Felony Disenfranchisement Laws Are Too Unjust To Tolerate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

Here's a story from one of those right-wing news outlets that I thought you guys might enjoy.

Susan Jones wrote:Holder: State Laws That Bar Felons From Voting Are ‘Too Unjust to Tolerate’

Three days after announcing that the U.S. Justice Department will recognize same-sex marriages in all legal matters, even in states that forbid it, Attorney General Eric Holder took a swipe at states that don’t allow felons to vote.

“In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore -- it is also too unjust to tolerate,” Holder told a criminal justice forum at Georgetown University Law Center.

Holder urged lawmakers “to stand together in overturning an unfortunate and outdated status quo.” And he called on the American people “to join us in bringing about the end of misguided policies that unjustly restrict what's been called the ‘most basic right’ of American citizenship.”

“These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed,” he said.

Holder said state laws that bar felons from voting are “not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive” because they perpetuate the “stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals,” increasing the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.

Such “outdated” laws have a “disparate impact on minority communities,” he said, suggesting that this is, at heart, a civil rights issue.

Of the 5.8 million Americans who cannot vote because of current or previous felony convictions, 2.2 million are black, Holder noted.

“And although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable.”

Holder said that since 1997, a total of 23 states have enacted reforms.

“These are positive developments. But many of these changes are incremental in nature. They stop well short of confronting this problem head-on. And although we can be encouraged by the promising indications we've seen, a great deal of work remains to be done. Given what is at stake, the time for incrementalism is clearly over.”

Holder said 11 states continue to restrict voting rights, to varying degrees, even after a person has served his or her prison sentence and is no longer on probation or parole. He singled out Florida and Mississippi and Iowa.

“Whenever we tell citizens who have paid their debts and rejoined their communities that they are not entitled to take part in the democratic process, we fall short of the bedrock promise -- of equal opportunity and equal justice -- that has always served as the foundation of our legal system. So it's time to renew our commitment -- here and now -- to the notion that the free exercise of our fundamental rights should never be subject to politics, or geography, or the lingering effects of flawed and unjust policies.

"After all, at its most basic level, this isn't just about fairness for those who are released from prison. It's about who we are as a nation. It's about confronting -- with clear eyes, and in frank terms -- disparities and divisions that are unworthy of the greatest justice system the world has ever known. It's about ensuring that we hold accountable those who do wrong -- while preserving the values our nation has always held sacred. And it's about protecting the American people and strengthening our communities -- while enabling all of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they're from, to make their voices heard.”

**daedalus**

Holder was later quoted as saying, "I mean, why not? Not like the votes count anyway."

**LordofHats**

I think it makes sense to suspend a felons right to vote while they are incarcerated, but I'm not opposed to returning it to them once they're released.

**whembly**

*meh*

I can be persuaded each way.

But, I think once you served the punishment, your voting rights should be restored.

**Grey Templar**

whembly wrote:
*meh*

I can be persuaded each way.

But, I think once you served the punishment, your voting rights should be restored.

I agree.

Once you've done the time you get em back.

**cincydooley**

whembly wrote:
*meh*

I can be persuaded each way.

But, I think once you served the punishment, your voting rights should be restored.

Agreed.

**LordofHats**

It would certainly help with the rehabilitation aspect of how the law should function. Completely disenfranchising felons from society just encourages them to go back to committing felonies. Some of that is understandably unavoidable, but this one doesn't make much sense to me.

**Breotan**

cincydooley wrote:
whembly wrote:
*meh*

I can be persuaded each way.

But, I think once you served the punishment, your voting rights should be restored.
Agreed.

Except that there is a process which allows for this. After you've been out of prison for a certain amount of time, you can petition for your rights to be restored. There are some requirements such as no further infractions and stuff like that but in most cases, only repeat offenders and lifers lose their rights forever.

**Ouze**

I also agree that the voting rights should be restored.

There is no situation in which I think you should be disenfranchised forever.

**whembly**

Breotan wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
whembly wrote:
*meh*

I can be persuaded each way.

But, I think once you served the punishment, your voting rights should be restored.
Agreed.
Except that there is a process which allows for this. After you've been out of prison for a certain amount of time, you can petition for your rights to be restored. There are some requirements such as no further infractions and stuff like that but in most cases, only repeat offenders and lifers lose their rights forever.

I'd argue that once you done your "time", it should automatically be restored.

It's also different for each state... ie, in Missouri, you get it back after you serve your time+probabtion+parole.

**Alexzandvar**

Breotan I don't really see an issue with the head of a department that is known for civil rights advocacy advocating civil rights.

Or your one of those people who just don't like him for doing his job, which in that case, you would probably crap your pants if you saw what the head of the EPA does.

**cincydooley**

This isn't a thread about the EPA. Please try and stay on topic.

**Alexzandvar**

cincydooley wrote:
This isn't a thread about the EPA. Please try and stay on topic.

I was simply trying to ascertain why Breotan felt this was a big issue, since we all seem to shockingly in agreement.

**Breotan**

cincydooley wrote:
This isn't a thread about the EPA. Please try and stay on topic.

Oh, is he posting here? I put him on ignore after seeing him troll other threads.

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
Oh, is he posting here? I put him on ignore after seeing him troll other threads.

I haven't gotten into it one way or the other with that specific guy so I'm speaking in general, but I felt like I had grown as a person when I could finally just skip past the little "ignored a post by X" thing as if it was no longer there without showing the comment, like those people who hate Howard Stern and compulsively listen so they can be outraged. I never show posts from people I've ignored anymore, and I think my Dakka experience is probably better for it.

**cincydooley**

I haven't put him on ignore yet. But I really should.

But again, if your debt is served, you should be able to vote, IMO.

**Breotan**

cincydooley wrote:
But again, if your debt is served, you should be able to vote, IMO.

In most states it is. Other states take a tougher stance toward criminals. I just don't see the current situation being "too unjust to tolerate".

**cincydooley**

Well that's Holder (how does he still have a job, btw??) being hyperbolic like he usually is.

I couldn't help but laugh when the article talks about the # of disenfranchised people and only singles out blacks, who surprisingly make up less than half of the total population.

**daedalus**

Breotan wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
But again, if your debt is served, you should be able to vote, IMO.
In most states it is. Other states take a tougher stance toward criminals. I just don't see the current situation being "too unjust to tolerate".

With how difficult it is to be a felon (at least, from what I've heard from the people who scream about it) it seems a small concession to make. I mean, what damage does giving them the opportunity to vote create?

**nels1031**

The origin of these disenfranchisement laws stems from post-bellum southern states that faced an abundance of freed slaves and their newfound rights to vote. Laws were changed to make even the most petty crime a felony so that they wouldn't vote. Alot of other states picked up the practice as well, usually just so a politician could tout how tough they are on crime and it required zero effort to actually address crime.

It really is pretty shameful that they are still on the books, and still predominantly used against the same people as post Civil War southern states.

**cincydooley**

You can't say that, as the article even states that the black population affected is less than half. Less than half can't be "predominately".

**nels1031**

Fair enough, but the fact that it was used as a tool to keep freed slaves from voting can't be denied.

**Grey Templar**

Nobody can, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea for other reasons.

The Nazis were the first to have a practical Jet-fighter craft, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have used a good idea.

Does that count as a Godwin?

**cincydooley**

I'm going to give it to you.

God....winning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Man, I feel like I need a Charlie Sheen dressed as Uncle Adolf meme......

**Alexzandvar**

Glad to see we couldn't go a thread with out there being an personal attack on me.

**hotsauceman1**

Dude, you are starting to act like a parody of me and the stupid things I say

**Alexzandvar**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dude, you are starting to act like a parody of me and the stupid things I say

Good to know that my beliefs are just a parody

**sebster**

I wonder what the voter turnout for ex-felons is, in places where they have their right to vote given back to them? I'd guess it wouldn't be too high.

Still, I guess that doesn't matter much, the point is that once you've paid your debt, then you've paid your debt and you should once again have all the rights of a regular citizen.

**Dreadclaw69**

Once the felon is released from incarceration I see no need to continue to refuse to let him/her vote. Continuing punishment of this nature after their time has been served makes little sense.

**Ouze**

I don't think I've ever seen the disparate factions of Dakka come together on a topic in such a cohesive manner before.