« my fanboy moment | Main | and you thought i was done? »

voting rights for felons: discuss

New Jersey:

The American Civil Liberties Union and several minority rights advocates filed suit yesterday, seeking to overturn a New Jersey law that prohibits convicted felons from voting after they have left prison and are serving terms of parole or probation.

"The purpose of the lawsuit is to expand democracy and expand voting rights," said Prof. Frank Askin, director of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic and one of the lawyers who prepared the suit. "Public policy favors reintegrating ex-offenders into society, including making them full participants in civic life. We don't believe the state has any justification in denying these people the right to vote."


Let's open this up to debate. Do you think felons who have left the prison system should have their right to vote reinstated? Let's take it even further; some states allow prisoners to vote. Are you for this or against it?

Make a persuasive argument either way.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference voting rights for felons: discuss:

» Comments fun 2 from One Fine Jay
Michele asks a question about parolees and probies getting a chance to vote: Let's open this up to debate. Do you think felons who have left the prison system should have their right to vote reinstated? Let's take it even further; some states all... [Read More]

» SHOULD FELONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE? from Heretical Ideas
Michele poses this question:Do you think felons who have left the prison system should have their right to vote reinstated? Let's take it even further; some states allow prisoners to vote. Are you for this or against it?My quick answer... [Read More]

» BELTWAY TRAFFIC JAM from OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY
So long as the heater works, I suspect complaints about traffic will be mild today. Today's links: Rosemary Esmay reports on a new illness. I... [Read More]

» Punishment And Citizenship from aubreyturner.org
This item from Michele got me to thinking. It served as a catalyst to bring together a couple of different [Read More]

Comments

No, don't give them their voting rights back. The whole point of the label "convicted felon" is that is it supposed to be enough of a stigma that people try to avoid it, thus keeping the civil order. Go around planting the idea that no matter what crime you commit things can be restored and you lessen the incentive not to commit crimes in the first place.

If they're mad about losing their vote, well, tough. They should of thought of that before they committed that robbery, rape, fraud, vehicular homicide, etc.

It goes against most gut feelings to return a formerly convicted felon the rights and privileges of free men, but when they get out of prison, it is in the spirit of the law's intent that the punitive part of their imprisonment is over: that they have paid their debt to society in terms of the freedom they have lost.

Should these voting rights be given to people on parole or probation? It boils down to the intent of what parole and probation are. If parole is a continuation of a sentence outside of prison, a benefit given by proving that the rehabilitative part of their sentence has been carried out, then by intents of law they are "rehabilitated." Why not let them vote? As for probation, well, same thing goes: why not?

Is it because they are "bad people," never to gain any redemption at all after they have served their sentences? In this light the law would and should be more understanding of itself than some ideas of justice.

I say yes, give them back their voting rights. Everyone deserves a second chance.

If they do something stupid and end up in prison again, then they don't ever get it back.

By the way, Michelle, I love your current design.

I'm against it - I think that as a group they would have a harder time in society (i.e. getting good jobs) and thus be an easy target for people trying to "buy" votes.

Apart from crimes like voter fraud, I don't see what committing a crime and voting have to do with each other. While a criminal record is probably a good indicator of potential stupidity, we don't have any laws against idiots voting (more's the pity, I sometimes think).

Honestly I think most forms of discrimination against people who have already received their allotted punishment is wrong... apart from individualized prohibitions, like keeping habitual child molesters away from children, I think they contradict the reformist role our penal system supposedly plays. If you tell a man he'll never be treated as if he's reformed, what incentive does he have to reform?

nods at AVDI

I think that AVDI stated my case well.

Avdi, "criminal" does not equate with stupidity. "Criminal" equates with an action taken from a moral stance (good or bad) with regards to the authority of societal norms (good or bad). Take your embezzler. Why should someone who defrauded thousands of people of millions of dollars be allowed to help make the laws he or she has so flagrantly disregarded? Stupid? No. Immoral? Yes. Criminal? Absolutely. Vote? Not if I can help it.

Why should someone who strikes at the heart of society be allowed to help build it? Your vote counts because you have lived your life in a way that has established society. A vote for your legislative rep is like putting a brick on an edifice. Allowing someone to put bad bricks in is not healthy for that edifice, no matter how strong the foundations. Following the law is a duty. Voting is a right for all people not "in rebellion, or other crime" (Amendment XIV)

Punishment is not necessarily an act of rehabilitation; sometimes it is a condign balancing of scales.

One Fine:

Redemption is not something that has anything to do with the law. If you've truly been redeemed, then it ought not to matter that you can vote or not. If you've been redeemed, then you joyously accept the lot that you've been assigned. Personal redemption does not need to be validated by regaining privileges or rights. If you've been personally redeemed, then you can sit in prison for all your life and still be joyful. Saints have gone joyously to their deaths at the hands of the State, knowing that their suffering is redemptive and worth something.

In the 2000 election, according to http://www.infoplease.com, there were 104,338,854 votes placed for the three major candidates. The same site quotes that there were 205,815,000 of voting age and that equates to 51.3 % of the population voting in 2000.

Northwestern University states that there are approximately 4.7 million disenfranchised (unable to vote) felons and ex-felons. Taking into account that only 51.3% of them would probably vote if they were able to, you get a potential for 2,411,100 additional votes. Doing the math shows that the cons and ex-cons would equate to roughly 2.3% of the voting population in a national election.

Reading the Northwestern University article on the subject, you would learn that the standards for being disenfranchised vary from state to state, with 48 of 50 states denying current convicts the right to vote and 10 states denying ex-cons votes, and some states have various other rules.

The number of missed votes is not staggering. What is staggering is that there is not a nationwide standard for being disenfranchised. That is not fair to the ex-cons that live in a state where the rules are more strict. But I was told that life isn't fair, and that appears to be true. Most crimes are pre-meditated, and while I am sure that most criminals don't stop before their crime and say to themselves, "Gee, if I do this and get caught, I won't be able to vote", they do realize that getting caught will have consequences. Not being able to vote is one of those consequences. That's the way it is, and shouldn't be changed.

http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/policybriefs/manzabrief.pdf
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

I'm fine with people who have finished their punishment getting their voting rights back. But probation or parole is part of the punishment.

And for all the talk of rehabilitation, incarceration is about being punished first of all and rehabilitation second. If it were about rehabilitation, we'd get sentences like those who are criminally insane -- they're let out when they're ready. Other than life imprisonment, sentences given have a maximum duration, whether or not the person is rehabilitated -- even if they're not rehabilitated, we've decided as a society what the just amount of punishment for a particular crime is. Likewise, there's a minimum amount of time that must be served, even if the person is rehabilitated before that time.

Part of punishment is the loss of civil rights: the loss of movement, the loss of privacy, the loss of the franchise.

If one were truly rehabilitated, or finished with punishment, one wouldn't need others to supervise your behavior. I could see a case for those on probation getting voting rights and those on parole not (if the definitions are what I think they are -- parole is supervised, probation is just "don't do it again in this time period").

I do think those who are fully free should get their voting rights back, but I could be convinced otherwise. I don't think that people should necessarily get their right to bear arms back after serving time for violent offenses, but I think the possibility of a single gun in the hands of an ex-felon is more dangerous than a single vote.

If they're going to be out in the workforce paying taxes then, yes, they should be allowed to vote. No taxation without representation, I always say.

Yes, of course ex-felons should be allowed to vote. They did their time, the slate is clean.

Similarly, undocumented workers should be allowed to vote. They pay taxes, don't they? ISTR that we fought a Revolution over the issue of "No Taxation Without Representation."

Give me some more time, I'm still trying to find an argument to justify giving the vote to my dog. Hey, she was born in this country, doesn't that make her a citizen?

Lyn

I seem to remember Reason's Hit and Run linking to some article about how the number of felony offenses has dramatically increased. That could be an argument in favor of letting ex-cons vote.

Don't currently incarcerated felons seem to be a rather dangerous special interest group? I don't want Pols to Pander to Perjuring Pedophile Prisoners. Film at 11.

If a felon completes his/her entire sentence then they should have the ability to apply to have their rights restored. Note that completion of sentence means completion, not just getting out of prison. Parole, probation & restitution can all be parts of a felon's sentence.

Do everything that society asks of you and then you can come back and ask to join. Even then a felon could be turned down. It should not be automatic. Restoration of rights should be the last step for a felon to rejoin society, not one of the first.

I think that as a matter of course ex-felons should be restored their full civil rights through the existing procedure (in those states where it isn't automatic) of applying to the appropriate authority -- governor, board of pardons and paroles, what-have-you. I prefer that it not be automatic.

I say this as someone whose brother is deprived of his right to vote due to a very minor marijuana conviction. He pleaded on the understanding that after he did the sentenced community service his conviction would be downgraded to a misdemeanor. I'm still scratching my head over community service for a felony, let alone the discovery after my brother held up his end that he was ineligible for the promised downgrade.

I wonder if his chances for restoration of rights are improved now with Der Guffernor in office...?

I have to say that whilst people ponder why a felon should get the right to vote, think on this. As a permanent resident of the US (originally from England), the US Government has no problem taking taxes from me (once to the turn of 30k for one year) yet I cannot vote on how those taxes are spent.

Is that fair? So I'm against them voting until all taxpayers are allowed to vote regardless.

I seem to remember Reason's Hit and Run linking to some article about how the number of felony offenses has dramatically increased. That could be an argument in favor of letting ex-cons vote.

Bingo. Each year, an increasing number of crimes which were formerly misdemeanor crimes are a) Federalized, b) turned into felonies, c) both. Many people like to imagine that felonies are the Big Three: Rape, Murder, Kidnap. (And maybe Grancy Larceny.) Or at least things of those magnitude. Uh-uh. Although laws vary by state, a felony is generally any crime punishable by a year or more in prison; and given the hue and cry of increasing criminal penalties on just about everything ("For the Children!"), those crimes are more and more common.

Until the Lawrence decision, many of the states that had criminalized sodomy classified it as a felony. You comfortable with taking away the right to vote of convicted blow-jobbers? How about spammers? Minor instances of computer hacking? Perjurers?

I'm not comfortable denying any but the most violent felons the right to vote, and those that are released and successfully complete parole and probation should get it back without having to make application.

Parole and Probation should be treated as extensions of the punishment phase, and thus have the right to vote curtailed until such time as the extension is complete. In my state (Cali), ex-felons are also completely exempted from serving Jury Duty... Even out these two and I'll be happy (IOW, once you exit Parole/Probation, you become elgible to both vote AND have Jury Duty).

Also, I'm inclined to agree with the posters who recommend that rights be restored via petition, and not automatically. You dug your pit, now that you've been punished, you still have to ask forgiveness to go back to a clean baseline.

And to the No Taxation Without Representation folks... Citizens have the right to vote, residents don't regardless of tax status. You've got a vested economic interest, but no concommitant vested civil interest (IOW, you stil pledge allegiance to the motherland.) I'm not sure about other countries, but I seem to recall that our neighbor to the south will allow US residents who still hold Mexican citizenship to vote in Mexican elections. I also seem to recall that US citizens abroad, regardless of residency, still have the right to submit absentee ballots for their home districts (servicemen and women, etcetera)

I'm kind of in the middle on this one; I can think of arguments on both sides...BUT, whatever the decision is, it should be made by the American people thru their elected representatives, NOT by the courts.

David Foster, you just sent my irony meter into the red. For one thing, I don't think that whether other people have rights should be up for a vote by anyone. If they are up for vote, they are not rights, they are permissions.

Second of all, given that the people who have been disenfranchised cannot vote for those elected representatives, why should those representatives care even a little bit about their desires? The lobbying efforts of people who cannot vote for -- or against -- you are, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

The trouble with the idea is so many felons reoffend.Seems to me that someone should have a clean record for a period of some years before their franchise is restored.

The trouble with the idea is so many felons reoffend. Seems to me that someone should have a clean record for a period of some years before their franchise is restored.

Agreed. I believe this is something the existing petition process probably covers.

Second of all, given that the people who have been disenfranchised cannot vote for those elected representatives, why should those representatives care even a little bit about their desires? The lobbying efforts of people who cannot vote for -- or against -- you are, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

Sucks, don't it?

I don't understand you, Phil. Someone has to make the decision. It will be made either by elected representatives or by appointed judges. What is your moral and/or practical reason for believing it should be made by the judges?

Or do you go so far as to argue that felons should be allowed to vote while in prison? If not, the decision that "they don't have those rights" must be made by someone. Who?

when they get out of prison, it is in the spirit of the law's intent that the punitive part of their imprisonment is over: that they have paid their debt to society in terms of the freedom they have lost.

The law mandates that they lose their right to vote. It is "in the spirit of the law's intent" that the imprisonment portion of their punishment is over -- but the fact that the law explicitly states that they lose voting rights forever is an indication that "the spirit of the law" does NOT favor giving them back the right to vote.

Criminals have demonstrated one thing, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt: that they do NOT respect the democratic process by which we make laws. Therefore I have no problem with forbidding them from participating in it, forever. Most people never really change.

Yes, there are too many felonies on the books now -- but that's a reason to change those laws, or classify them as non-felonies. It is not a reason to let thieves and murderers vote again.

Definitel dont let a convicted felon vote! If they were any good at making choices, then why are they known as felons?

Whether or not people serving for felonies deserve the right to vote, I think preventing released felons from voting is wrong and subject to abuse. I mean, haven't there been problems with states producing inaccurate felons lists to disenfranchise citizens who've never been convicted of any crime?

Governments making mistakes? Hush now, or Ashcroft will come and take you away in the middle of the night for your seditious remarks!

On the point about setting a nationwide standard for disenfranchisement: I prefer allowing the states to make decisions based on their electorate. Each state decision can possibly be overturned in a court of appeals, with aday in the Supreme Court if that court considers it worthy of addressing. I would have to hear a strong constitutional argument before elevating it to a federal ruling.

While i am not an expert on the constitution, there are 3 amendments dealing with voting. They deal with not dening voting to people based on race, color, previous condition of servitude, age, and sex. ( Amendments 15, 19, and 26 respectively.) Any power not specifically granted in the constitution would revert to the states to determine. Personally, I think once their sentance and probation was completed they should resume their privelege of being able to vote

One thing to consider is how easy it is to permanently disenfranchise any part of the population by making something they do in the regular course a felony. This can be manipulated at will by the legislators and courts.

"that they have paid their debt to society in terms of the freedom they have lost"

Actually no, they HAVE NOT paid their debt to society, if, as the article says, they're on parole or probation

"The American Civil Liberties Union and several minority rights advocates filed suit yesterday, seeking to overturn a New Jersey law that prohibits convicted felons from voting after they have left prison and are serving terms of parole or probation."

I think felons should be allowed to vote. Why not? Not allowing them to vote while in prison as a form of punishment I think is ridiculous, as most cons couldn't care less. It's not a deterent, nobody's going to abort a bank robbery because, oh no, I might lose my right to vote! On the other hand, it would be only to easy for a politician to subvert the democratic process if they knew a certain demographic that commited certain crimes, also leaned towards voting a certain way. They could have a 'crime crackdown', eliminate votes and win the election. I know, not very likely but worth considering. Also, say if a referendum was being held on legalizing marijuana, shouldn't those most affected [people incarcerated on pot charges] have a say? There's also the argument that people who help make the laws are more likely to obey them.

I live in Canada and the Supreme Court has already ruled here that federal inmates have the right to vote while incarcerated. No big deal, they're still in prison.

Here's a link to what some other countries are doing in this regard. It's a little old so it might not be totally up to date.

No taxation without representation. If an ex-convicted felon works and pays taxes but is not allowed to vote, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? Inmates work while in prison for little or no pay. Whether or not they pay taxes on prison wages I don't know. However, they are not allowed a vote which is unfair, but not unconstitutional because slaves were never allowed to vote. Slavery is still legal : Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Bottom line, yes I think ex-cons should retain their right to vote. Furthermore, convicted felons should also retain their right to vote. Being convicted of a crime doesn't make you a citizen of another country. Your still American.
Hell probably more of an American. This country was founded on Larceny.

Niru

No taxation without representation. If an ex-convicted felon works and pays taxes but is not allowed to vote, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? Inmates work while in prison for little or no pay. Whether or not they pay taxes on prison wages I don't know. However, they are not allowed a vote which is unfair, but not unconstitutional because slaves were never allowed to vote. Slavery is still legal : Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Bottom line, yes I think ex-cons should retain their right to vote. Furthermore, convicted felons should also retain their right to vote. Being convicted of a crime doesn't make you a citizen of another country. Your still American.
Hell probably more of an American. This country was founded on Larceny.

Niru

I totally agree with Avdi.

James Joyner, that's a good point. That makes one say mmmm.....

I have a very close friend, who at the age of 21, got in trouble for distribution of illegal drugs. He served no jail time but was slapped with a felony and placed on probation. That is all well and good. but now this is the question that I pose. What was the purpose of allowing this man to walk around with the idea that he was free? just because hes not in jail doesnt mean that he is not treated like he wasnt. what i mean by this is, now he is 29 yrs old. and STRUGGLING to find a JOB. its terrible because this man completed 4 yrs of college and has 2 degrees after he got in trouble. A very knowlegable and well spoken man he is, and still, with that felony he has no rights! He understands politics like any other potential voter but is denied that opportunity. is it fair? Absolutely not. Do I think that prisoners should be able to vote? Absolutely not. they were convicted and taken off of the streets for a reason. Now, when they are out of jail and on probation or parole, they are expected to function like any other man or woman in society. but how is that possible if these people are not considered equal and are not able start off on the foot as the rest of society. already they have a heavy strike against themselves for being in trouble with the law. what would be the point of making things harder for them. it appear that all these probation/parole persons are destined for the revolving door theory in which they end up returning to a life of crime because they were unable to function in a society that refuses to forgive or give chances!