• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

6 Million Americans Without a Voice

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,258
Reaction score
97,644
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy, yet nearly six million Americans are denied that right, in many cases for life, because they have been convicted of a crime. Some states disenfranchise more than 7 percent of their adult citizens.
In an unflinching speech before a civil rights conference Tuesday morning, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. described this shameful aspect of our justice system for what it is: a “profoundly outdated” practice that is unjust and counterproductive.

Felon disenfranchisement laws lie at the intersection of two issues on which Mr. Holder has become increasingly outspoken: criminal justice reform and voting rights. While he has no direct authority to change state laws, the weight of his words can help pave a path for legislative action in both Congress and statehouses around the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
 
Considering that bringing the wrong kind of potted flower into the country can be a felony these days, I'm starting to agree.
 
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.
 
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.

Do you believe that people who've served their sentences should lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives, or are you more concerned that ex-felons might vote Democrat?
 
Considering that bringing the wrong kind of potted flower into the country can be a felony these days, I'm starting to agree.

So we shouldn't change the law on potted flowers, but fix the problem by giving back rights to all felons?
 
So we shouldn't change the law on potted flowers, but fix the problem by giving back rights to all felons?

While some countries do in fact give their felons the right to vote, that is for a different debate. The operative word in this thread is ex-felon, as in, those who have already served their sentences and paid their debt to society.
 
No one should lose their right to vote at any point.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.

The 14th Amendment, Section 2:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. 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.

SCOTUS ruled denying felons the right to vote was indeed Constitutional...based on the above. In thirteen states and DC, one's right to vote is re-asserted after incarceration.

It's obviously a state issue. Holder! Keep your nose out of it!
 
The 14th Amendment, Section 2:



SCOTUS ruled denying felons the right to vote was indeed Constitutional...based on the above. In thirteen states and DC, one's right to vote is re-asserted after incarceration.

It's obviously a state issue. Holder! Keep your nose out of it!

I'm aware of the 14th amendment, and I believe it's a fantastically unjust ruling that makes a mockery of the concept of repaying one's debt to society, and casts citizens into a limbo whereby they can be taxed and have laws applied to them, but forever have no voice in society in spite of being American citizens. (There's a popular phrase related to that, actually).

As for "state's rights," this is just code for "the states having the right to discriminate against its citizens."
 
I know that, and I believe it's a fantastically unjust ruling that makes a mockery of the concept of repaying one's debt to society, and casts citizens into a limbo whereby they can be taxed and have laws applied to them, but forever have no voice in society in spite of being American citizens. (There's a popular phrase related to that, actually).

As for "state's rights," this is just code for "the states having the right to discriminate against its citizens."

So the Constitution is invalid if it doesn't agree with you?
 
I asked you a question that requires a simple yes or no. Sorry if that complicates your life. ;)

No, what you want is to simplify my argument to the point that it's stripped of its content. Sorry if I won't indulge you.
 
I asked you a question that requires a simple yes or no. Sorry if that complicates your life. ;)

Let me ask you, Maggie: do you believe that it's acceptable that someone who's served their sentence and repaid their debt to society should never be allowed to vote again?
 
I'm aware of the 14th amendment, and I believe it's a fantastically unjust ruling that makes a mockery of the concept of repaying one's debt to society, and casts citizens into a limbo whereby they can be taxed and have laws applied to them, but forever have no voice in society in spite of being American citizens. (There's a popular phrase related to that, actually).

As for "state's rights," this is just code for "the states having the right to discriminate against its citizens."

Thankfully your fellow citizens generally don't feel the same.

The democrat voting block - illegals, felons and anyone without ID. Hey, new bumpersticker!
 
Let me ask you, Maggie: do you believe that it's acceptable that someone who's served their sentence and repaid their debt to society should never be allowed to vote again?

No. (See how easy that is?) My state is one that restores right to vote after incarceration.

Edit:

Let's see how big the problem is:

There are twelve states that may permanently ban a felon from voting:

Alabama - Some persons convicted of a felony may apply to have their vote restored immediately upon completion of their full sentence. Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement.

Arizona - Automatic voting restoration upon completion of sentence and payment of all fines for first-time, single felony offenders. Second time felony offenders may apply for restoration with their county after completion of their sentence.

Alabama - Some persons convicted of a felony may apply to have their vote restored immediately upon completion of their full sentence. Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement.

Arizona - Automatic voting restoration upon completion of sentence and payment of all fines for first-time, single felony offenders. Second time felony offenders may apply for restoration with their county after completion of their sentence.

...

The rest are here: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286
 
Last edited:
No one should lose their right to vote at any point.

I agree - especially with regard to the dead. Just because they no longer are doesn't mean we can't remember them with a vote - purely out of reverence, mind you.
 
So the Constitution is invalid if it doesn't agree with you?

Uhh, it's not unconstitutional to allow felons to vote. What are you on about?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.

Common Types of Felonies
The most common types of felonies are assault/battery involving actual or intended serious bodily harm, all degrees of murder, kidnapping, serious drug crimes, racketeering, conspiracy and embezzlement of large sums of money.

So these are the people that holder is fighting to allow to vote. Hmm, I think this speaks volumns about Holder and his agenda. He doesn't seem to be inclined about the normal, average American much does he?
 
Thankfully your fellow citizens generally don't feel the same.

The democrat voting block - illegals, felons and anyone without ID. Hey, new bumpersticker!

Yes, unfortunately I'm aware that many of my fellow citizens are more than willing to strip others of their voting rights should it become convenient to their ideological beliefs. Do you think people who've repaid their debt to society should be forever stripped of their right to vote?
 
After the huge failures and resultant dislike and disrespect of Obama and the Liberals, the Democrats are now mining every subset group they can find for a few "victim" votes.

That is why the sudden hot eyed liberal fervor to restore voting rights to criminals, they are actually victims of the law, we just didn't realize it before. I wonder who these people would vote for.
 
Thankfully your fellow citizens generally don't feel the same.

The democrat voting block - illegals, felons and anyone without ID. Hey, new bumpersticker!

Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. That's after the 3.5 years in jail. First offense cultivation of four plants or more is also a felony. Do you think this is just?
 
Someone in Wisconsin getting caught in possession of any amount of marijuana a second time becomes permanently ineligible to vote. Do you think this is just?

Is marijuana Illegal in Wisconsin?
 
After the huge failures and resultant dislike and disrespect of Obama and the Liberals, the Democrats are now mining every subset group they can find for a few "victim" votes.

That is why the sudden hot eyed liberal fervor to restore voting rights to criminals, they are actually victims of the law, we just didn't realize it before. I wonder who these people would vote for.

Sorry but that isn't it at all. The simple fact is if you have served your time, done the probation, you shouldn't have voting rights or second amendment rights take from you. I doubt the "felon" vote goes very far with either parties.

If you are a danger to society such that you need your right to vote and second amendment right taken from you, then you shouldn't have been released from prison in the first place. The "you" that I used was a generic one, not aimed at you.
 
Back
Top Bottom