Florida voters will be able to restore voting rights to over a million former felons in November

[g5000]

I do not know how anyone that values freedom or personal rights can disagree with this...

The Voting Restoration Amendment, which the state is expected to certify soon, would automatically restore rights to citizens convicted of felonies who have completed their prison sentence, parole, and probation. Only those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses would be excluded.

People that have served their time should be given all their rights back.

That's good news for Trump's felonious friends.

 

[Rustic]

We should take right to vote or buy politician actions against corporations that commit crimes also. Of course, the head guys usually don't go to jail even when innocent lives are lost or huge bodies of water are polluted. Exxon Valdez and Deep Water horizon disasters for example They get fined and then appeal the fines, and can usually write of the fines as a cost of doing business, so where's their punishment? Maybe not let them buy candidates for office?

Tree huggers and environmentalists should be punished too, for being pieces of shit. And wanting to control other people for no reason other than power trips...

 

[Tom Horn]

They use cartoon characters, dead people, and schizophrenics already so ex-cons fit right in to the circus that is the democRAT party.

 

[Faun]

And yet, when incarcerated, you don't lose the fundamental right to marry. Voting should be like that.

Why is it a problem if they vote in local elections?

There is no fundamental right to marry. Govt sanctioned marriages are a privilege not a right


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

That happens a lot. They also think killing a baby is a matter of privacy


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Your hysterics aside, they think killing a baby which is not yet viable, a private matter. And marriage is indeed a fundamental right.

There is no rule about viability.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

A “rule?” Possibly not, but it certainly was a consideration as they left if for states to decide themselves, post-viability. Up to the point of viability, it’s a private matter.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

 

[miketx]

If they done their time, then no problem.

 

[Faun]

They use cartoon characters, dead people, and schizophrenics already so ex-cons fit right in to the circus that is the democRAT party.

They also let us vote multiple times at the polls. At least if you present a registered Democrat voter ID.

 

[DOTR]

And as a Society we are not Greeks, Romans or Medieval.... Did the crime, did the time, they are good enough to join society then their views should be also good enough too...

You are wrong. Somehow this little ditty has become faddish but it isn't true. The "time" for a felony is life. The "Civil death". Felonies are opposed to misdemeanors in that felonies are considered an attack on society itself. There may be asset seizures, suspended sentences, incarceration for some finite time or incarceration for life. But the civil death endures unless specifically pardoned.
So dont confuse "incarceration" with "the time". That is only part of the penalty.
Democrats should try and find their votes among non-felons. Difficult I know but thats the way it goes.

 

[Vastator]

And as a Society we are not Greeks, Romans or Medieval.... Did the crime, did the time, they are good enough to join society then their views should be also good enough too...

You are wrong. Somehow this little ditty has become faddish but it isn't true. The "time" for a felony is life. The "Civil death". Felonies are opposed to misdemeanors in that felonies are considered an attack on society itself. There may be asset seizures, suspended sentences, incarceration for some finite time or incarceration for life. But the civil death endures unless specifically pardoned.
But dont confuse incarceration with "the time". That is only part of the penalty.
Democrats should try and find their votes among non-felons. Difficult I know but thats the way it goes.

Its a non partisan issue. The problem is varying state laws, with singular national consequences. Major inconsistencies between the two compromise the validity of the national standard of Felony. It also encroaches on the rights of other states citizens rights.

 

[DOTR]

And as a Society we are not Greeks, Romans or Medieval.... Did the crime, did the time, they are good enough to join society then their views should be also good enough too...

You are wrong. Somehow this little ditty has become faddish but it isn't true. The "time" for a felony is life. The "Civil death". Felonies are opposed to misdemeanors in that felonies are considered an attack on society itself. There may be asset seizures, suspended sentences, incarceration for some finite time or incarceration for life. But the civil death endures unless specifically pardoned.
But dont confuse incarceration with "the time". That is only part of the penalty.
Democrats should try and find their votes among non-felons. Difficult I know but thats the way it goes.

Its a non partisan issue. The problem is varying state laws, with singular national consequences. Major inconsistencies between the two compromise the validity of the national standard of Felony. It also encroaches on the rights of other states citizens rights.

Since we have a federal republic it is expected, even desired, that each state set its own election rules. There is no such thing as a national election. Never ever. There can never be a national referendum or a national vote on anything. You are only allowed to vote within your state. You vote for you senator by state and your representative by district with no control or influence outside that as to who runs the Senate and House. And for president you vote for state electors who vote in the electoral college.
it can be no other way in a Federal system.
And there are no national standards for felonies save in Federal law and, more importantly, in a common culture. it is the culture being attacked here. Just as it was in marriage...another state issue liberals couldnt wait to wrest away to the central rulers.

 

[Vastator]

And as a Society we are not Greeks, Romans or Medieval.... Did the crime, did the time, they are good enough to join society then their views should be also good enough too...

You are wrong. Somehow this little ditty has become faddish but it isn't true. The "time" for a felony is life. The "Civil death". Felonies are opposed to misdemeanors in that felonies are considered an attack on society itself. There may be asset seizures, suspended sentences, incarceration for some finite time or incarceration for life. But the civil death endures unless specifically pardoned.
But dont confuse incarceration with "the time". That is only part of the penalty.
Democrats should try and find their votes among non-felons. Difficult I know but thats the way it goes.

Its a non partisan issue. The problem is varying state laws, with singular national consequences. Major inconsistencies between the two compromise the validity of the national standard of Felony. It also encroaches on the rights of other states citizens rights.

Since we have a federal republic it is expected, even desired, that each state set its own election rules. There is no such thing as a national election. Never ever. There can never be a national referendum or a national vote on anything. You are only allowed to vote within your state. You vote for you senator by state and your representative by district with no control or influence outside that as to who runs the Senate and House. And for president you vote for state electors who vote in the electoral college.
it can be no other way in a Federal system.

That's not the point. The point is that its inconsistent for one state to be able to strip a person from another state of their rights, unless the crime, and penalties are standardized nationwide.

 

[Desperado]

Ok here is an idea. If voting is so important to these convicted felons, they are free to move to a state that allows convicted felons to vote. Seems to be a win-win for both Florida and the convicted felons.

 

[DOTR]

There is a story that is taught in Louisiana that illustrates how far marxists have brought us from our foundations. Huey Long was in constant conflict with the Federal government and when back home in Louisiana was always shadowed by an FBI agent. When Long was shot down in the state capitol the agent following him that day rushed to a western union and telegraphed Washington "Long assasinated. Instructions?". And the reply was "murder a state crime. Go home"

 

[DOTR]

That's not the point. The point is that its inconsistent for one state to be able to strip a person from another state of their rights, unless the crime, and penalties are standardized nationwide.

No it isnt. No state can strip a citizen of another state of right unless that citizen commits a crime in that state. American states are sovereign. Each and every one.
And to that end I will quote Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards' response to New York governor Mario Cuomo when the latter complained that a New York citizen was being executed in Louisiana. Edwards replied "if you have a problem with us executing New Yorkers tell them to not come to Louisiana and commit a crime".
Crime and penalties, marriage, inheritance, voting, property law, criminal law..all these vary by state.

 

[DOTR]

Ok here is an idea. If voting is so important to these convicted felons, they are free to move to a state that allows convicted felons to vote. Seems to be a win-win for both Florida and the convicted felons.

You will note that the "they did the time" argument doesn't fly with the Florida law under consideration. It sets exceptions.

"This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis."

I am still hoping Floridians vote it down. But that is up to them.

 

[Vastator]

That's not the point. The point is that its inconsistent for one state to be able to strip a person from another state of their rights, unless the crime, and penalties are standardized nationwide.

No it isnt. No state can strip a citizen of another state of right unless that citizen commits a crime in that state. American states are sovereign. Each and every one.
And to that end I will quote Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards' response to New York governor Mario Cuomo when the latter complained that a New York citizen was being executed in Louisiana. Edwards replied "if you have a problem with us executing New Yorkers tell them to not come to Louisiana and commit a crime".
Crime and penalties, marriage, inheritance, voting, property law, criminal law..all these vary by state.

Not the point. The state executed him. Not the federal government.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Florida voters will be able to restore voting rights to over a million former felons in November

A 2016 study found that if Floridians with felony convictions were allowed to register to vote, nearly 60,000 additional ballots would have been cast.

So what's your position?

They haven't paid their debt?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Florida voters will be able to restore voting rights to over a million former felons in November

A 2016 study found that if Floridians with felony convictions were allowed to register to vote, nearly 60,000 additional ballots would have been cast.

Criminals are a big part of the Corrupt Democratic Party's Voter Base

Tax payers as well.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And yet, when incarcerated, you don't lose the fundamental right to marry. Voting should be like that.

Why is it a problem if they vote in local elections?

Like any other right, the franchise has it's restrictions, including age. Again with due process you can remove or restrict several rights.

And the issue would be 5000 inmates voting as a bloc to elect people to run a county or town of 3000 free people.

Would you want to live in a municipality where you are outnumbered by the inmates of a prison and they have voting rights.

It would be easy enough to restrict Federal inmates with no other residential address to Federal Elections. Many states do it for overseas voters. Others, like California also allow overseas voters to vote in local elections.

Voting is one of our most basic civil rights, just like marriage. I simply feel that prison should not be a barrier to the exercise of such a basic fundamental right.

You commit a crime bad enough to be incarcerated, you should not be entrusted with voting. If we can restrict your freedom of movement, which to me is a far greater right then voting, then removing the franchise from prisoners, paroles, and probationers isn't that much of a stretch.

And I disagree. Too many low level drug crimes are considered Felonies. Our justice system is too far tilted against minorities and the poor and we are disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of people.

I'd be willing to compromise on a no violent crimes provision.

Sorry, but you do the crime you pay the time. A person who can't be trusted to follow the law cannot be trusted to vote.

Sorry, but you do the crime you pay the time. A person who can't be trusted to follow the law cannot be trusted to vote.

I'm not understanding your thinking. What trust is required to vote?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

My state allows prisoners to vote while in prison....

So.....does that bother you?

They do have a rather personal stake in who makes law and policy.

 

[martybegan]

Like any other right, the franchise has it's restrictions, including age. Again with due process you can remove or restrict several rights.

And the issue would be 5000 inmates voting as a bloc to elect people to run a county or town of 3000 free people.

Would you want to live in a municipality where you are outnumbered by the inmates of a prison and they have voting rights.

It would be easy enough to restrict Federal inmates with no other residential address to Federal Elections. Many states do it for overseas voters. Others, like California also allow overseas voters to vote in local elections.

Voting is one of our most basic civil rights, just like marriage. I simply feel that prison should not be a barrier to the exercise of such a basic fundamental right.

You commit a crime bad enough to be incarcerated, you should not be entrusted with voting. If we can restrict your freedom of movement, which to me is a far greater right then voting, then removing the franchise from prisoners, paroles, and probationers isn't that much of a stretch.

And I disagree. Too many low level drug crimes are considered Felonies. Our justice system is too far tilted against minorities and the poor and we are disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of people.

I'd be willing to compromise on a no violent crimes provision.

Sorry, but you do the crime you pay the time. A person who can't be trusted to follow the law cannot be trusted to vote.

Sorry, but you do the crime you pay the time. A person who can't be trusted to follow the law cannot be trusted to vote.

I'm not understanding your thinking. What trust is required to vote?

The right to vote is the right to have your say on how society is governed. If you have commited a crime against society and been convicted under due process, losing your right to vote, and thus have your say on the society you have harmed should be a no-brainer while you are under punishment.

Restoring the franchise after the sentence is complete is another question, and to me best left to the States.

I personally would want people who have completed incarceration/parole/probation to be able to vote again.