Dane Co. Sheriff Says He Won’t Stop Felon Voters

[daveman]

Dane Co. Sheriff Says He Won’t Stop Felon Voters

In a battleground state where voter fraud has been an issue in previous presidential elections, one leading county sheriff is saying his office won’t stop ineligible felon voters from casting a ballot. An internal memo from the Dane County Sheriff’s Office instructed deputies and other staff assigned to the county jail to facilitate the absentee ballot requests of inmates. Sent from Lt. Mark Twombly, the memo specifically instructed law enforcement officials to not check on the felony status of inmates and to help everyone vote regardless of their criminal record. In Wisconsin an individual serving jail time for a felony or under parole or supervision for a felony may not cast a ballot.

Checking on whether or not an inmate is a felon would require a quick and simple check of the county law enforcement’s computer system. “It is going to be up to their polling location to research whether they are allowed to vote based on their criminal record, not the DCSO [Dane County Sheriff's Office],” Twombly wrote in a memo distributed to staff.

The decision by the sheriff’s office to ignore felon status for inmate voters means that law enforcement officials will not be working to prevent further legal violations on the part of those in their custody.

--

In defending his decision to let potential voter fraud slip through, Mahoney said his present policy does not differ from that of previous sheriffs in Dane County. Mahoney has suffered repeated criticism from conservatives for his ongoing unwillingness to enforce the law on liberal protesters who harass and intimidate political opponents and staff in and around the state capitol in downtown Madison.

Dane County is the second most populous county in the state and has the highest proportional percentage of Democratic voters.

Lt. Twombly, the author of the memo prohibiting Sheriff’s Office officials from enforcing state election law, signed a petition to recall Governor Scott Walker from office.​

 

[daveman]

Isn't it ironic that people who call themselves Democrats have such contempt for democracy?

 

[uscitizen]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

 

[del]

well, if it's not enumerated in the constitution, i'm sure all the alleged conservatives here will support the sheriff.

i've heard the rant about enumerated powers about 6000 times here and i know they're not hypocrites

 

[Annie]

well, if it's not enumerated in the constitution, i'm sure all the alleged conservatives here will support the sheriff.

i've heard the rant about enumerated powers about 6000 times here and i know they're not hypocrites

The Volokh Conspiracy » Felons and Voting

*


« Felons and the Right to Bear Arms [UPDATE: Added Information on Another Such Case Decided by the Same Panel]
Building an Appellate Practice »

Felons and Voting

Eugene Volokh • November 16, 2011 2:25 pm

Some people have asked whether court decisions recognizing that some felons have a constitutional right to bear arms — if their felonies are long enough in the past — would also extend to felons’ having a constitutional right to vote. I think the answer is “no,” because there’s a specific constitutional authorization for denying felons the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly contemplates the constitutionality of such a restriction, in section 2 (emphasis added):

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Given that it is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been read as generally securing a constitutional right to vote, I think that right has to be read in light of the restrictions that section 2 says are tolerable. And that is precisely what the Court held in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) (some paragraph breaks added):

Despite this settled historical and judicial understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect on state laws disenfranchising convicted felons, respondents argue that our recent decisions invalidating other state-imposed restrictions on the franchise as violative of the Equal Protection Clause require us to invalidate the disenfranchisement of felons as well. They rely on such cases as Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134 (1972), Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621 (1969), and Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), to support the conclusions of the Supreme Court of California that a State must show a “compelling state interest” to justify exclusion of ex-felons from the franchise and that California has not done so here.

As we have seen, however, the exclusion of felons from the vote has an affirmative sanction in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a sanction which was not present in the case of the other restrictions on the franchise which were invalidated in the cases on which respondents rely. We hold that the understanding of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of § 2 and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment’s applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise which have been held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause by this Court....

[We] rest on the demonstrably sound proposition that § 1, in dealing with voting rights as it does, could not have been meant to bar outright a form of disenfranchisement which was expressly exempted from the less drastic sanction of reduced representation which § 2 imposed for other forms of disenfranchisement. Nor can we accept respondents’ argument that because § 2 was made part of the Amendment “‘largely through the accident of political exigency rather than through the relation which it bore to the other sections of the Amendment,’” we must not look to it for guidance in interpreting § 1. It is as much a part of the Amendment as any of the other sections, and how it became a part of the Amendment is less important than what it says and what it means.

Pressed upon us by the respondents, and by amici curiae, are contentions that these notions are outmoded, and that the more modern view is that it is essential to the process of rehabilitating the ex-felon that he be returned to his role in society as a fully participating citizen when he has completed the serving of his term. We would by no means discount these arguments if addressed to the legislative forum which may properly weigh and balance them against those advanced in support of California’s present constitutional provisions.

But it is not for us to choose one set of values over the other. If respondents are correct, and the view which they advocate is indeed the more enlightened and sensible one, presumably the people of the State of California will ultimately come around to that view. And if they do not do so, their failure is some evidence, at least, of the fact that there are two sides to the argument.

Some readers might ask whether section 2′s implicit endorsement of the constitutionality of requirements that voters be “male” and “twenty-one years of age” would similarly render constitutional restrictions on voting by women and by 18-to-20-year-olds. The answer, I think, is surely yes — which is why it took the Nineteenth Amendment and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to specifically forbid such voting restrictions.

 

[daveman]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

Well, except for the part that says they may be prohibited from voting.

 

[uscitizen]

Hmm it also says that their representatives in the house will be reduced in proportion to those not allowed to vote in their state.

Has that happened?

we need an audit on that right away.

districts with prisons in them will likely lose a representative.

 

[Lakhota]

States Deny Millions Of Ex-Felons Voting Rights

 

[g5000]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

Well, except for the part that says they may be prohibited from voting.

There is nothing in the Constitution which says felons may be prohibited from voting.

.

 

[g5000]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

Is there something in the Constitution which allows a sheriff to violate the law?

.

 

[Oldguy]

Mahoney has suffered repeated criticism from conservatives for his ongoing unwillingness to enforce the law on liberal protesters who harass and intimidate political opponents and staff in and around the state capitol in downtown Madison.

I guess that's one way to put it, but the TRUTH is that Mahoney tried to keep Gov. Walker from closing the capitol building off from The People of Wisconsin. The state constitution requires that the capitol building be open to all people at all times and, when Walker tried to close it during the massive demonstrations a few years ago, Mahoney refused to enforce it.

Finally, Walker called in the state police to do his dirty work and Mahoney pulled his deputies off the capitol grounds, saying that he would not have his men serve as "palace guards."

I don't know if he's right or wrong on this issue, but it seems to me that he's a man of principle and integrity, no matter which party he belongs to.

 

[Oldguy]

There is nothing in the Constitution which says felons may be prohibited from voting.

.

The US Constitution, or the Wisconsin Constitution?

 

[HUGGY]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

Well, except for the part that says they may be prohibited from voting.

What part of the Constitution says THAT?

 

[Oldguy]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

Well, except for the part that says they may be prohibited from voting.

What part of the Constitution says THAT?

The Wisconsin Constitution says it.

In fact, convicted felons are denied the right to vote in Wisconsin, but that right may be restored after they've served their sentence, been paroled or placed on probation.

Here's the problem for Sheriff Mahoney:

The Dane County Jail, which is under the Sheriff's control, averages about 800 inmates at any given time and those inmates are in various stages of the legal process. Some are in the overnight drunk tank, some have not been charged, some have been charged, some have not been convicted as charged, some have, some for felonies, more for misdemeanors. Some are awaiting release for a variety of reasons. Some are sentenced to a term in the county jail, some are awaiting transport to the state prisons. Some are federal prisoners in town for a court appearance, in transit or housed for pay. Some are from Wisconsin, some are not. Some are residents, some are not. Some are foreigners. Some are allowed to vote, some are not.

The Sheriff's position is that his department does not have the time or the resources to determine who among that jail population are allowed to vote, so his policy is to give any one of them an absentee ballot who requests one and let the voter registration department sort it out. That's their job, not his.

I can't say that I disagree with him, can you?

 

[Annie]

Reposting for those that want to spout off and not read what's come before.

well, if it's not enumerated in the constitution, i'm sure all the alleged conservatives here will support the sheriff.

i've heard the rant about enumerated powers about 6000 times here and i know they're not hypocrites

The Volokh Conspiracy » Felons and Voting

*


« Felons and the Right to Bear Arms [UPDATE: Added Information on Another Such Case Decided by the Same Panel]
Building an Appellate Practice »

Felons and Voting

Eugene Volokh • November 16, 2011 2:25 pm

Some people have asked whether court decisions recognizing that some felons have a constitutional right to bear arms — if their felonies are long enough in the past — would also extend to felons’ having a constitutional right to vote. I think the answer is “no,” because there’s a specific constitutional authorization for denying felons the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly contemplates the constitutionality of such a restriction, in section 2 (emphasis added):

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Given that it is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been read as generally securing a constitutional right to vote, I think that right has to be read in light of the restrictions that section 2 says are tolerable. And that is precisely what the Court held in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) (some paragraph breaks added):

Despite this settled historical and judicial understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect on state laws disenfranchising convicted felons, respondents argue that our recent decisions invalidating other state-imposed restrictions on the franchise as violative of the Equal Protection Clause require us to invalidate the disenfranchisement of felons as well. They rely on such cases as Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134 (1972), Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U. S. 621 (1969), and Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), to support the conclusions of the Supreme Court of California that a State must show a “compelling state interest” to justify exclusion of ex-felons from the franchise and that California has not done so here.

As we have seen, however, the exclusion of felons from the vote has an affirmative sanction in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a sanction which was not present in the case of the other restrictions on the franchise which were invalidated in the cases on which respondents rely. We hold that the understanding of those who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of § 2 and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment’s applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise which have been held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause by this Court....

[We] rest on the demonstrably sound proposition that § 1, in dealing with voting rights as it does, could not have been meant to bar outright a form of disenfranchisement which was expressly exempted from the less drastic sanction of reduced representation which § 2 imposed for other forms of disenfranchisement. Nor can we accept respondents’ argument that because § 2 was made part of the Amendment “‘largely through the accident of political exigency rather than through the relation which it bore to the other sections of the Amendment,’” we must not look to it for guidance in interpreting § 1. It is as much a part of the Amendment as any of the other sections, and how it became a part of the Amendment is less important than what it says and what it means.

Pressed upon us by the respondents, and by amici curiae, are contentions that these notions are outmoded, and that the more modern view is that it is essential to the process of rehabilitating the ex-felon that he be returned to his role in society as a fully participating citizen when he has completed the serving of his term. We would by no means discount these arguments if addressed to the legislative forum which may properly weigh and balance them against those advanced in support of California’s present constitutional provisions.

But it is not for us to choose one set of values over the other. If respondents are correct, and the view which they advocate is indeed the more enlightened and sensible one, presumably the people of the State of California will ultimately come around to that view. And if they do not do so, their failure is some evidence, at least, of the fact that there are two sides to the argument.

Some readers might ask whether section 2′s implicit endorsement of the constitutionality of requirements that voters be “male” and “twenty-one years of age” would similarly render constitutional restrictions on voting by women and by 18-to-20-year-olds. The answer, I think, is surely yes — which is why it took the Nineteenth Amendment and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to specifically forbid such voting restrictions.

 

[Intense]

Felons should be allowed to vote. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them voting.

Well, except for the part that says they may be prohibited from voting.

What part of the Constitution says THAT?

The Constitution grants the States the Power to Regulate their Election Laws. The Convicted Felon Laws vary by State.

 

[The Infidel]

Well, except for the part that says they may be prohibited from voting.

What part of the Constitution says THAT?

The Wisconsin Constitution says it.

In fact, convicted felons are denied the right to vote in Wisconsin, but that right may be restored after they've served their sentence, been paroled or placed on probation.

Here's the problem for Sheriff Mahoney:

The Dane County Jail, which is under the Sheriff's control, averages about 800 inmates at any given time and those inmates are in various stages of the legal process. Some are in the overnight drunk tank, some have not been charged, some have been charged, some have not been convicted as charged, some have, some for felonies, more for misdemeanors. Some are awaiting release for a variety of reasons. Some are sentenced to a term in the county jail, some are awaiting transport to the state prisons. Some are federal prisoners in town for a court appearance, in transit or housed for pay. Some are from Wisconsin, some are not. Some are residents, some are not. Some are foreigners. Some are allowed to vote, some are not.

The Sheriff's position is that his department does not have the time or the resources to determine who among that jail population are allowed to vote, so his policy is to give any one of them an absentee ballot who requests one and let the voter registration department sort it out. That's their job, not his.

I can't say that I disagree with him, can you?

 

[Annie]

At this point, I'm willing to let the voters affected it out.

 

[uscitizen]

States Deny Millions Of Ex-Felons Voting Rights

for every felon not allowed to vote the states representation in congress must be diminished by the same percentage.

I doubt very seriously if this is being done.
Sounds like a good suit for the NAACP and or ACLU.

Seems like the house of representatives numbers are regulated by eligible voting population over 21 not just population.

Perhaps we can make government smaller?