Jeff Gerritt, Detroit Free Press, August 6, 2009
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, both Democrats, recently introduced bills to restore voting rights, in federal elections, to nearly 4 million Americans who have served time in prison and are now in the community. {snip}
Nationwide, nearly 2 million African Americans are disenfranchised because of state laws, some of which impose on ex-prisoners lifetime bans on voting. These laws, which bar 13% of all African American men from voting, are vestiges of Jim Crow.
The bills, called the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009, would not impact Michigan directly. Former prisoners in Michigan already have the right to vote when they leave prison, though they can’t vote while incarcerated. But 35 other states continue to restrict the voting rights of people who are no longer in prison or are on probation.
{snip} Most ex-prisoners would probably vote Democratic, though I’ve also talked to some pretty conservative guys in prison, including a couple with swastikas tattooed on their arms.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on August 11, 2009)
Comments
Call me a pinko if you want to, but I can not see a justification for barring a person from voting if they are convicted of a felony for an entire lifetime.A limited period of time, maybe.It varies greatly from state to state.The vast majority of them would be too apathetic to vote if they could.
Universal sufferage is a terrible thing. Our founding fathers wanted voting limited to those who had a real stake in the country’s future success. When you let felons, welfare moms and others with no real interest to vote for what is best for the broader society you create the mess we have now.
If 13% of black males can not vote because of felony convictions that has NOTHING to do with Jim Crow. It has to do with black criminal behavior. And no doubt those males have committed way more than one crime…no doubt starting before age 18. Once you have declared yourself an enemy of civislization you should not be allowed to vote against that society.
FL and KY are the only two states that have lifetime bans on convicted felons voting. Most other states let felons vote if they have completed their sentence and probation. And there’s the rub for too many black men — they can’t behave long enough to finish their probation.
The civil rights industry complains about Florida’s blanket ban on felon voting, but not Kentucky. Why? Florida is a swing state. Kentucky, not so much.
The other reason that the civil rights establishment wants convicted felons to have the vote is that they won’t necessarily go out and vote, but motor voter will ensure they are registered to vote, and their names being on the voter rolls gives an extra vote to corrupt black poll workers in black precincts that like to stay after hours and fill out ballots. That’s where the dimpled chad, hanging chad and pregnant chad in Florida in 2000 came from — black hacks trying to steal FL for Gore. Donna Braziele, Al Gore’s 2000 campaign manager, said that she “could get five points on the ground” for Gore. What did she mean by that? Answer: Black voter fraud, I think.
If someone knows the historical argument or can cite a web page for reference, please let me know.
That being said. The Democrats want the felon vote. Charming. Of course it’s not about fairness or justice. It’s about getting any every vote.
I have to wonder how many people convicted of felons would actually want to or end up voting. Of course, it’s likely this group is ripe for vote selling.
Whether you agree with the felon voting ban or not, it is absolutely absurd to equate it to Jim Crow - unless you are under the impression that felons are only black. The reason the felon voting ban effects blacks at a higher rate has nothing at all to do with discrimination and everything to do with black criminal behavior and everybody knows this even Rep. John Conyers.
I could potentially be convinced to agree with Peejay’s position, but the real issue here is that calling laws that disenfranchise felons “vestiges of Jim Crow” implies that anything that negatively affects blacks is automatically racist, which is clearly not the case. I argue the same when it comes to a favorite of the left, the crack cocaine sentencing disparity.
People should be able to vote after they have served their time.
I don’t think people serving time should be allowed to vote, and neither should welfare recipients be able to vote.
The Democrats who favor this are not espousing this position from a principled stand. The people pushing for restoring a felon’s right to vote do not favor restoring their right to keep and bear arms, even for people convicted of nonviolent victimless crimes like drug law violations. They only support restoring the right to vote because demographic studies show that most of the people would vote for liberal Democrats.
Of course they want black felons to vote. It will increase their voting base by about 30% or more.
“Call me a pinko if you want to, but I can not see a justification for barring a person from voting if they are convicted of a felony for an entire lifetime.A limited period of time, maybe.It varies greatly from state to state.The vast majority of them would be too apathetic to vote if they could.”
That’s odd.
I personally don’t see the justification for allowing people with IQ’s of 85 to vote.
I have to agree with Peejay I can’t see a valid legitimate reason for keeping this prohibition in place, it just makes us look like the bad guys, its not like ex-felons would vote anyway, well maybe last election they would have, but now that the Kenyan Messiah’s novelty has worn off I doubt it.
Maybe the ex-cons can not only vote but “persuade” folks in da ghetto or the barrio, as it were, to vote “right” or else. Certain black politicians might welcome these ‘volunteers’ and reward them with business opportunities in the “community”.
Yes, political participation will rehabilitate these third grade reading level sociopaths, sexual deviants and chronic criminals. Because, basically, they are all “good”. Each and every one of them. They all had mothers you know.
There is also a movement on to permit felons to vote WHILE serving their terms. After all, we can’t “disenfranchise” murderers and rapists.
>>Most ex-prisoners would probably vote Democratic, though I’ve also talked to some pretty conservative guys in prison, including a couple with swastikas tattooed on their arms.
Thus Jeff Gerritt of The Detroit Free Press proves himself to be a propagandist.
If Conyers can change the law his wife will still be able to vote for him. How sweet.
I think it is reasonable to let a felon vote after serving his sentence, except in the case of murder (since the victim will never vote).
But I also understand the argument against letting convicted felons vote. Our society does not need politicians pandering to felons, as they inevitably will do if the felons vote as a bloc.
Think of it this way. If you had a micro-society of 1000 people, 500 of which were convicted felons. Would the society be better off letting only the law abiding citizens vote, or would it be better to let all vote. It is crystal clear to me. I would say the society would benefit from only letting the law-abiding citizens vote. Now in the real world the principle is the same, dilution, however, moderates the effect.
Do you think these Convicts would vote for Law and Order Politicians?
Democrats aren’t ashamed of being elected by criminals and dead people.
If you’ve done your time, you should be able to vote, own guns, etc. Otherwise you’re STILL being punished. Either you’ve served your sentence or you have not.
But I do agree with #2. And once upon a time, it was one vote per household—the head of the house voted, whether it was a husband who owned land, or a widow who owned land.
Interestingly, but not particularly surprisingly, the campaigners for felon voting rights are non-white - one Jewish and one black.
Both are only interested in securing black felon voting rights, but if they succeed they accept, probably begrudgingly, that such a benefit would also extend to white felons.
At the end of the day, what they’re truly after is to further increase vote strength for the Democratic Party so as to help maintain their respective jobs and pension schemes within the Party and presently, the Government.
If someone is off of parole and has not reoffended then there is no reason to keep punishing them. Even more so is someone who has been a productive member of society for more than 20 years without so much as a hiccup with the law. I agree that welfare recipients should not be able to vote and that should extend to every form of welfare from food stamps to subsidized housing.
Convicted felons are barred by federal law from owning firearms. Those of you who say they should be allowed to vote should therefore ask yourselves this question: Which is more dangerous in the hands of a felon — a bullet or a ballot?
That said, I would not object to allowing a person convicted of one (and only one) non-violent felony to have both voting and gun rights restored after 2-3 years of a clean post-release record. But a second felony conviction of any type would result in permanent revocation of rights, with no appeal possible.
It’s also telling that the author ignores the fact that felons in Florida (and every other state that restricts felon voting) can petition to have their rights restored. They actually have to get off their butts and file the paperwork, and there’s no guarantee, but it definitely is possible.
