitely. Only rational voters vote Democrat. So much for tolerance of different political views.
It’s interesting that so many readers assume people in prison are actually guilty. Many people are encouraged to ‘take a plea’, as my brother was when he was charged with trafficking. He was framed by a woman (whose father was a judge) after she was arrested and wanted to avoid imprisonment herself. He has been in prison for 8 years for a crime he did not commit. He went through a rehab program in prison, but one of the most criminal things is how inhumane the system is in terms of the way it is aimed to simply destroy any measure of self-worth, dignity or aspirations. They are private institutions that inflict more damage and then, recycle prisoners. The right to vote is an opportunity to vote against the broken system that put a non-violent addict in prison instead of rehab or therapy, but also vote on many other matters that they have vested interests in as family members, and members of society. The prison system is not a system of ‘corrections’, it is a corrupt system of greed and failure, and imprisons many of the most vulnerable members of our society - who have suffered from addiction, being impoverished, lack of healthcare, lack of education, etc. should be able to vote. Many of them know better than those who are ‘free’ what might improve our country. They are human beings and should be treated as such.
3
It is one thing to argue that once you have served your sentence you should have you right to vote restored and another to argue that while inprison you should be able to vote. The entire concept of prison is that you lose your freedom. This loss includes your right to vote.
Let’s focus on motivating the average American to vote.
4
There are countries in which voting stations are set up in prisons to allow prisoners to vote. Voting stations are set up in hospitals to allow patients to vote and are brought to the immobile patient; if they are conscious (and citizens) they can vote.
Not allowing citizens to vote and disenfranchising released prisoners makes absolutely no sense. The criterion should be citizenship.
6
If one is incarcerated for a crime, they lose the privileges accorded to the law-abiding citizen. Commit a crime against society and society pays to keep the offender fed, clothed & housed while they repay their debt to society. Those in this position have NO right to vote in matters that affect my life.
5
Oh sure, kill someone and take away their right to EVERYTHING but have someone at the NYT worry about you not getting your 'right' to vote - not only IF you ever get out of jail but WHILE you're in jail. Unbelievable.
11
“Why disenfranchise felons at all?”
Easy question. It gives a POTENTIAL felon a good reason NEVER to commit a felony.
3
What hypocrisy. JB is willing to accept that felons can be rehabilitated, but if the governor of Virginia shows poor judgement decades ago, that can never be forgiven.
7
When I complained about draconian drug laws in my state, politiicans would say, well then, get involved and change the law!
Sadly, folks who might disagree with drug laws have been incarcerated and their votiing rights denied. What kind of crimes should be used to deny the vote? If we believe in our justice system and doing one's time to pay back to society, then voting should actually be required!
2
@Wasatch reader One can disagree with drug laws without violating them. By taking that option, the right to work for changing them is preserved.
1
The US is one of the few developed countries with such draconian felon disenfranchisement laws. Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Israel and South Africa are just some of the countries that have no restrictions whatsoever regarding felon voting, even while incarcerated.
It's time for the United States to not just assume that it's the most superior country in all aspects. It's time to show some humility and learn from the rest of the world, whether it's prisoner rights, education, healthcare, or the ease of preparing personal income tax returns. (Yes, it's that time of the year).
2
Voting is a way of being a responsible citizen. Every citizen over the age of 18 should vote and it's immoral and illogical to prevent them from doing so. It's always the Republicans who try to squelch people's voting rights. Shame on them. Prisoners should vote just as they do in Maine and Vermont.
6
Take a long, hard look around you. Then go out and engage as many people as possible in conversation. Conversation about anything. Then come back and promote universal voting. You won’t. The fact is that many people do not belong anywhere near a voting booth for a variety of reasons. Many self-select (myself included) but obviously not enough do so. Education, intelligence, income (relative to one’s financial stake in the country as well as their being a target for control/punishment by the left), knowledge of the issues are but a few of the reasons.
@From Where I Sit You sit in a rather condescendingly lifeguard bench, don't you? I am old and have worked in prisons for years, spent a lifetime of travel around North America and Europe, and taught several subjects to people from college level down to kindergarten in excellent schools in NY and Virginia. I have done work in shelters, soup kitchens, food pantries, courtrooms, and sat in thrones where royalty reigned. I believe in universal voting rights. No one's citizenship is less valid or valuable than another's.
3
@Sweetbetsy People behind bars have inherently demonstrated they are not responsible for citizens. Participating in our society is not a guarantee when you will not abide by our rules.
2
We were taught in law school that loss of the right to vote was one of the punishments given to the convicted for committing a serious crime against society. I nodded in approbation.
There are myriads of sociopaths in jail who merit castigation, and loss of rights. However, there are legions of others who can be redeemed by coming back to the mainstream of society.
Giving paroled felons back the right to vote was one of the main projects of former Presidents Carter and Ford working in tandem.
They argued that giving felons the right to vote would give them an interest in society, and make them less likely to commit future crimes against their fellow citizens.
I now see the wisdom in that.
7
I simply couldn't disagree with the title of this op-ed more if I was paid to do so. I'm absolutely 100% in support of a prisoner, once released and having paid his/her debt to society, have their rights fully restored, but certainly not before the debt has been paid in full. Being thrown in jail isn't a normal condition of a life lived responsibly. If one does enough wrong to be jailed for it, that person simply shouldn't be bestowed rights as if breaking the law is...casual.
12
@David So you are saying that some white guy caught with some pot, and given six moths probation, should lose their vote for a maximum of six months, while a black guy sent to prison for 8 years for the same crime, loses his vote for 16 times as long.
Your argument only makes sense if the laws, and punishment across states is consistent. The same guys in Washington state haven’t even broken the law.
4
I certainly agree that anyone released from prison should be able to vote.
As for voting in prison, "where" do the vote? That is - do they register in the location of the prison? That is their residence, isn't it? Since prisons are often in fairly rural areas, they would suddenly dominate the local elections.
Or, how do they prove "residence" in any other location?
By comparison, there is quite a controversy over resident college students, right? Do they vote "at the school", or the place they lived before going to school.
Seem like students and prisoner voting locations are about the same. Except: how does a prisoner prove residence? They may have been homeless without ID at the time of arrest.
Maybe prisoners register from the courthouse address where they were convicted?
2
@rsercely They could vote from their last address before incarceration but that means inmates who hadn’t seen their old neighborhood in 20 years would have influence in local elections
1
I share your view on this subject and have shared it as long as I can remember. It's not that I gave it much thought; I just couldn't quite see why people convicted of this or that serious crime should be disenfranchised.
The right to vote is one of the fundamental rights of citizenship. Felonies are committed on top of this bedrock of rights, at the level of statutory law. Conviction of a felony brings a specific punishment deemed appropriate to that crime. There's no reason, so far as I can see, why felons should receive the additional punishment of losing a fundamental right.
1
@Longestaffe
One of the fundamental responsibilities of Citizenship is to follow the law. Commit a felony and you lose your rights, including the right to vote.
Pay your debt, prove you are once again responsible, and you get your rights back.
3
@Russian Bot
Thanks for your reply, but I don't think that's justifiable. In fact, I doubt whether many people would argue that felons should lose "their rights, including...". That means all their rights. If you're serious about that, I wish you'd think again.
Commit a felony, and you bear the punishment prescribed by law for that crime. That should be sufficient. It doesn't make sense to say that people should lose their rights as citizens without losing their citizenship.
I think people are getting confused between committing a crime, and being CAUGHT. Members of our society commit crimes everyday that go undetected. Alcohol and drug abusers may drive impaired hundreds of times and not get caught. (I’m an addiction therapist, I know.) The majority of sexual crimes aren’t even reported.
I see all the moral judgment that because someone made a choice to commit a crime they should be denied voting rights.(we don’t have space to go into how drug addiction, the cause of the majority of our inmates, is the “choice” of an impaired brain). But this reasoning is nonsense. It may make you feel good to punish people even more than being incarcerated, but don’t kid yourself. What people are basically saying is “if you have a bad lawyer (or an overwhelmed public defender) or just unlucky enough to get caught, you pathetic person, don’t deserve the right to vote about issues that affect your family and your future or the planet.” But if you commit any number of crimes, serious or otherwise, and don’t get caught, well then, by all means you get to vote! So where do you draw the line? Simple, you don’t. Everyone gets to vote. So the rare mass murderer gets to vote. Really I’m not going to lose any sleep. What bothers me is the pathetically low registration and turnout rate from all those free Americans. Maybe they are the ones who should be in prison since they care so little for society.
169
@Mark, perfectly summarized, spot on argument.
16
@Bob Tonnor
Unlike Mark in Cincinnati I am not an addiction specialist but I do teach history in a high-security men's prison. This work is more intellectually rewarding than any other teaching that I have done. Moreover, my students have taught me a great deal about humanity. Nobody should be defined by a crime they committed. My students are better-informed about the world we live in than those students I teach on the outside. In 2018 they "deputized" me to go out and canvass -- and help flip the House of Representatives. A society is only as good as it treats its most marginalized and victimized. That my students were not permitted to vote is, in my mind, a crime against humanity. I agree with Bernie. I agree with Earl Warren. I also agree with James Forman, Jr who writes about people's capacity to change so eloquently in "Locking Up Our Own."
33
@Mark Wow. And Dems wonder why they lose elections. I've been the victim of crime several times. I would never hold a gun in someone's ear, steal their bicycle or break into their car just to take a pair of ice skates. I certainly wouldn't mug, rob or rape someone. There's no unlucky about getting caught. Some people are exactly where they belong. They have no businesses participating in our civil society.
14
how about allowing mass murderers
and serial rapists to run for office?
we could have the Senator from
Vermont taking part in debates
on the Senate floor from his prison
cell.people with misdemeanors should
be able to vote,but those who felonies
must wait at least two years to prove
they are willing to go straight.as I have
often said,I am not a perfect man, but
if I were a felon,I wouldn't expect
the right to vote until I waited at least
two years until I proved my sincerity.
4
Trump's best vote generator might just be the NYT and its columnists. No politician could wish for a better 'resistance' in their wildest dreams.
After we beat Trump on these two issues:
1. Fixing Immigration, and
2. Jobs for the 80% of US counties that don't have enough of them.
...then we can do everything else!!!
Climate, infrastructure, education, health care, no airplanes, and yes, even prisoner voting.
4
@A Faerber The Dems are not going to beat Trump on importing cheap labor. Especially not the kind that can only survive here by using welfare and massively burdening local communities with utter lack of preparation for life in this country.
1
I live in MA so I hear crazy things every day, but this may top the cake fir at least one day. People in prison are being punished, and stripping rights is something they earned we have enough real things to worry about in today’s world, why add something like this to the pile.
Felons injure society, why allow them to choose the people who run society that is how you wind up with the Sullolk County DA who says we must consider the impact on an individuals residency if they are convicted of a felony.
7
Felons lost the vote in the South after Reconstruction. Taking away the right to vote was part of the white racist effort to eliminate the black vote, which had elected black state and federal official in among other places, South Carolina and Louisiana. If you remember the origin of the poll tax in the south, then you understand the motivation behind eviscerating the right to vote.
2
@sls3 So if the original intent of the law was racist then we should eliminate the vestiges of those laws today? Okay. Then no more gun control. And no more minimum wage. Both of those were explicitly started for the purpose of hurting black Americans.
1
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord". Perhaps the vicious avengers who have shrieked at the idea of a prisoner (sinner) having the right to vote are not really in touch with the Christianity they claim to profess. Perhaps they are proud of the fact that we have a higher incarceration rate than any other country. Perhaps many of them would have been ready to heave their stone after Jesus challenged those int the crowd "let he who hath no sin cast the first stone", sure that they are sinless.
The reek of righteous superiority is sickening.
@Maureen Steffek As opposed to the total lack of stone throwing in your post of course. FYI, most of us are not Christians nor is Christian a synonym for good person.
As long as they still abide inside the US, as long as they still must pay taxes, they have a Constitutional right to vote.
@RCJCHC
Over 40% of eligible voters don't pay any Federal income taxes. The constitution is fine with disenfranchising prisoners.
1
@RCJCHC They are not paying taxes. They cost tax dollars.
"The best argument, outside of the case from custom and tradition, is that committing a serious crime voids your right to have a say in the political process. You lose your liberty — your place in civil society — and the freedoms that come with it."
Actually, that's a pretty good argument, and one that most Americans agree with.
But let's get back to reality here. In 35 years as a career prosecutor, and one involved in yearly audits of jails and prisons, the whole "felon vote" argument is just silly. It's just naive for Democrats to place increasing hope for electoral success on felons voting for their candidates. Aside from the bad optics of promoting your party as the party of felons, it isn't going to work for you guys.
The scant number of votes you get from felons will be more than canceled out by your image as party that appeals to criminals for support. And having had a chance to associate with prison inmates in their environment, I can tell you that the number of serious criminals who will actually vote is so minimal it won't be worth the image problem you create for yourselves. You see, by and large, the reason criminals are in prison in the first place is because they are irresponsible or disturbed people who lead a fringe life of day-to-day dissolution. Those people don't vote.
11
Waiting foe Bernie to call for prisoners to collect food stamps and welfare checks since they’re unemployed.
1
@Brad Actually, some of them are employed. Some of them worked putting out wildfires in California for pennies on the dollar of what people outside prison made. Sort of like indentured servitude.
Let's face it Jamelle. Convincing members of the public that prisoners should be permitted to vote is a hard cell.
10
No one should ever lose his or her right to vote. The government should never be allowed to take away your liberty and also take away your right to the representation that allows you to challenge the laws that permit the taking of your liberty.
89
@617to416 No one should bludgeon another person to death, either. Apparently vicious murders don't bother you, but they do bother me, and lack of respect or empathy for VICTIMS and their families bothers me, too.
17
@617to416 When you violate the rules of society you give up the right to influence that society.
Release/parole re-instates those rights---but not before.
And, in your context, you can challenge the law by the appeal process. That is what it is for.
12
@617to416 Don't mug people and this won't be a problem for you.
10
It may surprise some people to learn that prisoners are not liberal. They tend to be more conservative. That is enhanced by the white collar criminals currently serving time. I am fairly certain that Manafort would not vote Democratic, nor would Roger Stone. So if Democrats were only interested in increasing their share of the vote, they would oppose voting while incarcerated, which is not the case as we believe in democracy for all to a larger extent than Republicans.
Disenfranchisement is a Republican tactic. Surprise.
If you are in prison or you are out of prison but still on probation you should not be allowed to vote.
Otherwise you should be allowed to vote.
If you think people are wrongly imprisoned because of flawed drug laws then change those laws.
But existing law [until it is changed] must be used to determine who is imprisoned and who is denied suffrage.
3
Oh. So is it that prisoners stop being human, or just citizens?
They’re citizens. The Census counts them.
They need to vote.
@Robert My six year doesn't vote either. She's still a citizen. People lose their right to vote when they don't adhere to social norms.
No one is saying prisoners are not human and no one is saying they are not citizens.
However by choosing to commit their crime they have voluntarily forfeited certain rights that non prisoners have.
It used to be federal law that violent felons permanently forfeited their right to own guns when released from prison.
Unfortunately the NRA had this ban modified with disastrous results.
see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all
That permanent ban should be re instated.
Prisoners are prisoners because they have behaved in a manner which distances them from society. When they choose (and I mean choose) to break the conventions that the rest of us observe, they lose (or should lose) the right to participate in society's decision machining. full stop
6
Jamelle: In urging that prisoners be permitted to vote, you say "the political system needs the perspectives of prisoners, with their intimate experience of this otherwise opaque part of the state."
If you think that's a legitimate consideration, why stop at giving prisoners the right to vote? Why not let them run for and hold political office as well? Come to think of it, why should politicians who are convicted of crimes have to give up their political careers along with their freedom?
4
When census counts are taken to determine how many representatives are assigned to how many districts, prison populations are included. If prisoners are included for election districting, then they should enjoy the right to vote. In a small rural district where half the residents are in a large prison, it's as if the non-prisoners are being double-counted otherwise.
10
@Beartooth
Illegal Immigrants can't vote, but they are counted for assigning numbers of representatives.
We deny convicted citizens the right to vote all the while crying about the poor voter turnout. When it comes to the simple duties of being a citizen nearly half of our "adult" population will not even show up for a test which they cannot fail. A good first step for a felon on the path to reentering society would be to establish a record of having voted while in prison.
There are all too few few duties that citizens are called to do in our modern society. We now have little investment in our government aside from paying taxes.
1
I agree. I can understand why convicts are incarcerated, especially if they are likely to be dangerous. But there is no reason to deny them fundamental rights such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote.
1
I can along with restoring rights once you are free from jail. However, as prisons tend to be concentrated in smaller communities, the prison population can have a major impact on local elections. To allow them to vote for statewide and national offices and issues, fine. But city councils, board of supervisors, local initiatives... no way.
3
@Jesse
I agree it's like college students voting in Burlington VT.
1
“Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority in Trop v. Dulles, a 1958 case dealing with the rights of a military deserter.
In the Trump era and even before citizenship has been a right that expires if one was a naturalized citizen misbehaved/committed a crime. People who have been here since childhood but are from another country and have committed a crime are often deported back to a country where they know no one, don't speak the language, and have no ties.
I'm not sure how I feel about prisoners voting. There's not enough privacy in prison to ensure that the person is voting their conscience. There may not be enough information for them to make a decision. On the other hand they are going to be released and ought to be able to decide where the society they have been imprisoned by is heading no matter what the crime unless it was one that threatened the country.
1
Most criminals are in jail because they acted against social and moral norms, at times even doing physical harm to fellow citizens.
They do not deserve the right to express their opinion by voting. They already showed us how they feel about the rest of us
109
@Marika
Most people are in jail for drug offenses. Not a fan of drugs myself, but it’s literally half of the prison population. Hurting themselves, mostly.
36
@Marika
This is ridiculous. People act against social and moral norms every day, they are not imprisoned, but are still allowed to vote. Many horrible people are walking around free because they either haven't been caught or their offensives didn't rise to the level of an outright crime. What about the falsely convicted? Should their rights be denied because we have a flawed judicial system?
Who are you to decide who is moral enough to choose our leaders?
54
@Marika - people are in prison because they were indicted and convicted for violating legal statutes. Laws are applied erratically around the country and according to class, color, and other categories. An 18-year-old in a wealthy white community caught with cocaine is let off with a warning - kids will be kids, and teenage experimentation can be understood and forgiven. If the same amount of cocaine was found in possession of a black kid in a poor inner-city community - a felony conviction and a healthy prison stay is the result.
There is no place in civil law for trying to regulate social & moral norms, whose definition can vary with each person. The increasing attempt, particularly among fundamentalist Christians, to legislate their own interpretation of social and moral norms is a danger to everybody else's freedoms.
35
Great article.
Each week I teach a yoga and meditation class at the Juvenile Detention Center. The adolescents are just like non-detained adolescents but they come from horrid backgrounds. Statistics indicate they will end up in adult incarceration institutions, or worse.
This country has a LONG way to go when it comes to the rights of the detained, but ensuring each individual is treated like a human being and an American (which is what they are), is an important step. They too are Americans, let them have a say in what happens to America next. They even know things about America the non-detained don't!
Incarceration should never mean that you don't count as a human, and that you don't get your one vote in a political battle in which the outcome may affect your life in significant ways. These people are already powerless, we should not take more away from them, and we should have them participate in our country's politics.
85
@Anastasia Bailey
Convicted felons (not juveniles like you serve) are indeed powerless to have a say in our shared society. That's kind of the point. They committed a crime so heinous, likely a series of crimes, that justice mandated removing them from society and taking away any "power" they might have until they learned to live by society's shared rules, or at least served the time mandated even if they get out without learning this lesson. People really don't want incarcerated criminals participating in our country, except as passive observers on the inside.
We give them tv sets, already. Let them watch how non-criminal members of society make the laws and elect our leaders. When and if they are released, they can have this PRIVILEGE restored.
19
@Midway
Not everyone in prison has committed "a crime so heinous" and I'm surprised you would think that. People go to prison for some of the pettiest things you can imagine. The number of inmates with victimless crimes is astounding.
As I said in an earlier post, I am a former warden and yes, by god, they can have TV's. They can even have food. And in some states, they can have access to education. Imagine that. Particularly since 95% of them will be released. I kind of want them to be better than when they were charged with whatever crime it was.
Seems that all you folks who so dislike someone who has violated the law (98% of all US citizens) that you want them in a dungeon and in solitary confinement. Do any of you ever think about the lives of the officers who are responsible for their care, control and custody? Do you not want them to have an inmate population that is occupied with work, education and tv to keep them from being idle and aimless, giving them time and reason to be disruptive to the institution? Think about those people when you determine that all inmates should be devoid of any human kindness because the people who will pay for that are the corrections officers.
And voting isn't a privilege ....it's a RIGHT.
43
@Midway
Your argument assumes a) all "bad" people have been caught and are in prison and b) no "good" people have been erroneously imprisoned. Once you convince me of these two points, I might be willing to concede your conclusion that they are undeserving of this right.
11
Excellent piece and I could not agree more - you do the crime, you do your time and then you should be done. Someone coming out of prison faces enough challenges from employers, housing, etc., they should not face any barriers to the most important right we have - the right to vote. When you vote, you can change the world and everyone deserves this right, even (and especially) someone in prison.
58
@DickH
He's advocating for voting while the prisoner is still outside of society, serving the time for the crime.
That is different than having your civilian rights restored when you are no longer incarcerated, paying the price of removal from society for "doing the crime".
15
@Midway
(Not your fault for misreading DickH because Bouie deliberately buried the lede.)
He is saying a killer can take the life of another, rendering their vote no longer possible, but the convicted and imprisoned killer should still retain his right to vote because... universal sufferage.
Like "reparations", it's a tilting-at-windmills legal argument because the Constitution clearly permits states to decide if they want to restrict prisoner freedoms to vote, or if, in the case of two verrry small, demographically homogeneous states states (one, Bernie Sanders') and some foreign countries too!, they indeed permit prisoners to participate in society's privileges.
Let the states decide, I think most people would agree. Culture matters.
10
@DickH
This is just ridiculous.
I am just sure convicted criminals lie in their cell at night, regretting their crimes because they lost the right to vote.
4
"Last year, for example, a supermajority of voters in Florida endorsed a state constitutional amendment to end the draconian policy of permanent disenfranchisement." which the Republican state legislators are trying to reverse by adding other obstacles to further block felon's rights to vote. Like a reimbursement scheme that acts as a poll tax for those felons. Their, less than subtle, attempt to override the will of the people reflects the real reason for these voting restrictions. Like gerrymandering, reducing the hours, days and locations for voting and voter ID laws that make it harder to vote than it is to purchase a gun, these laws or the failure to implement them are used to disenfranchise minorities and the poor who might vote for their own self interests against those with money, power and the right skin color. The reason prisoners can't vote can be traced back to the civil war, it's just not a good reason.
90
@Rick Gage
The issue of who should get the right to vote is discussed in moral terms and decided in political ones. Republicans want to get rid of people who don't want to vote for them, and Democrats want to give the franchise to everyone (sounds nice) on the evidence that this strategy will pay off for them (but it's more self-interested). But given the raw manipulative way all politicians view this question, there is still no equivalency between the Republican and Democratic view. The Republicans want an oligarchy. They're the party of the rich, not the rest.
5
@Rick Gage
"voting and voter ID laws that make it harder to vote than it is to purchase a gun"
Both are constitutionally given rights/privileges. Therefore, both should be equally accessible and revocable.
However, your claim that it's easier to purchase a gun in FL than to vote is a lie, and you know it.
1
Almost all convicted felons will likely vote Democrat. Anyone think that’s relevant to Democrat politicians thinking felons should vote?
3
@Working Stiff
I think Trump has a certain appeal to a segment of felons, including but not limited to the ones he hired.
1
Reality: the worst criminals are in Congress, not prison. Enough with prisoners are 100% evil. Many are poor, mentally disabled, addicted or just desperate to survive in nightmarish living conditions. Enough with demonizing everyone! How about marijuana convictions that had people locked up for 20-30 years? Sometimes the law is flat out wrong. I’ll bet 10-20% can stay in jail forever. The rest need a ton of help managing life! Our country is not a fair place to live! Our political process and our economy is rigged. And you can’t shake a stick without running into a lame brain bigot.
1
@Curiouser So Dems are trolling for votes among the mentally disabled? Okay then.
The Right do not want those who have robbed society to be repatriated to the point that they have a say in our political process. Being self-righteous and leavened with more than just a dollop of their favorite sauce—racism—Republicans see the permanent disenfranchisement of felons as a wagging finger; a marker to those who break the law.
Of course, when Republicans are guilty of white collar crimes, the sentences are either suspended or the offenders are fined, usually along the lines of a tap on the wrist and a wink, nod and smirk, all of which mean “don’t forget to vote GOP in November.”
The disproportionate numbers of non-whites who make up the prison system are valuable chips for the Republican Party: they’re a nod to tribe and custom, a warning against “the others,” so they can further cement their status as citizens without honor. Think of all the Nixon lawyers who were disbarred after Watergate washed over their ruined careers. They paid no price at the ballot box. Their incomes probably didn’t deteriorate to the point that they stood in lines at their local public aid offices for housing vouchers or food stamps. I would wager my diamond to your doughnut that Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn—after he’s sentenced—won’t have their voting privileges revoked. After all, they’re shining lights of morality and goodness and decency that the Republican Party parades every day. Such nobility and worthiness. Yes.
Meanwhile, if you’re a non-white felon...
2
If we're restoring ex-cons' Constitutional rights, let's restore all of them, including with respect to firearms.
2
@Byron Kelly So the Dems want to let criminals vote and the right wants them to own guns. Meanwhile the sane look at booth ideas with complete disbelief.
Let's see how profoundly stupid this kind of thing can get:
If prisoner are allowed to vote, surely prisoners are allowed to serve on juries, run for political office, etc.
Right.
5
Once a person has served their prison sentence including any probation should all rights be restored?
That would include:
- voting
- right to purchase guns
- right to live wherever they choose - even if a convicted sex offender
- right to be a school teacher - even if a convicted sex offender
- right to fully participate in finance industry after conviction of securities fraud
I suspect most voters do not think all rights should be restored once, one has fully paid their debt to society
6
Since SCOTUS unfortunately says it is ok to kill convicts, it seems hard to argue that convicts cannot be denied the right to vote.
I suspect a lot of felons support Trump so it probably would not change much in 2020.
the comments so far are fascinating to me. Might I remind these folks that the population of unincarcerated persons who have committed crimes that were not uncovered, charged or, if charged, dismissed or reduced to a lesser crime without loss of civil rights is astoundingly high. Having worked as a warden for many years, I must tell you how surprised you would be how many inmates would vote Republican. For the most part, they acknowledge their crimes, rue them and understand why they are where they are. The life histories that got them into prison don't require banishment from having a say in the way our country runs. Do you all really believe that a repeat offender for DUI shouldn't be allowed to vote? How about a check kiter? Or a white collar embezzler? Perhaps a pot smoker? Or a heroin addict? Then one must realize that 95% of all inmates will be released and can get their civil rights restored. I have a neighbor who killed two people in a drug deal gone bad. He votes every election and is a die hard Republican. So get over your self righteousness and understand that there may only be a few people who have never veered off the perfection path. We are all complicit in some misdeed and to deny those who are in custody a voice in the governance of the country they live in is a wrong we can, and should, right.
4
@zizzi Thanks for writing. I would like to encourage you to continue to do so.
@zizzi Of course I believe someone who can't be trusted to drive without abusing intoxicants shouldn't be entrusted with determining our elected leaders. Since when is common sense mere self righteousness?
Gee, when you get convicted of a felony and are incarcerated for years in conditions where your life is on the line (after all, you are 24-7 in a community of other felons), your biggest worry is you cannot vote while in prison?
I agree that once you are unconditionally released, your right to vote should be restored. But while in prison? In local elections, do you vote for candidates where your prison is, or candidates back where you used to live?
Either way, it makes no sense. You are in no way part of either your local community or your former community.
Maybe you should get to vote for cell block representative in the prison's inmate legislative body, to vote on things like what should be on the breakfast menu.
2
"There Is No Good Reason Prisoners Can’t Vote"
The article makes a good case for the proposition that ex-cons, having paid their debt to society, should be allowed to vote.
Whether or not those *currently imprisoned* for serious crimes should vote is a separate issue. I think it's fine to bar them from voting while they serve their time, as a reminder that they have failed to live up to the standards the society expects of them.
4
Theoretically, it’s a difficult question to answer. Practically speaking, it doesn’t seem to amount to much ... in my view anyway. Losing the right to vote for felons and by that discouraging being a felon to be so in the first place seems, these days, to be a very modest means to promote civil order. There are consequences to serious misdeeds and I’m not sure that legitimately convicted felons ever “pay” for their misdeed ... at least not automatically. Society is injured in countless ways by felonious behavior, well after the fact. There has to a penalty for that for society’s sake and future hope. The possibility for full inclusion of felons after the fact through some thoughtful mechanism to justify that might be a fair and forgiving way out.
Another aspect of this debate is; prisoners are counted in the U.S. Census as citizens of the locale they are incarcerated. This adds to the numbers, which are used in allocating funding and drawing legislative districts: If they are going to be *USED* they certainly should have a voting voice.
Imprisonment is a loss of rights commensurate with the violation of the rights of another (aka 'crime'.)
The prisoner loses the right to freedom and self determination, the right to keep and bear arms etc. Why should he not lose the right to vote?
In the most extreme cases the prisoner loses his right to life. Should we allow death row inmates a say in how we order our society?
Prisoners have shown, by their criminal behavior, that they should not have the right to vote. A Very good reason, I think.
3
@Dana Charbonneau writes " Why should he not lose the right to vote?" And I respond, "Why should he?". What good does it achieve? How does it help the victim, society, or the prisoner?
I've become aware of how truly devastating any significant period of incarceration is. The guilty get not only the time served taken from them, but also often fall behind in any attempt to actually compete in the world and succeed. Creating a system which all but guarantees failure is not good for society, never mind the prisoner. And anything in punishment that is unnecessary makes any hope of a positive outcome less likely.
1
"Universal suffrage means universal suffrage."
So sayeth Mr. Bouie.
Well, then, let's put the Universal in Suffrage.
Every body gets to vote. Better yet, every body HAS to vote. Absolutely NO exceptions.
Every resident of the United States should be required by Constitutional Amendment to vote in every election from dog catcher to President.
No restrictions whatsoever. Any age, any gender, any whatever.
Every body votes. Or Else. Failure to vote would be a felony punishable by confinement and fines.
Of course, Mr. Bouie might rethink his stance on Universal Suffrage were he to give a little thought to what Universal implies.
2
@Albert Edmud
Interesting comment. In Australia, every citizen HAS to vote. It's the law. And there are penalties if they don't. I like that idea. If people were more involved, we would have a better representative government.
1
@Albert Edmud
Why shouldn't Universal Suffrage be viewed as a positive experience, why attach punishment to it?
Instead of a felony, confinement and fines, why not be able to claim a deduction on your taxes for voting.
Why just have one day to vote. With today's technology why can't there be a week to vote or a month, instead of declaring Election Day a National Holiday? I'll bet there's lots of other great ideas to get everyone to vote.
1
Actually, there is one very good reason that Federal and State prisoners should not be allowed to vote. Many of these prisons are located in very rural areas and the concentration this represents in small towns is literally one third of the entire population. Is it fair for these visitors to be able to easily sway local elections as they would represent one third of the entire vote? Local politicans would need to cater to what would be THE largest voting block in the town or village - do these convicted criminals deserve THAT?
7
@NYer
Good point. But could easily be overcome by having prisoners request absentee ballot from place they're already registered in--their own town or city. For instance, my kid is going to college out of state, but her absentee ballot is for our home election district here in NYC.
1
Could anything make you feel more like you could be part of society than voting?
When we think about the huge number of prisoners who have been given insane penalties for not much in crime scenario, voting could actually be the just thing to give them.
4
I'd be more comfortable about this if it came up more forcefully before Trump. There is definitely an argument here, but part of the motive appears to be simply to pump the Democratic vote. And there is a big difference between people in jail, particularly for violent crimes, and those who have been released. I am not i yet convinced.
4
I'm predicting that the biggest issue within this comment section will be people's inability to even slightly consider that those behind bars are people too. If you view someone as inherently bad and troublesome, why would you want them to vote? Why would you want to treat them with the slightest bit of decency? Not everyone who is behind bars has committed a violent crime. Not everyone behind bars is a bad person. Being locked up is enough punishment. These individuals are still American. If prisons in the U.S. were focused more on rehabilitation and helping those inside become better, this wouldn't even be a question. We have to fundamentally change how we do jails and prisons in this country. Would we honestly be having this conservation if the majority of people who are locked up were white? Probably not.
10
@David
Wrong. They are people, not even "bad" people necessarily.
But you must grapple with the fact that society has determined convicted criminals to have committed some act so heinous, or multiple repeating acts. that justifies their removal from society for a set period of time.
Guess what? The majority of the people locked up in this country indeed are white. It's a big country. These arguments that might fly in states with minority populations ("it's just a racist thing against blacks, who are seen as non-humans!") don't work in places where there are fewer minorities, in prison or otherwise.
It's not racism, it is common sense.
2
@David You know who were also human beings? The vicious murderers' victims were human beings, even if they were white men, even if they were convenience store clerks, or old ladies killed in home invasions or car jackings. They were still human beings, who did nothing to deserve what happened to them. Their families, those people who lost someone they loved forever are human beings. And legislation like this spits in the faces law abiding citizens, the victims, and victims' families.
2
@me
Plus, in the case of murder, the convicted killer permanently disenfranchised the victims of their right to vote...
3
It is probably a fact that many incarcerated people have never voted. It is convoluted logic to take away their right. Rather the prison should encourage volunteers to teach civics and let the prisoners register to vote. After all, shouldn't we want people who have served their sentence to make a fresh start armed with the knowledge that they own the power of the ballot box
2
@Nancy
They can earn their voting powers when released, not imprisoned. (If you are advocating mock elections in prisons, like they do with schoolkids where the votes don't really count -- to prepare them for the future, that is different...)
1
As prisons are state controlled domains, how can voting be free of pressure from the prison wardens and guards? Inevitably, prisons could reliably produce a bloc of votes that suited whoever controls the incarcerated through coercion and unsavory incentives. Private prisons would be even easier to corrupt, given their primary goal is to make a profit. How much would a bloc of 4 or 5000 imprisoned voters be worth in a swing district? Could a free and fair election ever happen in a prison?
7
@L and R Thompson
This might be the best rebuttal to voting in prison.
Let's be honest. If most felons in prison were known to be potential Republican voters, do you think Mr. Bouie would have written this column?
63
@Erik
He would not have written the column because prisoners would be enfranchised. Republicans are clearly the better of the parties at manipulating the ability to vote.
27
@Erik
The GOP is loosing a voting block. Most prisoners would probably have voted for Trump. He is their kind of guy.
4
@dsurber
And who knows? They might be Republicans. They like guns.
5
There is an excellent reason why prisoners mustn't vote - they'll vote against those who put them there. And no politician in 40 years has lost votes by pledging to be tough on crime.
52
@Thollian
While that is the fear, it is unfounded.
4
@Thollian those pledges to be tough on crime are what have landed us in the situation of being a country that incarcerates more of its citizens than almost any other country on the planet. Not only that but we don't try to rehabilitate them. We prefer to treat them like garbage, remind them of their crimes, and make it nearly impossible for them to succeed once they are released.
Second, your argument that prisoners will vote against politicians who enacted the laws that landed them in jail is nonsense. It's similar to people who believe, with no real data in front of them, that students will give excellent reviews to teachers who give them A's. That's not true. Students know if teachers can teach. Sometimes a bad review, like a bad law, is just that; bad.
20
@nora m You would never say that if you had been mugged.
2
Mr. Bouie carefully omits how much contact he has had with people who are in prison. I wonder why.
There is a psychological maxim: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Criminals have consciously given up one of the rights. There is very little "wisdom" in repeating criminal behavior.
Mr. Bouie: Go be a cop for a year. Get back to us on how wise it would be to give the people you arrest the right to vote.
15
@Dan, I get that. But it kind of misses criminals who haven’t been caught and the innocent who somehow have. Seems the repeating behavior to avoid is getting picked up the police.
Also, you think maybe people could weigh in about, I dunno, ridiculous discrepancies in sentencing targeting the black community?
And, wait, How does that level with being convicted of domestic violence at a misdemeanor level and having a say on whether or not you can own a gun?
Lastly, your argument is akin to saying people on welfare shouldn’t get to vote because they are impacted by much of what government decides is important to fund. People with kids voting on school issues? Banned. Gun owners, people who pay taxes, people who don’t own guns, people who don’t pay taxes, hikers, folks who live on-grid, homebodies, folks who live on-grid...
Sorry, but it’s a really poor argument. I know lots of cops and most would say the fastest way to a productive citizen is normal life with reasonable expectations and a system to help ex-cons when they stumble to stop them fully falling. Well, good cops.
7
@Dan
I've had plenty of contact with people in prison. I was a warden for years. And during my tenure there were many police officers who came to prison for serious crimes and keeping them safe took a tremendous amount of resources to protect from the general population. Little difference between the officers and the inmates. Not all cops are good people and not all inmates are bad people. They are people who made some very bad decisions. but they are still citizens and should still be allowed to vote.
9
Some, not all, might vote for due process and civilian oversight. And not arresting black motorists and seeing imaginary weapons, and better training in the law. And reminders that it is legal to film police no matter how unhappy they are about it. And it is not legal to beat people who verbally don’t agree with you. Just a few things voting might bring up. The civil rights era is ongoing.
2
They, the GOP, can’t Win, unless they cheat, lie and steal. And not allowing inmates to Vote is saying they are not Citizens. They are unworthy, they have no hope of rehabilitation, no path to improving their lives. They will ALWAYS be “ the other “ and worthless. NOT a great thing to instill into anyone, before releasing them. Just saying.
8
@Phyliss Dalmatian
We don't let animals vote. A lot of prisoners are prisoners because they act like animals. Once you're convicted, you don't get a say in your punishment. Don't like it, then don't break the law. It really is that simple.
3
@Phyliss Dalmatian
No Phyliss. Many Americans support permitted convicted felons who have served their time and paid their debt to society to vote. They're not worthless or non-people; they have just temporarily forfeited the right to participate in society because of their crimes.
Justice matters, Phyllis. To people of all races.
1
@Phyliss Dalmatian...Only 130,000,000 of the roughly 330,000,000 Americans voted in 2016. Will 200,000,000 Americans ALWAYS be "the other" and worthless? Is the simple act of voting or not voting a life changing event?
What is a felony? Depends on the state. Is a Class D felony (shop lifting/commercial burglary in some states) the same as Class A (Capital Murder)? Both conviction mean loss of voting rights, the right to obtain federal financial aid, housing subsidies, some business licenses and other citizen rights & opportunities.
Of course, the decision to charge a felony lies squarely with the local district attorney who is an elected official typically running on the "Get Tough On Crime" mantra.
Of course the majority of convicted felons in America's prisons- are black men.
Of course the terror is black men with the right to vote; registering and voting as Democrats...
Of course this is why we see the spectacle playing out in Florida where what *The People* voted on (immediate restoration of voting rights) isn't "what they really meant"; according to Republican legislators in Florida.
6
@Candlewick What about these vicious predators' victims? Did their lives matter at all to you? What about the convenience store clerks and cab drivers, victims of home invasions and car jackings all over the country? Do they matter? Of course, they won't ever be able to vote again, but somehow the people who robbed them of their voice and robbed their families of their presence should count so much more than their victims??
2
@Candlewick
There is a difference between letting a convicted felon whom has served their time and been released vote and letting people CURRENTLY in prison vote. The first is debatable. The later is crazy. We don't let the inmates run the asylum.
2
@Candlewick What part of "when they have paid their debt to society" do you not understand?
It's not like our present voting population has been doing that great.
7
It's not like our present voting population has been doing all that great.
1
Why disenfranchise felons at all? Why not let prisoners vote — and give the franchise to the roughly 1.5 million people sitting in federal and state prisons? Why must supposedly universal adult suffrage exclude people convicted of crimes?
--------------
Seriously?
Because, Mr. Bouie, men and women of all races that have been tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment lose their rights to participate in a free and just society. That's why we lock them up too. It is a punishment, like you take away a toy from a multiply misbehaving child.
The people who do not commit crimes to the extent that they are sentenced to incarceration retain their rights. Criminals don't. (Please reply in the comments and let us know if you still don't understand this distinction between criminal rights and civilian rights, and why the latter has more than the former. If you were being serious and asking the question in good faith because you don't see a distinction between the two groups of potential voters.)
8
@Midway
When Democrats propose restoring felons' rights to possess and carry firearms, I'll believe this is about something more than giving votes to folks whom they think are likely to vote for Democrats.
2
Mass disenfranchisement for felons and ex-felons was just a way to restrict the black vote in the South. That is where the practice has been most prevalent and the history of the thing makes it quite clear that the intent of the mainly white legislators was to keep blacks from voting. We need to get rid of this rancid leftover from the Jim Crow era.
7
Are you seriously saying there's no reason why serial killers shouldn't be allowed to vote?
10
@Grunt
A) yes. Bundy almost certainly voted before he was caught. The Republic did not fall.
B) do you have any idea how few serial killers there are in prison?
C) presumably, if you’ve murder multiple people, you aren’t getting out of jail and serving your parole. So temporary disenfranchisement wouldn’t apply.
1
@Grunt he said there should be grave exceptions. What percentage of the US prison population do you think are serial killers? It's less than 1%.
1
Oh sure. They’re the problem... How about millions of burglaries that result in many poor populations losing the right to vote? This policy is intended to shut down the not rich and not white. Poverty is actually treated like a crime in this country. Insane.
1
The denial of the right to vote begins before conviction for many pre-trial detainees. Those for which no bond has been set, or who are unable to make bond, and are without prior convictions are not transported to the polls and are deprived of even the opportunity to register to vote. If there can be degrees of disenfranchisement, this is more egregious than the denial of the right to vote due to a conviction.
2
@Ross Simons
It doesn't make for as showy, or radical, an essay though.
Sure there is part of their punishment was not being allowed to vote forever. If some state wants to change that in the future I would be OK with that, but not changing it for those who had part of their punishment be not to vote in the future.
1
Good point, thank you for this article. There is at least one other inconsistent 'rule' in the electoral system: the minimum age you have to be to run for elected office. If one rationalizes this on the basis of maturity among other reasons, then consistency would demand that there should also be an upper age limit above which you cannot run for elected office; age can be argued to slow one down and be as much of a disadvantage as youth can be argued to be. If one says that all people don't age similarly and that there are some older people who are active and perfectly in possession of their faculties, the same can be argued of younger people.
Thank you again for this article highlighting an important need of reform.
7
@HPO...One way to settle these seemingly intractable arguments would be to simply abolish all rules regarding any thing. After all, rules are just rationalizations that further the goals of the rule makers.
If a one year old wants to run for President, more votes to her. If an old geezer on life support wants to run for President, go for it!
Now, about those unfair traffic lights.
1
Here's a reason why prisoners should not be permitted to vote: Typical issues that comes up in elections are how the candidate is going to make our streets safer or how we're going to increase law and order. Do you really want a population of people who are fundamentally opposed to strengthening law enforcement voting? The bottom line is that the interests of persons in prison are fundamentally at odds with those who are not.
I also think it would be cruel and unusual punishment for prisoners to have to be subjected to campaign speeches as a captive audience.
37
@Jay Orchard
You sound as if the majority of inmates are there for life and have no interest in communities where their loved ones reside. Don't know about Florida or Miami Beach, but where I live we have much more on the ballot than "Law & Order". We have environmental, health, education, wage issues...
26
@Jay Orchard
"Do you really want a population of people who are fundamentally opposed to strengthening law enforcement voting?"
Do you mean your average liberal? Yes. I am 100% in favor.
4
@TechMonkey...Keep that in mind if you are ever inclined to call 911. Do you really want a cruel, draconian guy with a loaded gun confronting an unarmed home invader? Of course not.
1
Here in Florida that's not even the question. The people passed
Amendment 4, giving ex-felons the right to vote after they complete their sentence. But the Republicans control the legislature and the governorship, and they quickly decided that black people were not likely to vote for them, so they passed a clever law that also requires ex-felons to pay "court fees". Here in Florida judges are not paid by the taxpayers. Insteaqd they are told to shake down anyone passing through their courtroom and use that money to put food on the table. Since poor prisoners have no money, they assess thousands of dollars per case. Amendment 4 specifically included only prison, probation, fines and restitution, not court fees, which only rich prisoners can pay. Under this law over a million ex-felons, all those who are poor and most of those who are black, will never be able to vote again. We are moving back into the era of Jim Crow.
54
@Dan Woodard MD
If a person wasn't working outside of prison, who would be feeding him? Court costs are not a "shake down"; they are repayment to the State of the basic daily costs of trying you, and feeding and sheltering you.
If you pay your full debt to society, Florida decided, you can regain the right to vote. Otherwise, the taxpayers are out of pocket and might not want you contributing via your vote to shared society, until you can pay off the costs already owed to that same society.
I understand Florida's ruling. You should move to a different state if you don't like the laws of yours. We should not advocate homogenicizing justice, imagine the outcry!, by imposing one-size-fits-all laws on the nation. There's no argument that voting is a right guaranteed under the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on this.
He's a windmill-tilter, Mr. Bouie is, building his career at tilting. Hey, it worked for Mr. Coates!
2
@Dan Woodard MD Back to the era of Jim Crow ? Yes. but I would say the situation you describe also smacks of back to the era of the Soviet Gulag.
7
Louisiana State Penitentiary has 6,300 prisoners. Many family members live nearby. The penitentiary is located in West Feliciana Parish, with a population of 15,600.
If the criminals vote, and their loved ones vote, too, they will decide most elections. Run on a platform of emptying the prison and you will surely win.
28
@michjas, why would they "decide most elections"? There is no reason to think they will all vote for the same candidate. If they did their time, they should be allowed to vote.
7
@michjas
Oh my, God forbid the loved ones of a criminal should vote! (Please note sarcasm)
12
@michjas
Prisons are run by the state not the parish.
3
You'll see a lot of talking about the rule of law and respect for the law as a justification for disenfranchisement. Those people are telling lies to skirt around their true beliefs. Let me spell those beliefs out for you: prison is where black people live. Too many black people vote already, so we certainly can't have prisoners voting.
No other words matter.
30
@sedanchair
I’m in Montana. Most people in our prisons are White. These White people should not be allowed to vote until they are out of prison and have paid their debt to society.
It may seem crazy to you, but most Americans do not get up in the mornings thinking about how to make the country more difficult for Black people.
21
@sedanchair
You realize that in the "white states" (if you are going to go there...) the majority of the prisoners, like the majority of he voters, are white, right?
I think you people forget that, and it will haunt you again in 2020 as you skew all of these preferred policies toward racial ends.
8
Former prisoners should have the right to vote, because they've paid their debt to society.
However, there's a very good rationale for not allowing someone currently in prison to vote. You could argue, for example, that a rapist who hasn't finished his term shouldn't have any decision-making influence in women's issues. Or that someone who's just been convicted of perpetrating a school shooting should be making decisions about gun control or educational funding.
7
@Cass There's a couple of problems with this reason:
1. This assumes that prisoners experience no transformation in their worldview, ethics, etc. until the moment of their release. That as long as a prisoner is in prison they are this one thing, something so horrible that they be denied a fundamental right of citizenship, and they only become remotely decent upon release. What of the countless incarcerated who are locked up for nonviolent offenses, the innocent who are falsely convicted, and the violent offenders who have genuinely reformed and are serving out their time with grace?
2. Plenty of misogynists who aren't in prison vote on women's issues anyway, much as we'd rather they not. Prison isn't the only place where bad actors live, yet we give them the right to vote anyway. Why should the prison walls be the dividing line where rights go to die?
4
@Cass No they have not paid, part of the punishment is to never vote again, if some want to change that in future crimes that would be fine, not in previous ones.
4
@vulcanalex
wrong Vulcan.....part of the punishment is to never vote while in prison, nor ever again. Restoration of civil rights is always an option once releasesd
2
Here is a great reason. Voters elect representatives to create laws, criminals are in prison because these laws. Prisoners are thereby incentivized to elect politicians who will change the laws that imprisoned them as a function of self interest irregardless of public consequence. That's just one reason, moral character aside.
Honestly I cannot believe this article was even published much less how Maine and Vermont allow these people to vote.
Also may help explain why those states are two of the poorest in the union.
29
@Cass
Some have become so terrified of "Trump" that nothing Democrats do or rather anything Democrats do, is met with fear that it might cause Donald J. Trump to be reelected?
Daily, whatever "issue" is discussed, there is a comment lamenting that "If a Democrat" runs on... or addresses such, " it is begging for a second Trump term".
I'd like to know, what specifics you see in a Democratic candidate that would satisfy your fear? Otherwise, just put yourself at ease and vote for Trump in 2020.
Is this really what things have come down to?
16
@Candlewick
This would absolutely be a great issue for Trump to oppose. The vast majority of Americans agree that prisoners (people who broke the law) should get ZERO say in the laws that are made.
11
@Candlewick
What specifics? How about, for starters, ensuring that pre-existing conditions are off limits for insurance companies. Joining the Paris Climate Accords. Rational, non ideological Supreme Court justices. Etc, etc.
People in prison voting would be an insane issue to run on.
3