IF convicted of a felony ... you LOSE your right to vote permanently in

six states.....why only six (Florida being one of those six). They are organzing a process for people to attend classes/workshops etc...to get this changed...but it is quite laborious...hence not many will do it.

Other states have all rights restored after they have paid their debt to society.

I find it odd that states work soo differently when it comes to issues such as this.

that governments can take away the right to vote.
why is this not an inalienable right?

The Constitution lists life and liberty as "unalienable rights," but the government routinely takes these away from people convicted of crimes, too...

Tucker

You cannot be deprived of your right to vote or run for political office in France unless your crime had political implications, for example fraud or abuse of public monies while in office, or a hate crime or violence committed during campaigning. And then those rights are lost only temporarily, usually one or two years.

I really disagree with stripping felons of voting rights. I mean, how likely are they to commit a crime or endanger society while they're in the voting booth?

I have a feeling the "felons stripped of voting rights" thing has a political purpose other than stopping crime. Which states have this rule? In those states, which groups of people are disproportionately more likely to be convicted of a felony?

Is my cynicism justified, or am I just being my embittered little Squee-self?

Tucker

But then I share it :thumbsup: In ANY state, which group(s) are most likely to be convicted of a felony?

So which states are we talking about and what are the organizing efforts cthrumatrix mentioned? Maybe s/he could give us more information.

that the prison industry in certain states is part of a plot to re-enslave black people. You know, lock them up and force them to work, and strip them of voting rights in the process...Am I just tinfoiling here, or has anyone else considered this possibility?

Tucker

A vestige of the bad old days of segregation and discrimination.

...and what is right to do are ususally two different things.

but your point is valid.

"The Constitution lists life and liberty as "unalienable rights,"
but the government routinely takes these away from people convicted
of crimes, too..."

And, according to the rules that apply for denying people the exercise of rights, the government is justified in doing that. (Well, the taking away liberty bit, anyway. I'm unaware of any genuine justification for taking away life.)

When the government takes away a convicted offender's liberty, it is acting in pursuit of the legitimate objective of protecting the public, that being its job. Imprisoning people (so the theory goes, and we haven't come up with a better one) protects the public by keeping dangerous people away from society, and deterring them from committing more crimes when they're released. And of course rehabilitating them; hey, in some cases it might actually happen.

The question is what legitimate objective of government taking away someone's right to vote - let alone permanently - achieves or is even meant to achieve. And then, even if taking away the right to vote is somehow rationally connected to such a legitimate objective, there are more questions: whether the measure is too extreme, whether there are less extreme / more effective ways of achieving the objective, and so on.

It's really part of the bargain that the state protects individuals' rights, and individuals recognize that there are instances in which the state is justified in interfering with their rights for a valid purpose, like protecting society. All laws, and punishment for breaking laws, do precisely that: limit our exercise of our liberty, for example.

I'll keep on strongly recommending that people who are concerned about rights and freedoms read up on the principles of constitutional scrutiny. The courts follow a set of rules when they are asked to decide whether a particular law is a justifiable interference with an individual right or freedom.

I like this educational site for a handy introduction to constitutional scrutiny in the US:

Exploring constitutional conflicts:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html

Levels of scrutiny under the equal protection clause:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

not just one or two.

to a person who shoots and kills five people during an armed robbery?
Remember one of those rights that you would want to restore is the legal possession of firearms. Convicted felons are prohibited from owning/possessing any and all firearms (it even includes BB guns).

Just a thought

A person like that would never, ever be released from prison. If they are, then we need to start releasing the drug crime folks to make room for the killers. That should not be an issue. I'm an ultraliberal democrat and I do NOT believe in rehabilitation for cold-blooded killers. Life in prison, or under the most extreme circumstances, execution is reasonable.

I have no problem with restoring the rights of a felon like Neil Bush's right to vote and buy a gun, since he's never proven to be a violent crime risk. Just don't let him near any S&L's again!

Isn't this what was proposed. I remembered being surprised when I heard of the proposed punshiment.

And since "MILLIONS" do this....I guess that would mean many people would not be able to vote.

Now...that is cynical.

a very large proportion of those song-swappers are white males.

...is not pursued at the same level. more financial and physical harm is caused by white collar crime (see, e.g., statistics on injury/death from osha violations) but so few of those perpetrators ever get tried, let alone convicted of felonies. justice in the u.s is crap for poor and working people. taking away teh vote is adding insult to injury. remember it's the govt that puts people in jail. andif you can't vote, you can't change the govt (hell you can't change it even if you can vote).

I wonder if they were ever restored.

This finding was part of the Greg Palast documentary how (under katherine harris) the state of florida hired a firm that 'scrubbed' the eligble voters with "names of felons in other states" and

basically REMOVED 50,000 + from voting in 2000.... this scrubbing has revealed a 95% error rate...after the fact.

Jeb Crow rules in FL.

Here's what happened recently in Alabama:

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specialreports/leg2003/StoryAlabamaveto27w.htm

"The Legislature on May 16 passed bills to require voters to show identification at the polls and to automatically restore the voting rights of many former felons. The bills passed as part of an agreement between white Republican legislators, who wanted voter ID, and black Democratic legislators, who wanted felon voting rights.

The Republican governor signed the voter ID bill, but decided to kill the felon voting rights bill Tuesday evening by not signing it."

Slick, huh? Needless to say, proponents of restoring voter rights to felons were pissed.

In Alabama, one in three black men of voting age has permanently lost the right to vote.

The adverse impact of the denial of voting rights to prisoners in Canada was felt disproportionately by First Nations people ("American Indians" in the US), as it is by African Americans in the US.

In the Sauvé case, striking down the voting ban, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada said (from the headnote summary):

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/sauve2.en.html

In light of the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in penitentiaries, the negative effects of s. 51(e) upon prisoners have a disproportionate impact on Canada's already disadvantaged Aboriginal population.

The right-wing judges (it was a 5-4 decision) disagreed (on this and the other grounds for the majority's reasons):

The argument that imprisonment should be recognized as an analogous ground because of adverse effect or impact discrimination based on the fact that Aboriginal peoples make up a "disproportionate" percentage of prisoners must be rejected. It is not plausible to say that the temporary disenfranchisement provision is in some way targeted at Aboriginal people. The fact of incarceration does not necessarily arise due to any personal attribute such as race or ethnic origin and neither does it necessarily relate to social condition. It hinges only upon the commission of serious criminal offences.

My own response to idiocy like that is pretty much to say "duh". And I would note that two of the right-wing Supreme Court justices in question retired in the last year. Progress. ;)

That Alabama thing certainly qualifies as what I'd call a dirty trick.

The Supreme Court of Canada disposed of this question relatively recently here. The federal law had provided that inmates in federal institutions (which is all offenders serving sentences of two years or more) were disqualified from voting. (Offenders who have served their sentences were never disqualified from voting.) The Court struck the law down; prisoners may now vote. The decision can be read at:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/sauve2.en.html

(In Canada, convictions for specific offences involving electoral fraud and corruption will prevent someone from running for office, but not from voting, to my knowledge.)

The issues are of course slightly different between Canada and the US, because our constitutions say slightly different things, and the manner in which our courts scrutinize legislation is slightly different. But there are important principles in common.

The first bit of the summary of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's reasons; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Part I of the 1982 Constitution, and the "democratic rights" in the Charter include the right to vote:

To justify the infringement of a Charter right under s. 1, the government must show that the infringement achieves a constitutionally valid purpose or objective, and that the chosen means are reasonable and demonstrably justified.

The government's argument that denying the right to vote to penitentiary inmates requires deference because it is a matter of social and political philosophy is rejected. While deference may be appropriate on a decision involving competing social and political policies, it is not appropriate on a decision to limit fundamental rights.

The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside. Limits on it require not deference, but careful examination.

The framers of the Charter signaled the special importance of this right not only by its broad, untrammeled language, but by exempting it from legislative override under s. 33's notwithstanding clause.

The argument that the philosophically-based or symbolic nature of the objectives in itself commands deference is also rejected. Parliament cannot use lofty objectives to shield legislation from Charter scrutiny. Here, s. 51(e) is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The Court makes the point that denying the right to vote is simply not rationally connected to the principles of sentencing, and is too extreme a violation of fundamental "democratic rights" to be justified by any other pressing purpose of the federal government. The decision is well worth reading, for anyone who would like to see a cogent analysis of the issues and the opinion expressed on those issues by a constitutional court whose decisions are respected and cited by courts around the world.

The right to vote is really just like any other right in our societies -- we don't deny people the ability to exercise it simply because we don't like them. We have to have a reason that stands up to the rules that are applied in order to determine whether a violation of a right is justified: the violation has to be actually related to an important objective, there must be no better and less intrusive way of achieving the objective, the violation must not be out of all proportion to the objective, and so on. (The formulation of the rules, and their specific content, varies somewhat between Canada and the US.)

We are certainly justified, under those rules, in depriving a person convicted of a serious offence of his/her liberty -- putting the person in prison. But depriving an offender of the right to vote? How is that related to an important objective? how is it proportional to that objective? and so on.

(Frankly, I'd say it's a remnant of an earlier era in the US: it is more related to the stock and pillory and the Scarlet A -- humiliation and exclusion from society -- than to any modern theory of criminal law and sentencing, and fundamental rights.)

I'd be happy if someone offered information about the US in exchange for mine about Canada: have these voting bans been (or are they being) challenged in the courts? Have there been judicial decisions upholding the voting bans? Were there decisions striking down the voting ban in any of the states that do restore voting rights?

.

....if we intend to remove all the "penalties" for committing "1st and 2nd degree felonies) in the first place?? Notice I am qualifying the felonies I think should not have voting rights restored. No I am not being hypocritical either. I take this same stance with a family member convicted of a felony.

"Notice I am qualifying the felonies I think
should not have voting rights restored. No I am
not being hypocritical either. I take this same
stance with a family member convicted of a felony."

Do you have a valid reason for your stance?

Is there anything else you think should be done to people convicted of such felonies? Maybe employers shouldn't have to pay them the minimum wage. Maybe they should not be allowed to drive or attend public universities. Maybe they should be prevented from living in Washington, DC. ... Maybe they should have to wear orange jumpsuits for the rest of their lives.

Are any of those actions rationally connected to the objectives of criminal law and sentencing? Are any of them acceptable state policy and action in a liberal democracy?

If not -- then why is denying the vote? That's the question. In a liberal democracy governed by constitutional principles that include fundamental individual rights, there has to be justification for violating those rights.

An "opinion" that a right should be violated, without any proposed justification for the opinion, isn't a basis for public policy.

.

"Do you have a valid reason for your stance?"

No, I guess I don't have a "valid" reason for my "stance" that would satisfy you. "For those who have to ask why no explanation will sufice and for those who understand, no explanation is needed." From my own point of view, people convicted of 1st and 2nd degree felonies made choices in their lives that conflicted with societies laws and that should be "stance" enough.

BTW, convicted felons must admit on all kinds of applications (from work to housing) that they indeed were convicted of a 1st or 2nd degree felony. Why don't we just remove all the stigma of having violated societies laws and remove that requirement of admitting one's criminal record as well??

"BTW, convicted felons must admit on all kinds
of applications (from work to housing) that they
indeed were convicted of a 1st or 2nd degree felony.
Why don't we just remove all the stigma of having
violated societies laws and remove that requirement
of admitting one's criminal record as well??"

As we speak, the Supreme Court of Canada is deliberating on a case involving the provision of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (which is also found in most other human rights codes in Canada) that an individual may not be discriminated against in employment solely on the basis of a criminal conviction. If the conviction is relevant to the work, yes. If it isn't, no. Kind of like disability, race, sex, etc. etc.

(The case itself involves someone trying to extend that protection to being fired for being in prison. One might reasonably say "duh" to that one.)

The reason for that provision is that a person who has completed serving a sentence for a criminal offence has paid his/her debt to society.

We entrust the process of criminal sentencing to the courts, which determine how someone will pay his/her debt to society. We entrust the application of those sentences to the state, which must not violate its prisoners' rights any more than as permitted by the courts. (Prisoners may not be starved, or beaten, right?) We do not leave it up to individuals (like employers) to continue punishing someone for something for which society has already punished him/her. We also do not allow the state to go on punishing someone after the sentence imposed by the courts has expired. Except in the case of voting rights in some US states, of course; and the question still remains: why?

And we don't impose a blanket requirement that people with criminal convictions walk around wearing scarlet "A"s or orange jumpsuits for the next three decades. We don't deny people with criminal convictions (other than as reasonable conditions of parole, while they are still under sentence) the right to live where they want, say what they want, read what they want, attend the church they want to attend or not, and on and on. We do not violate their rights to do those things because there is no justification for doing that. Undoubtedly, some people would take the stance that these things should be done. Fortunately, there are constitutional provisions that prevent their wishes from becoming law.

The courts are under an obligation to impose a sentence that is appropriate for the offence *and* the offender. Imposing a blanket voting ban on all persons convicted of a particular class of criminal offences is not only not justified by the objective that the state claims to be pursuing (whatever that actually is), but is cruel and unusual since it is imposed regardless of the individual offender's own merits or demerits. But I digress.

"No, I guess I don't have a 'valid' reason for
my 'stance' that would satisfy you."

"I" have nothing to do with it. What you need to satisfy is not me, it is the rules that apply to things like criminal sentencing and the violation of individual rights. And on those things, the opinions of sincere individuals speaking honestly and in good faith may indeed differ. If I knew your opinion on this matter, I'd know whether I was satisfied with it, and my dissatisfaction might indeed be irrelevant if your opinion was consistent with the rules that apply.

You're apparently not interested in undertaking that task. All that this does is make your opinion irrelevant.

Unfortunately, of course, it isn't "irrelevant" in the real world. There are all too many other people who are perfectly happy to act out of prejudice and personal animus (ill will) rather than on the basis of acceptable reasons, and to listen to someone else speaking out of prejudice and animus rather than addressing the real issues.

"For those who have to ask why no explanation
will sufice and for those who understand,
no explanation is needed."

I haven't a clue whom you might be quoting; I can't even make sense of that. Oh, I see; put a comma between "why" and "no". I get it.

In any event, you're certainly not quoting a constitutional court.

Can you just imagine? The government of the US makes a law allowing it to seize all of the writings of Karl Marx, and to enter your home day or night to search for such materials. You challenge that law all the way to your Supreme Court. You demand that the government justify this violation of your freedom of speech, security against search and seizure, right to due process, blah blah. And the Court says ... "For those who have to ask why, no explanation will suffice; and for those who understand, no explanation is needed." Good luck, eh?

Rights is rights. Everybody's rights get protected, not just yours. If you want to propose that someone else's rights be violated, you have an obligation in a liberal democracy, and civil society, to offer justification for the violation you propose -- and an obligation not to attempt to influence others' opinions, and public policy, by appeals to prejudice or any other improper motive.

That's what's involved in what's known as "democratic discourse".

And it's also just a whole lot more fun than hanging out on discussion boards saying that's my opinion and I don't have to give a reason for it.

"From my own point of view, people convicted
of 1st and 2nd degree felonies made choices in
their lives that conflicted with societies laws
and that should be "stance" enough."
(I assume you mean "reason" enough.)

Sure, fine, okay. From someone else's own point of view, people who vote Democrat in 2008, once the Democratic Party has been outlawed, will have made choices in their lives that conflicted with society's laws and that should be reason enough for -- what? transporting them to Antarctica?

Or closer to home, people who engaged in non-standard sex made choices in their lives that conflicted with society's laws and that should be reason enough for fining or imprisoning them (and heck, stripping them of their voting rights in many states, prehaps). Fortunately, your Supreme Court has actually applied the rules that require the state to justify the things it does, and things have worked out rather better.

YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW is not a valid basis for public policy. You appear to think, and to be saying, that it is. You should therefore not complain when someone else seeks to impose his/her own point of view on you, by law, without offering any valid justification for doing so ... and when your courts respond to your challenge by saying For those who have to ask why, no explanation will suffice; and for those who understand, no explanation is needed.

.

No one said anything about removing "all the penalties" for committing a felony. Convicted felons still have to pay their debt to society, as the court sees fit through sentencing and imprisonment.

However, most felons do not spend the rest of their lives in jail. A large majority come out of prison, and we expect them to rejoin society and become productive. It is hypocritical to expect them to be fully rehabilitated while we continue to punish them for the rest of their lives by denying them participation in the democratic process.

Another issue is the unfairness of wealthy, white, and well-connected felons who are much more able to get their voting rights restored than are poor, black, and powerless felons.

Former Republican Governor and felon Guy Hunt of Alabama had his right to vote restored in spite of being convicted of spending political donations for personal use.

......"Another issue is the unfairness of wealthy, white, and well-connected felons who are much more able to get their voting rights restored than are poor, black, and powerless felons."

I think "white collar crimes" should be put in the 1sr and 2nd degree felony catagories and treated as I stated earlier.

Other states have all rights restored after they have paid their debt to society.

Any person convicted of a felony charge is prohibited from possessing, owning, purchasing, or attempting to purchase any firearm.

Should this “right” be restored?

As for the right to vote, should we in theory enable convicted felons to overturn this law?

you be permanently disenfranchised in all 50 states.