"Disenfranchised" Voters - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

zenmaster10665 · 09-23-2004, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Millions Blocked from Voting in Election

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been released.

In total, 13 percent of all black men are barred from voting due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Conservatives disagree. "Society is not required to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has a criminal record. Someone who was not willing to follow the law and was sent to prison should not be in a position to make the law for others by electing lawmakers," said Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity think tank.

Millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

'DISCOURAGED' FROM VOTING

Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University.

"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

Courtenay Strickland of the Americans Civil Liberties Union testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week that at a primary election in Florida last month, many people were wrongly turned away when they could not produce identification.

BLACKS' BALLOTS REJECTED

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush (news - web sites) won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.

Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised.

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, which seeks to ensure fair multiracial elections, recently reported that registrars across the country often claimed not to have received voter registration forms or rejected them for technical reasons that could have been corrected easily before voting day if the applicant had known there was a problem.

Beasley said that many voters who had registered recently in swing states were likely to find their names would not be on the rolls when they showed up on Election Day.

I am not a "conservative" per se, but if you commit a felony, I think you should forfeit your right to vote.

I personally have no problem with denying criminals the right to vote nor do I see any issue with requiring people to prove that they are who they say they are in order to vote...we dont need another election rife with mistakes and fraud. These rules should be consistent, however, and not applied arbitrarily to constituencies based upon demographic profiles.

I do think that it is wrong to arrest people for other charges or delinquent payments while trying to vote is unacceptable and un-American.

My concern about the legitimacy of the 2004 election results grows daily...especially with the inaccuracy and opaqueness of the new electronic voting machines being adopted around the country...(see picture)

Hell, the CEO of Diebold (one of the leading makers of touch-screen voting machines) is a heavy contributor to the Bush campaign and even publicly stated that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

Scary stuff.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 04:20 AM

I believe that the flyers threatening arrest for those behind on bills, etc are a hoax designed to keep voters away from the polls. As far as I know, it's not a crime to be behind on your phone bill. Anyway, what's troubling about this piece isn't that felons are blocked from voting but rather that there is apparently an organized effort to disenfranchise black voters throughout the country. This makes all of the cries of foul-play that came out of Florida in 2000 even more relevant. Speaking of Florida, just htis year the state government released the names of felons who would be barred from voting and, just as in 2000, there were thousands of falsely accused voters on the rolls, the majority of which were black. Given what happened there in 2000, I have to accuse them of intentional negligence for letting this happen again. I could believe in accidents the first time, but again? It's worth noting that the "felon" list doesn't exclude many Latinos, who happen to vote Republican in Florida (Cuban exiles).

zenmaster10665 · 09-23-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Speaking of Florida, just htis year the state government released the names of felons who would be barred from voting and, just as in 2000, there were thousands of falsely accused voters on the rolls, the majority of which were black. Given what happened there in 2000, I have to accuse them of intentional negligence for letting this happen again. I could believe in accidents the first time, but again? It's worth noting that the "felon" list doesn't exclude many Latinos, who happen to vote Republican in Florida (Cuban exiles).

That's interesting, but it sounds anecdotal to me....is there any proof of this?

Ustwo · 09-23-2004, 04:46 AM

Its a lie of the left to 'scare' blacks into voting.

Never any proof, never any substance, never anything but lies.

It gets old.

Pacifier · 09-23-2004, 04:57 AM

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBUP7387WD.html

zenmaster10665 · 09-23-2004, 05:02 AM

Thanks Pacifer...

Florida better get their shit straight before November. I dont want to field even more questions while I am travelling about why the "model" democracy cant seem to get its elections to work correctly.

And, by the way, does anyone know if Colorado will actually proportionally split its electoral votes this year??? I wish all states would adopt this method. It is the only fair way of retaining the Electoral College.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 05:14 AM

From Alternet:
http://alternet.org/election04/19917/

Quote:

Florida

The state that started it all in 2000 is no stranger to controversy this election. In July, The Miami Herald revealed that the state issued faulty felon purge lists containing the names of 48,000 people it said were ineligible to vote. Among these were 2,100 who actually were eligible voters. Many of these people were African American Democrats. The list of 48,000 also contained only sixty-one Hispanic names. (Because of Florida's large Cuban population, the Hispanic vote in Florida is predominantly Republican. The Florida African American vote, on the other hand, tends to be heavily Democratic.)

In mid-August, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert revealed that the state was investigating get-out-the-vote drives among blacks in Orlando by sending armed police officers into the homes of citizens who had filed absentee ballots. Most of these citizens were African American, and many were elderly.

And in Florida's late August primary, representatives from People for the American Way saw poll workers turn back registered voters who neglected to bring their IDs. "Under Florida law," noted The New York Times, "registered voters can vote without showing identification."

But there's a lot more going on in the state, according to Alma Gonzalez, spokeswoman for the Voter Protection Coalition in Florida and special counsel to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "We keep hoping that they've learned from 2000," but early indications are that they haven't, she says. "When some of our members have gone to early voting or to register to vote, they're being asked if they're citizens of the United States." Gonzalez says she has heard from "about half a dozen people, all of them in South Florida," who approached the polls as part of the early election only to be asked their citizenship. And it's not poll watchers who are asking, says Gonzalez. It's "the poll workers, the duly deputized election officials."

Registered voters, Gonzalez points out, have already attested to their citizenship in their registration forms. "They cannot ask you your citizenship at the polling place. It's unlawful," says Gonzalez. "When that question is asked of you" based on your skin color or the fact that you have an accent, "it is not intended to ensure that you're complying with the law. It's intended to suppress voters." And, even though public attention to the faulty felon voter purge lists led the Florida government to say belatedly that it would not use them this time, the word has traveled slowly. "We are still getting reports from people when they go to vote in different parts of the state," says Gonzalez. "Apparently, there are still inaccuracies."

Then there's the provisional ballot crisis. In Florida in 2000, many people who attempted to vote found that they were not on the rolls, even though they had registered. This is the reasoning behind the provisional ballot requirement in the federal Help America Vote Act. If a voter is wrongly removed from the rolls in the future, he or she should be able to file a provisional ballot. Most states interpret this part of the act as allowing provisional ballots as long as the voter files them in the correct county. Florida is a little different. Rather than the correct county, voters must submit their provisional ballots to the correct precinct. "This will disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters," says Gonzalez.

Never anything but lies, huh? I'd be insulted if you weren't so wrong.

zenmaster10665 · 09-23-2004, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Amendment puts Colorado in world's eye
Proposal to divide electoral votes may put court in charge

By Jim Tankersley, Rocky Mountain News
September 22, 2004

Warnings of a catastrophic case of déjà vu for the 2004 presidential election pop up almost daily in news pages from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., to Paris.

In them, the election ends extremely close, a lone state's electoral votes land in legal limbo, and the U.S. Supreme Court once again decides who will be president.

That lone state isn't Florida. It's Colorado.

Everyone's talking about it. Except Coloradans.

The scenario begins with Amendment 36, a proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot that would change how Colorado casts its nine electoral votes, which all currently go to whomever wins the state.

If approved, the measure would divide the electoral votes proportionally among candidates based on the popular vote - starting this year. If President Bush beats John Kerry 51 percent to 49 percent, for example, Bush would take five votes and Kerry would earn four.

If that split is enough to influence the election - it would have produced a President Al Gore in 2000 - the measure is almost guaranteed to land in court. Legal scholars have proclaimed it ripe for a constitutional challenge.

Media outlets have blared the possible implications around the nation and the globe. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Paris daily Le Monde all have run stories. ("Les républicains du Colorado partent en guerre contre l'"amendement 36.") A Danish TV crew plans one soon.

Newsweek columnist George F. Will called the initiative "November's most portentous vote" last month.

Colorado voters have seen the issue relegated to a back burner so far, behind a tight presidential race, a hot Senate election and a couple higher-profile ballot initiatives.

More than half the respondents to a Rocky Mountain News/ News 4 poll didn't feel strongly for or against the measure.

"I just don't think most people play out the line of causality on this" in Colorado, said Ken Bickers, a political science professor at the University of Colorado. "They just haven't gotten to it yet."

When they do, supporters and opponents await with a few simple arguments.

Proponents, including Democratic state Sen. Ron Tupa, of Boulder, and the Colorado League of Women Voters, say the measure would make elections more fair, more reflective of the "one person, one vote" concept.

They hope it will spark a nationwide reform that would essentially burn down the Electoral College, state by state.

"This is something that is instinctively very popular among voters," said Rick Ridder, a Denver political consultant running the campaign to pass the measure. "Who doesn't want to make their vote count?"

Opponents - including Gov. Bill Owens, many Republicans and some Democrats - offer three types of rebuttal.

They say the measure would reduce Colorado's national influence. What candidate, they argue, would campaign here for the one or two electoral votes realistically up for grabs - and what president would keep Colorado voters in mind when considering highway funding or military base closures?

They question the motives of the measure's primary benefactor, Jorge Klor de Alva, a university president who lives in California and who supporters say simply wants to reform the Electoral College.

And opponents say this year, partisans on both sides risk giving away half the prize of the tightly fought presidential race.

"In the short term, no one really wins," said Katy Atkinson, a consultant leading the fight against the measure, "and in the long term, no one wins."

Independent analysts say the issue forces Colorado voters to think strategically: Whom do I pick for president, when do I vote for him (early, absentee or on Election Day) and how do I vote on Amendment 36 to best help my candidate?

"The logic is, every voter in Colorado should be thinking strategically, depending on his preferences," said Jack Rakove, a Stanford University history professor who has written extensively on the Electoral College and the Constitution.

"But to do that, you have to go down to the wire. You have to look at both local and national polls. That's a lot to ask most people to do."

Judges, not voters, may decide the measure's fate in the end.

Constitutional scholars say the biggest lawsuit potential lies in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" for president.

The key word is "legislature." The question is whether a ballot initiative is the same as a "legislature" under the Constitution - in other words, whether voters themselves can choose how electoral votes are allocated.

Backers say they chose Colorado because state case law supports making such changes by petitioning onto the ballot. At least one local professor, Richard Collins at the Byron White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado, agrees.

"No one would dispute that ballot initiative is part of the legislative process of our state," he said.

Bickers, the Colorado political science professor, calls the constitutional issue "a pathway to the federal courts system" - and perhaps to the kind of Florida-2000-esque scenario that has the national media abuzz.

"Whatever the outcome," he said, "it puts Colorado squarely in the middle of a huge political fight."

link

more power to 'em! It is time that everyone's vote is counted...how could this possibly be a bad thing?!

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 06:28 AM

More partisan BS. Both sides are guilty of trying to discourage votes from core constituents of their opponents. It goes on in every election. There's voter fraud as well. Plenty of dead people somehow voting and plenty of cases of people being paid to vote.

How about the pastors in black churches who get hefty donations to push their congregations to vote for the Dem candidate?

If you want to talk about the questionable tactics coming from one party it's only fair to discuss the tactics used by the other.

As far as felons being able to vote, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I lean more heavily toward them being allowed to vote if they've "paid their debt to society" but there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of for denying them this right. To blame this fact solely on Republicans is partisanship of the highest order. Why haven't the Dems changed these laws if it's so important? Perhaps because it's so much easier to keep using it as a dagger against Republicans in every race.

As far as a citizen being arrested at a polling place when they cast their vote, you're damn right that should be an option. If they're wanted and the police think they're going to be somewhere (whether it's voting or having a drink in a bar) it's proper for them to arrest them and they should be put into the system to deal with the charges against them. Of course, rents not being paid or whatever have nothing to do with this as that's a private matter for the landlord and tenant or phone company or whichever institution at issue. If that company wants to hire someone to serve papers on a citizen when they go to vote, again, I see no foul.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

More partisan BS. Both sides are guilty of trying to discourage votes from core constituents of their opponents. It goes on in every election. There's voter fraud as well. Plenty of dead people somehow voting and plenty of cases of people being paid to vote.

How about the pastors in black churches who get hefty donations to push their congregations to vote for the Dem candidate?

If you want to talk about the questionable tactics coming from one party it's only fair to discuss the tactics used by the other.

By all means go ahead. I'm sure that there is Democratic fraud in some places, so feel free to post some examples. We are talking about specific cases of disenfranchisement, not just partisan conjecture.

Quote:

As far as felons being able to vote, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I lean more heavily toward them being allowed to vote if they've "paid their debt to society" but there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of for denying them this right. To blame this fact solely on Republicans is partisanship of the highest order. Why haven't the Dems changed these laws if it's so important? Perhaps because it's so much easier to keep us

No one blamed Republicans for the fact that 14 states do not allow felons to vote. We are talking about people who are erroneously placed on felon lists. The most galling aspect of the Florida situation is that they seem to be repeating the same mistakes from 2000. To have the same situation forming again stinks of negligence.

Quote:

As far as a citizen being arrested at a polling place when they cast their vote, you're damn right that should be an option. If they're wanted and the police think they're going to be somewhere (whether it's voting or having a drink in a bar) it's proper for them to arrest them and they should be put into the system to deal with the charges against them. Of course, rents not being paid or whatever have nothing to do with this as that's a private matter for the landlord and tenant or phone company or whichever institution at issue. If that company wants to hire someone to serve papers on a citizen when they go to vote, again, I see no foul.

As I stated above, no one is actually getting arrested at polling places. The original article references disinformation flyers that falsely threaten those behind on their bills with arrest, an obvious intimidation move.

Disenfranchisement of African Americans has been a far to common occurence throughout American history. The practice is so heinous and antidemocratic that members of any party should be outraged.

Ustwo · 09-23-2004, 06:52 AM

I do not find it surprising that democrats want felons to vote.

I'm sure rapists, murderers, thieves, and lairs are all welcome with open arms. Maybe they could form groups like 'Killers for Kerry', or 'Rapists for Truth'.

My arguement about not allowing felons to vote is quite simple, society has proved their judgement is suspect and as such they should have no say in the government.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I do not find it surprising that democrats want felons to vote.

I'm sure rapists, murderers, thieves, and lairs are all welcome with open arms. Maybe they could form groups like 'Killers for Kerry', or 'Rapists for Truth'.

My arguement about not allowing felons to vote is quite simple, society has proved their judgement is suspect and as such they should have no say in the government.

For the third time, no one is questioning the laws that prevent felons from voting. We are speaking of citizens who are mistakenly (?) put on felon lists. Lump me in with killers and rapists if you wish, but please read the postings before you reply.

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

By all means go ahead. I'm sure that there is Democratic fraud in some places, so feel free to post some examples. We are talking about specific cases of disenfranchisement, not just partisan conjecture.

Do you not recall the challenge of military absentee ballots in Florida? If you want to talk about the specific cases rather than conjecture, how about producing the fliers you stake such belief in? And how about tying those fliers to members of the Republican party? Unless you can do that this whole thread is "partisan conjecture" as I stated in the very first sentence of my response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

No one blamed Republicans for the fact that 14 states do not allow felons to vote. We are talking about people who are erroneously placed on felon lists. The most galling aspect of the Florida situation is that they seem to be repeating the same mistakes from 2000. To have the same situation forming again stinks of negligence.

The way the article is written it clearly implies that Republicans (Conservatives and Republicans are virtually interchangeable) are responsible:

Quote:

Conservatives disagree. "Society is not required to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has a criminal record. Someone who was not willing to follow the law and was sent to prison should not be in a position to make the law for others by electing lawmakers," said Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity think tank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chtulu23

As I stated above, no one is actually getting arrested at polling places. The original article references disinformation flyers that falsely threaten those behind on their bills with arrest, an obvious intimidation move.

I am not defending the action I am simply pointing out that outrage directed at only one side when the other side implements similar tactics is completely disingenuous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chtulu23

Disenfranchisement of African Americans has been a far to common occurence throughout American history. The practice is so heinous and antidemocratic that members of any party should be outraged.

Discouraging voters from voting is abhorent and people should be outraged about it. The outrage should be directed at all who do it rather than only those who disagree with you who do it.

Pacifier · 09-23-2004, 07:08 AM

personally i find it kind of strange that felons should not be allowed to vote (in some cases it might be OK, but in the USA it seems to be normal). A citizen is a citizen and should have the right to vote. But then again in the USA you have no right to vote

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-23-2004, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

personally i find it kind of strange that felons should not be allowed to vote (in some cases it might be OK, but in the USA it seems to be normal). A citizen is a citizen and should have the right to vote. But then again in the USA you have no right to vote

Are you serious?

Pacifier · 09-23-2004, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Are you serious?

about what?
the right for felons to vote?
in most nations felons are allowed to vote, in germany the right to vote is only revoked in certain cases (politically motivated crimes for example).

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Do you not recall the challenge of military absentee ballots in Florida? If you want to talk about the specific cases rather than conjecture, how about producing the fliers you stake such belief in? And how about tying those fliers to members of the Republican party? Unless you can do that this whole thread is "partisan conjecture" as I stated in the very first sentence of my response.

I never claimed that those fliers came from Republican party operatives. Besides, the fliers are only one point in a larger issue. An easily provable point is that people have once again been incorrectly placed on the felon list.

Quote:

The way the article is written it clearly implies that Republicans (Conservatives and Republicans are virtually interchangeable) are responsible:

Read it however you want, but no one has explicitly claimed that orders came from Republican HQ. There is a difference between conservative and Republican.

Quote:

I am not defending the action I am simply pointing out that outrage directed at only one side when the other side implements similar tactics is completely disingenuous.

Discouraging voters from voting is abhorent and people should be outraged about it. The outrage should be directed at all who do it rather than only those who disagree with you who do it.

As I stated earlier, you are more than welcome to broaden the conversation. Let's hear how Republicans have been intimidated or wrongfully prevented from voting. Thankfully, the attempt to discount the military ballots was not succesfull, unlike some of the examples that we are mentioning. I'll happily complain about the disenfranchisment of any voter. Of course, it should be noted that diesnfranchisement seems to occur most heavily to poor members of minority communities.

Don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a partisan hack. I am not too fond of the Democratic party myself, but I agree with them more then the Repubs. Regardless of that, I do try to see both sides.

Lebell · 09-23-2004, 07:21 AM

I have no problem with disenfranchising felons, but I've always been disgusted with the other political nonsense that both sides have demonstrated when it comes to influencing the vote.

Does anyone remember the famous Chicago elections in which Daley had the support of the living...and the dead?

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 07:42 AM

Yep, Richard Daley Sr. had the strong support of the zombie community. Some would even say that it was Daley that delivered Illinois, and the nation, to Kennedy.

Edit: of course, voter fraud is a seperate issue from disenfranchisment.

Rekna · 09-23-2004, 07:46 AM

My favorite story from the 2000 elections is the black guy who was denied voting because he commited a fellony in 2007! Damn minority report!

People should not play politics with voting. I don't mind taking away a felons right to vote but if problems like what is happening in florida keep happening i'm totally against it. I'd rather have 1000 felons get to vote then 1 non-felon denied.

jb2000 · 09-23-2004, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My arguement about not allowing felons to vote is quite simple, society has proved their judgement is suspect and as such they should have no say in the government.

So it is acceptable to remove a person's right to participate on the basis of your call on whether or not their judgement is sound?

As far as I'm concerned, there are many things that can bring one's judgement into question, but I don't take away someone's vote because of it.

When a person is incarcerated, it is to protect society from their presence, and to punish them by seperating them from being able to participate in that society. A judge sentences the convict to an appropriate period of time based on the crime, that will provide appropriate punishment. When that time is over, their sentence is complete, and they are no longer to be prevented from participation in society.

Now maybe you are not a fan of letting felons ever get out of prison, but I certainly believe that not all felonies are worthy of a life sentence. So why would we automatically pass lafe sentences on every felon in regards to voting?

Some people are not opposed to going back to literacy tests and limiting voting to those people considered to be 'of responsible character'. Personally I think that is bollocks. I certainly consider myself to be a voter of above-average awareness of the issues, and to be one who takes voting seriously and puts thought and intelligence into my choice. But I don't see this as giving me the rationale to block others from voting because I think they may not have the same level of intelligence/responsibility/knowledge/whatever that I do.

Commiting a felony is a sign of bad judgement, true, but so is becoming a problem gambler, drinking and driving, cheating on your spouse, or over-spending on your credit cards.

Ustwo · 09-23-2004, 09:09 AM

Felons are not 'equal' once released. They can not work in some jobs, they can not own firearms (at least in my state), they are looked on more harshly if they are arrested again (3 strikes you are out). If I were convicted of a felony I would lose my license as a health provider. Why should they have a right to vote? They have willingly violated the laws of a society so why should they be trusted with that society? There are a lot of people that should not vote, but that is subjective opinion. On the other hand felons are people who were proven in a court of law to willingly violate the laws of the land. They have no respect for the laws we all agree to adhere too and should have no say.

roachboy · 09-23-2004, 09:24 AM

you could argue that the logic of the judicial system obtains in fact--if you commit a crime you serve x amount of time as a sentence you have "paid you debt to society" and your basic rights are restored to you.

the right to vote is more basic that your right to conduct a professional service. the two are, in fact, unrelated to each other.

as for the earlier posts about the democrats and felons, they really are beneath contempt. were they more substantive, they might rise to the level of a low blow--but as they are wholly arbitrary, they do not even achieve that exalted status.

it seems the the discursive bottom can always be located by looking for where the right is feeding.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 09:26 AM

Ustwo,

It doesn't take too much imagination to conjure up scenarios where stripping the right to vote from a felon seems overly harsh. How about a 17 year old busted for marijuana? If that is the only crime that they ever commit then should they be denied the right to vote their entire life? Therre are mechanisms for felons to have their voting rights restored in some states, but according to your view, felons do not deserve to have said rights restored. To take your example further, how serious does disrespect for the law/society have to be before someone's rights are stripped? Many of us willingly violate the traffic laws of society on a daily basis...should we also be disenfranchised? I know that the analogy is a bit ridiculous, but so are hard-line statements that tar every former felon as a societal malcontent that deserves no say.

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

as for the earlier posts about the democrats and felons, they really are beneath contempt. were they more substantive, they might rise to the level of a low blow--but as they are wholly arbitrary, they do not even achieve that exalted status..

Yes, obviously pointing out similar behavior from the party dealing out the race card in this election is wholely inappropriate.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Yes, obviously pointing out similar behavior from the party dealing out the race card in this election is wholely inappropriate.

Similar behavior? What are you talking about? Roachboy was referring to Ustwo's quip that the Democratic party is the party of muderers, rapists, etc.

Also, is it "playing the race card" to try to prevent the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? Shouldn't you be accusing Florida election officials of playing the race card?

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Similar behavior? What are you talking about? Roachboy was referring to Ustwo's quip that the Democratic party is the party of muderers, rapists, etc.

Also, is it "playing the race card" to try to prevent the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? Shouldn't you be accusing Florida election officials of playing the race card?

Perhaps I misread it then as it seemed to be a blanket statement about all posts who brought up Democrats. If that's not the case then I apologize and please ignore my off the mark comment.

Yes it is playing the race card because they are associating it with intimidation of only blacks. Was it only blacks who ended up off the voter rolls? I think not. Are blacks the only felons not allowed to vote? Obviously not. Yet the article clearly makes race a dividing point. Why not make the whole case about the fact that this happened or is happening rather than it being targeted at blacks? Obviously it's because they are trying to motivated blacks, who are more likely to vote Democratic, to get to the polls.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 10:13 AM

The fact that blacks are vastly overrepresented when it comes to disenfranchisment in Florida makes their race relevant. Should we ignore the implications that blacks were mistakenly identified as felons by the thousands whereas only a handful of latinos were? This issue isn't about "motivating blacks" but about preventing their disempowerment. Even if you think that the race numbers are pure coincidence, you have to admit that it seems damn suspicious. Obviously, whoever created the felon lists is the one that made race a dividing line.

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Obviously, whoever created the felon lists is the one that made race a dividing line.

Why? Do you have evidence that this list was purposefully manipulated? How do the errors in Florida compare with errors in other states? There are tons of assumptions being made on this issue with very little evidence.

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 10:25 AM

By disproportianally targeting blacks, whether intentionally or not, they made race an issue. I don't need numbers from other states to know that what is happening/happened in Florida is wrong and needs to be seriously addressed.

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

By disproportianally targeting blacks, whether intentionally or not, they made race an issue. I don't need numbers from other states to know that what is happening/happened in Florida is wrong and needs to be seriously addressed.

So you have evidence that this was intentional then?

Ustwo · 09-23-2004, 10:42 AM

Anyone have any proof of this?

Moveon.org just accused Bush of causing the hurricanes, so I'd hope it comes from a real source.

Strange Famous · 09-23-2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Felons are not 'equal' once released. They can not work in some jobs, they can not own firearms (at least in my state), they are looked on more harshly if they are arrested again (3 strikes you are out). If I were convicted of a felony I would lose my license as a health provider. Why should they have a right to vote? They have willingly violated the laws of a society so why should they be trusted with that society? There are a lot of people that should not vote, but that is subjective opinion. On the other hand felons are people who were proven in a court of law to willingly violate the laws of the land. They have no respect for the laws we all agree to adhere too and should have no say.

If you commit a crime and are found guilty, you serve a sentence. When you come out, are you not supposed to have a second chance? Why should everyone who ever made a mistake be a second class citizen forever?

KMA-628 · 09-23-2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Ustwo,

It doesn't take too much imagination to conjure up scenarios where stripping the right to vote from a felon seems overly harsh. How about a 17 year old busted for marijuana? If that is the only crime that they ever commit then should they be denied the right to vote their entire life? Therre are mechanisms for felons to have their voting rights restored in some states, but according to your view, felons do not deserve to have said rights restored. To take your example further, how serious does disrespect for the law/society have to be before someone's rights are stripped? Many of us willingly violate the traffic laws of society on a daily basis...should we also be disenfranchised? I know that the analogy is a bit ridiculous, but so are hard-line statements that tar every former felon as a societal malcontent that deserves no say.

I see where you are going with your analogy, but you are listing examples of misdemeanors, not felonies. It makes your argument emotional but not relevant. If it were restated using actual felonies (i.e. ADW, battery, spousal abuse, rape, murder, embezzelment, extortion, etc., etc.) it would have a completely different effect.

Losing your right to vote because of a felony conviction is known end-result. Just like going to jail for committing a felony is a known end-result. Don't want to go to jail, don't commit a crime. Don't want to lose your right to vote, don't commit a felony.

That being said.....the list must be accurate and all sides should fight for that, regardless of political persuasion.

As to Colorado: I am 100% against the Proposal and will vote against it. It comes across from partisan from the Democratic side when these proposals are brought up in states that are in the red column. As far as I know, I don't see any of the blue states with this proposal. If I am wrong, please correct me, but it comes across like the Democrats want to pull electoral votes from the Republicans but they don't want to risk losing any of their own.

KMA-628 · 09-23-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

If you commit a crime and are found guilty, you serve a sentence. When you come out, are you not supposed to have a second chance? Why should everyone who ever made a mistake be a second class citizen forever?

1) I am not familiar with your "second chance" theory. The slate is not wiped clean once you are released from jail regardless of the crime. Your criminal record stays with you.

2) Your last statement is a gross over-generalization.

People are, and must continue to be, held accountable for their actions.

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

As to Colorado: I am 100% against the Proposal and will vote against it. It comes across from partisan from the Democratic side when these proposals are brought up in states that are in the red column. As far as I know, I don't see any of the blue states with this proposal. If I am wrong, please correct me, but it comes across like the Democrats want to pull electoral votes from the Republicans but they don't want to risk losing any of their own.

Hey! This is a thread dedicated to criticizing Republican efforts to "steal" the election. Get that hokey Democrats doing the same thing stuff out of here.

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

mml · 09-23-2004, 11:06 AM

I think everyone can agree that attempts to disenfranchise voters, which has been done by both sides, is unacceptable. Regardless of the strenght of one's convictions, in a Democracy we must give people the right to vote.

The concept of allowing felons to vote is difficult. I think that while you are serving your sentence for a felony conviction, you most certainly should not have the right to vote. I think that once you have "paid your debt", this right should be restored. I think exceptions could be made for those convicted of violent crimes, multiple offenders and recidivists and for crimes against the United States, such as treason.

I have a neighbor who is 19 years old. He was driving intoxicated while his underage brother was in the car. In my state, DUI with a minor in the car is a felony. He can no longer vote. Apparently he is looking into ways to get this right restored, but it is difficult. Do we think that when this young man is 50 years old, he should still be prevented from voting?

onetime2 · 09-23-2004, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mml

I have a neighbor who is 19 years old. He was driving intoxicated while his underage brother was in the car. In my state, DUI with a minor in the car is a felony. He can no longer vote. Apparently he is looking into ways to get this right restored, but it is difficult. Do we think that when this young man is 50 years old, he should still be prevented from voting?

Has he looked into ways to be pardoned? A pardon basically throws the conviction out and I would assume the right to vote would return upon pardon.

EDIT: Hmmmm, now that I think about it that could be a good political strategy. Pardon everyone with the undeclared understanding that they vote for you.

Pacifier · 09-23-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mml

I have a neighbor who is 19 years old. He was driving intoxicated while his underage brother was in the car. In my state, DUI with a minor in the car is a felony. He can no longer vote.

But a man who drove irresponsibility under alcohol can still be president? strange nation...

cthulu23 · 09-23-2004, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

I see where you are going with your analogy, but you are listing examples of misdemeanors, not felonies. It makes your argument emotional but not relevant. If it were restated using actual felonies (i.e. ADW, battery, spousal abuse, rape, murder, embezzelment, extortion, etc., etc.) it would have a completely different effect.

The speeding analogy was admittedly ridiculous (as I mentioned before) but was used to illustrate the point that not all crimes are a sign of societal malfeasance that should immediately result in disenfranchisment. I was replying to a previous post that used language that implied just that.

A much better example is the marijuana example that I made earlier. Should a young person be stripped of the right to vote because of a victimless crime? The crimes that you list definitely seem geared to elicit an emotional reaction, as a large percentage of felons in this country are non-violent drug offenders, not rapists, murderers, etc.

09-23-2004, 04:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Its a lie of the left to 'scare' blacks into voting. Never any proof, never any substance, never anything but lies. It gets old. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-23-2004, 04:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBUP7387WD.html __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

09-23-2004, 05:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
zenmaster10665 Bokonist Location: Location, Location, Location...	Thanks Pacifer... Florida better get their shit straight before November. I dont want to field even more questions while I am travelling about why the "model" democracy cant seem to get its elections to work correctly. And, by the way, does anyone know if Colorado will actually proportionally split its electoral votes this year??? I wish all states would adopt this method. It is the only fair way of retaining the Electoral College. __________________ "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -Kurt Vonnegut

09-23-2004, 06:28 AM	#9 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	More partisan BS. Both sides are guilty of trying to discourage votes from core constituents of their opponents. It goes on in every election. There's voter fraud as well. Plenty of dead people somehow voting and plenty of cases of people being paid to vote. How about the pastors in black churches who get hefty donations to push their congregations to vote for the Dem candidate? If you want to talk about the questionable tactics coming from one party it's only fair to discuss the tactics used by the other. As far as felons being able to vote, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I lean more heavily toward them being allowed to vote if they've "paid their debt to society" but there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of for denying them this right. To blame this fact solely on Republicans is partisanship of the highest order. Why haven't the Dems changed these laws if it's so important? Perhaps because it's so much easier to keep using it as a dagger against Republicans in every race. As far as a citizen being arrested at a polling place when they cast their vote, you're damn right that should be an option. If they're wanted and the police think they're going to be somewhere (whether it's voting or having a drink in a bar) it's proper for them to arrest them and they should be put into the system to deal with the charges against them. Of course, rents not being paid or whatever have nothing to do with this as that's a private matter for the landlord and tenant or phone company or whichever institution at issue. If that company wants to hire someone to serve papers on a citizen when they go to vote, again, I see no foul. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant. Last edited by onetime2; 09-23-2004 at 06:32 AM..

09-23-2004, 06:52 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I do not find it surprising that democrats want felons to vote. I'm sure rapists, murderers, thieves, and lairs are all welcome with open arms. Maybe they could form groups like 'Killers for Kerry', or 'Rapists for Truth'. My arguement about not allowing felons to vote is quite simple, society has proved their judgement is suspect and as such they should have no say in the government. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-23-2004, 04:20 AM	#2 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I believe that the flyers threatening arrest for those behind on bills, etc are a hoax designed to keep voters away from the polls. As far as I know, it's not a crime to be behind on your phone bill. Anyway, what's troubling about this piece isn't that felons are blocked from voting but rather that there is apparently an organized effort to disenfranchise black voters throughout the country. This makes all of the cries of foul-play that came out of Florida in 2000 even more relevant. Speaking of Florida, just htis year the state government released the names of felons who would be barred from voting and, just as in 2000, there were thousands of falsely accused voters on the rolls, the majority of which were black. Given what happened there in 2000, I have to accuse them of intentional negligence for letting this happen again. I could believe in accidents the first time, but again? It's worth noting that the "felon" list doesn't exclude many Latinos, who happen to vote Republican in Florida (Cuban exiles).

09-23-2004, 07:08 AM	#14 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	personally i find it kind of strange that felons should not be allowed to vote (in some cases it might be OK, but in the USA it seems to be normal). A citizen is a citizen and should have the right to vote. But then again in the USA you have no right to vote __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

09-23-2004, 07:21 AM	#18 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I have no problem with disenfranchising felons, but I've always been disgusted with the other political nonsense that both sides have demonstrated when it comes to influencing the vote. Does anyone remember the famous Chicago elections in which Daley had the support of the living...and the dead? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-23-2004, 07:42 AM	#19 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Yep, Richard Daley Sr. had the strong support of the zombie community. Some would even say that it was Daley that delivered Illinois, and the nation, to Kennedy. Edit: of course, voter fraud is a seperate issue from disenfranchisment. Last edited by cthulu23; 09-23-2004 at 07:53 AM..

09-23-2004, 07:46 AM	#20 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	My favorite story from the 2000 elections is the black guy who was denied voting because he commited a fellony in 2007! Damn minority report! People should not play politics with voting. I don't mind taking away a felons right to vote but if problems like what is happening in florida keep happening i'm totally against it. I'd rather have 1000 felons get to vote then 1 non-felon denied.

09-23-2004, 09:09 AM	#22 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Felons are not 'equal' once released. They can not work in some jobs, they can not own firearms (at least in my state), they are looked on more harshly if they are arrested again (3 strikes you are out). If I were convicted of a felony I would lose my license as a health provider. Why should they have a right to vote? They have willingly violated the laws of a society so why should they be trusted with that society? There are a lot of people that should not vote, but that is subjective opinion. On the other hand felons are people who were proven in a court of law to willingly violate the laws of the land. They have no respect for the laws we all agree to adhere too and should have no say. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-23-2004, 09:24 AM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you could argue that the logic of the judicial system obtains in fact--if you commit a crime you serve x amount of time as a sentence you have "paid you debt to society" and your basic rights are restored to you. the right to vote is more basic that your right to conduct a professional service. the two are, in fact, unrelated to each other. as for the earlier posts about the democrats and felons, they really are beneath contempt. were they more substantive, they might rise to the level of a low blow--but as they are wholly arbitrary, they do not even achieve that exalted status. it seems the the discursive bottom can always be located by looking for where the right is feeding. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-23-2004, 09:26 AM	#24 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Ustwo, It doesn't take too much imagination to conjure up scenarios where stripping the right to vote from a felon seems overly harsh. How about a 17 year old busted for marijuana? If that is the only crime that they ever commit then should they be denied the right to vote their entire life? Therre are mechanisms for felons to have their voting rights restored in some states, but according to your view, felons do not deserve to have said rights restored. To take your example further, how serious does disrespect for the law/society have to be before someone's rights are stripped? Many of us willingly violate the traffic laws of society on a daily basis...should we also be disenfranchised? I know that the analogy is a bit ridiculous, but so are hard-line statements that tar every former felon as a societal malcontent that deserves no say.

09-23-2004, 10:13 AM	#28 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The fact that blacks are vastly overrepresented when it comes to disenfranchisment in Florida makes their race relevant. Should we ignore the implications that blacks were mistakenly identified as felons by the thousands whereas only a handful of latinos were? This issue isn't about "motivating blacks" but about preventing their disempowerment. Even if you think that the race numbers are pure coincidence, you have to admit that it seems damn suspicious. Obviously, whoever created the felon lists is the one that made race a dividing line.

09-23-2004, 10:25 AM	#30 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	By disproportianally targeting blacks, whether intentionally or not, they made race an issue. I don't need numbers from other states to know that what is happening/happened in Florida is wrong and needs to be seriously addressed.

09-23-2004, 10:42 AM	#32 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Anyone have any proof of this? Moveon.org just accused Bush of causing the hurricanes, so I'd hope it comes from a real source. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-23-2004, 11:06 AM	#37 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I think everyone can agree that attempts to disenfranchise voters, which has been done by both sides, is unacceptable. Regardless of the strenght of one's convictions, in a Democracy we must give people the right to vote. The concept of allowing felons to vote is difficult. I think that while you are serving your sentence for a felony conviction, you most certainly should not have the right to vote. I think that once you have "paid your debt", this right should be restored. I think exceptions could be made for those convicted of violent crimes, multiple offenders and recidivists and for crimes against the United States, such as treason. I have a neighbor who is 19 years old. He was driving intoxicated while his underage brother was in the car. In my state, DUI with a minor in the car is a felony. He can no longer vote. Apparently he is looking into ways to get this right restored, but it is difficult. Do we think that when this young man is 50 years old, he should still be prevented from voting?