Democrats introduce bill for Felons to vote

You know, not allowing felons to vote would have made kinda-schminda sense at a time when to commit a felony, you had to do something actually bad, like robbery or theft or whatever...

But this is no longer the case! There are thousands of statutes on the books making, say, growing your own marijuana a felony, handling a bit of migrating bird feathers a felony, whatever. Now, I see that people want those activities to be illegal (though I think it is idiocy in many cases, but this is not the issue here), but I think denying a person his rights for the rest of his life for doing those things is ever so slightly overdone.
 
My opinion:

VIOLENT felons should get back their right to vote after a parole period, but shoud NEVER get their gun rights back.

NONVIOLENT felons should get both back after a parole period.
 
if your not responsible enough to stay out of jail you have already showed bad judgment in the course of your life. Why would you want those same people to vote in the most important election we have. I do think they should be able to petition after so many years to vote though as long as it was not a violent crime.
 
I would favor granting former felon's back their "right" to vote after a probation period. This would follow any official probation period following release from prison and be conditional on their demonstrating that they have been working and contributing to society. Firearm ownership "right" would also be re-instated at the same time. 5-Years was mentioned and that seems reasonable. One could also make the probation period start after the "official sentence" was completed. That would mean if you are sentanced to 10-years and are out in 5, you have to wait five additional years and the voting/firearm ownership probation period would commence conditional on record (or a total of 15 years).
 
In Kansas a convicted felon can petition the court to have their conviction expunged thus restoring their rights. Those convicted of multiple offenses over a period of time and certain types of convictions may have more difficulty getting this done than the one time "mistake" felon. Very few go through the process. It may be a matter of money, my guess would be more likely laziness or they just don't care. I would be curious if most states have a similar process for those who are willing to jump through the hoops.
 
If not for partisan political gain why would Democrats be championing the cause of felons?

"Championing the cause"...I love the emotional emphasis you spin on this one.

Maybe they actually think it is the right thing to do. Is it possible that they feel that a person who has served their time and finished a probationary time peroid has paid their debt. It is a "liberal" idea that rehabilitation is truly possible, is that what is stirring the pot? But why should felons be allowed back in society if they are not rehabilitated? Don't get me wrong, I have no love for those who commit crimes on victims; but if it is safe to let them out, then why is it not safe to let them vote (not that I think they will really vote.)

How about this idea...Once the felon has served time and probation AND paid for his/her stay with the state (about 30G a year???) then they should have full rights restored and records wiped clean (non violent criminal.) Felons have the option to not participate in this process and forgo the opportunity to regain lost rights. Once the wage garnishment is in place then a time period is set (possibly the same time period as probation) those people can have there records sealed at the end of that time period. They have the opportunity to get a better job and begin a life as a constructive and law abiding citizen.
 
"Why should those who have served the time and shown themselves to be changed by it be denied the right to vote (own firearms, etc.)?"

They are not universally denied these rights. A released felon can petition the court to have his civil rights restored. My understanding is that he has a reasonable chance of success if his crime was not horrendous and he can show that he has been on the straight and narrow.

For the record, I entirely reject the notion that a person who has served his prison sentence (including any parole or probation) has "paid his debt to society". How can a rapist or murderer ever repay such a "debt" by sitting in a little box for some period of time? This is not hockey. I have no problem at all with denying violent criminals the right to vote, keep and bear arms, and live wherever they want.

Tim
 
I think the petition system is better than a blanket restoration of rights. Each case differs and should be decided on its own merits. This also makes the convicted foot the bill for the restoration of rights. Maybe this is part of "paying their debt to society".
 
There's two ways of looking at it.

1. If you are no longer under punishment for the act, having completed the sentence imposed upon you, then all rights should be restored.

2. If you knew (and we are all charged with that knowledge unless you lived in a cave for the last 40 years) that the punishment for the act included loss of civil rights in addition to any sentence imposed by the court, then that was part of the "agreement" you made when you committed the crime. You decided risk giving up your voting/firearms rights via your actions, just as you risked giving up the right of freedom of movement, association, etc., when you risked incarceration for your actions.

I lean towards the latter view, with the caveat that a lot of what are crimes today should not be.
 
I'm still not conviced. I brought this up because it is an election year, and as a lawful gun owning tax paying citizen it's important to me. Let me point out again I don't want start a partisan war here. I am concerned about the direction the American democrat party is moving. Yes i'm freaked about Bush and his terrible spending problem which=our problem! Lets look at something, the dems are struggling and America has been moving away from them. Trying to get felons to vote is just clear desparation for votes.

This party is being driven by far left groups like PETA, MOVEON, NOW, BRADY GUN CONTROL, and the list goes on. Like it or not these radical left wing groups do not speak for mainstream middle America.

Violent felons gave up their right to have a say in how our society should be structured, and that is a good thing. Whats next, voting rights for Chimpanzees? After all PETA says their people too! The same clowns who think thugs should vote don't see any problem with people gettig married to their animals. WOW.................
 
carbiner: you said

"Violent felons gave up their right to have a say in how our society should be structured, and that is a good thing. Whats next, voting rights for Chimpanzees? After all PETA says their people too! The same clowns who think thugs should vote don't see any problem with people gettig married to their animals. "

Someone else said that even Jeb Bush thinks felons should be able to petition for their rights back.

The trouble is that there are two major classes of felons that most people think about. Violent felons and non-violent (read:drug) felons. I doubt you'll see laws written that separate the two.

When they're separated on a case-by-case basis, who do you think will get his rights back first? Violent or non-violent? Who serves the longest sentences these days? Violent or non-violent? In case you don't know, the answer is "non-violent". So it stands to reason that that is who'll get their rights back easiest.

So somebody who had too much possibly medical pot on hand would, in that world, be less likely to get his rights back than a former rapist or murderer.

No thanks, I'm not having any.

If the day ever returns so that a crime is a crime and a victim is a victim, I might change my thinking. But till then, after a probationary period like parole, I'm for returning voting rights but not gun rights.
 
How about the thugs selling dope/poison to 13 year old girls, sex offenders, theft. I agree that SOME but FEW felonies should be sealed in court. If felons should be given their rights back, then they owe it to society to "PROVE" to the law abiding working people who ended up paying for their selfish and cowerdly acts to begin with. Let them hold a job and PAY TAXES for 5 years after parole, and then they can ask politly to be considered.

And again I'll repeat, why are the democrats so worried about these felonious clowns, and not representing the rights of law abiding, working, tax paying people?

We tax payers are FORCED to house sex offenders, why?

When these felons go commit crimes the liberals scream gun control and or raise taxes we need to fund more programs for our felons.
 
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-939

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00939:@@@D&summ2=m&

Count Every Vote Act of 2005 - Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 with respect to: (1) requirements for voter verification and manual audit capacity; (2) accessibiliity of the voting system for language minority individuals in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access, participation, inspection, and verification as for other voters; (3) prohibition of the use of undisclosed software and of wireless communication devices in voting systems; (4) certification of software and hardware used in electronic voting systems; (5) security standards for manufacturers of voting systems used in Federal elections; (6) mandatory recounts; (7) study, testing, and development of best practices to enhance accessibility and voter verification mechanisms for disabled voters; (8) voter verification and audit capacity funding; (9) security consultation services; (10) casting and counting of provisional ballots; (11) minimum required voting systems, poll workers, and election resources; (12) remedial plans for States with excessive voter wait times; (13) absentee voting; (14) public reports on Federal elections; (15) training of election officials; (16) impartial administration of elections; (17) standards for purging voters; (18) election day registration and early voting; (19) voter registration and identification; (20) prohibition of certain campaign activities; (21) voting rights of individuals convicted of criminal offenses; (22) election day as a public holiday; and (23) the Election Assistance Commission.

Its not just about felons..its about absentee voting and other issues that were a problem in the 2004 elections.

If I am reading it right felons would be allowed to vote after completing thier jail sentence and probation or parole terms. So no voting till this is done.

So it's not just about felons. I think some of the ideas in the legislation make sense.
 
With all due respect . . .

It is partisan. How do I know? The measure's sponsors said it is partisan

carbiner should have posted the article (below). Eghad, it isn't about 2005's Count Every Vote Act, although that measure is certainly germane to the discussion thus far.

The issue is a move in Maryland to give paroled felons the vote. The reason is, indeed, partisan. The democrats lost the last gubernatorial election by some 66,000 votes. By their own estimates, 85,000 of the 150,000 freed felons would vote dem. Ergo, they will defeat Ehrlich in 2006 and defeat Steele in the race for Sarbanes' old U.S. Senate seat.

Dozens of House Democrats have co-sponsored a bill that would restore voting rights for thousands of felons this election year.

The Maryland Democratic Party has endorsed the measure, which some House Democrats attribute to the party's aim to oust Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican seeking re-election.

"Of course that's the reason," said Delegate Jill P. Carter, Baltimore Democrat and one of the bill's 37 co-sponsors. "But I am just thankful for whatever reason the party has got behind it."

"It will make a difference [at the polls] if the Democrat-controlled General Assembly gives [felons] the vote," said Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, Baltimore Democrat and the bill's lead sponsor.

Miss Carter said the state Democratic Party has been trying to shore up black votes since Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a Republican, in 2002 became the first black to win statewide office in Maryland.
The measure would return about 150,000 felons to Maryland's voting rolls. About 85,000 of them are black and likely Democrats, according to Justice Maryland, a penal reform group that supports voting rights for felons.

Convicted murderers, rapists and armed robbers could vote in the Sept. 12 primary and the Nov. 7 general election if the bill becomes law and takes effect July 1.

The felon vote could decide the election: Mr. Ehrlich won the 2002 governor's race by 66,170 votes, according to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

His re-election bid is expected to be an even closer contest against either of the Democratic candidates -- Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley or Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan.

Neither Mr. Ehrlich nor Mr. Steele, who is running for the U.S. Senate, has taken a position on felon voting rights.

Maryland Republican Party spokeswoman Audra Miller said the bill is the latest in a series of moves by Democrats to tilt election law in their favor.

Other changes include Democratic lawmakers last month overturning the governor's vetoes of bills to allow early voting and expand the use of provisional ballots and absentee ballots on demand -- measures a bipartisan commission said risk voter fraud.

"It all speaks to the fact that the Democratic Party is trying to use any and every means possible to fix the elections," Miss Miller said.

But Derek Walker, executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party, said giving felons the vote upon their release from prison would "restore some amount of dignity" to ex-convicts.

"Once you have paid your dues to society, it is only right that you have the opportunity to participate in our democracy," Mr. Walker said.

Mrs. Marriott said state Democratic Party Chairman Terry Lierman "reached out" to her to lend his support, including appearing at a press conference last week to announce the bill's introduction.

She said Mr. Lierman's support was motivated by his dedication to justice, not by party politics.

The bill, which has more than half the 71 House votes needed for passage, has died in the General Assembly for three consecutive years. However, it appears to have momentum in both chambers this year.

State Senate Majority Leader Nathaniel J. McFadden, Baltimore Democrat, has said resistance has softened in his chamber and the legislation "really has a shot."

Yet House Minority Leader George C. Edwards said he expects the Republican caucus to oppose it, even though the Democratic majority would have enough votes to pass it.

"You break the law, you get penalties," the Western Maryland Republican said. "That's one of the penalties."

Maryland is one of 11 states that disenfranchise some felons for life. The others are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming.

Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, restored the voting rights of 3,414 felons on a case-by-case basis -- more than any other governor of the 11 states with restrictions.

How do we know it isn't about rights and is about partisan politics?

If it was about rights, these same democrats would restore felons rights to posess firearms. I'm not holding my breath, though.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060207-101738-6911r

Edited to add link
 
Eghad said,
Even Jeb Bush believes that felons should have the right to petition for thier rights back.

There is a difference between requiring the felon to petition, and a law that allows every felon his rights back simply after completing the terms of his sentence.

Recidivism rate is high among convicted felons. They are much more likely to commit crimes than the general public. The petition system which is in place works fine.
 
Thank you mr james for posting the article. I only have an msntv 2 receiver for internet communication and not a pc. So I cannot cut and paste, copy, download, spell check like pc users can. I will give better directions to articles in the future.
 
So basically some Republicans dont want felons who have finished the jail sentence, parole or probation to vote because most will vote Democrat and about a third Republican. Does that means some Republicans dont want a democracy unless its slanted in thier favor? Sounds like partisanship cuts both ways on this issue.

So punishing a criminal is all about punishment and not rehabilitation? If a guy has become a productive member of society and paid his debt to society he should be allowed to vote.

If recidivism is high among criminals that means they will be back in jail and not be able to vote under the Democratic bill.

The ones that will be able to vote will have finished their jail sentence, parole or probation.
 
Back
Top