nearly 1 in 3 black men have PERMANENTLY lost the right to vote in florida and alabama

[unblock]

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o-01.htm#P101_2428

please check out the above link for some excellent (if slightly dated) data and info on this topic.

under "felony" disenfranchisement laws (which sometimes applies even for misdemeanors), many people can't vote. in some states, this applies to those actually in prison; in others, even after a prison sentence is served, you can't vote. in some states, you can be denied the right to vote for a petty crime that occurred over a half-century earlier.

and guess what? this disenfranchisement disproportionately hits black men! surprise, surprise!

there's clearly no benefit to this kind of law. it's not a deterrent, it's doesn't rehabilitate, it doesn't really even punish in any meaningful way. these laws exist SOLELY for the political advantage and preservation of power of the legislators who PASS these laws and decide WHO THEY CHOOSE TO PERMIT TO VOTE and who they want to keep away from the polls.

EVEN IF there were some theoretical benefit to these laws, IF FAIRLY APPLIED, they are obviously subject to abuse. nevermind the "inadvertent" screw-ups of choicepoint and there infamous database that prevents anyone with a name SIMILAR to an ex-con from voting. it leads to bigoted judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and police to try apply laws and cut deals in a way that takes away the right to vote unfairly.

criminal disenfranchisement is best understood as probably the last remaining official post-civil war means of denying the vote to blacks. in an age where a black man might very well head a national ticket and then become president, it's time we put an end to this farce and prevented bigotted governments from denying the vote to ANYONE over the age of 18.

the ONLY remotely arguable exception i can see is denying the right to vote to someone who has committed actual ELECTION fraud. however, even there, the risk of abuse would seem to outweight any benefit.

[rucky]

1. Has the SCOTUS ever had a case about this?

seems pretty darn Unconstitutional to me.

[unblock]

6. yes, and they've upheld it. not that i agree with the logic....

VII. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CRIMINAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT



Despite the scant justification for U.S. criminal disenfranchisement laws, they have withstood constitutional challenge. Ordinarily, the courts carefully scrutinize state restrictions on the right to vote to assess their constitutionality under the equal protection clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.62 States must show that the restriction is necessary to a legitimate and substantial state interest, is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s objective.63 In Richardson v. Ramirez,64 however, the U.S. Supreme Court exempted criminal disenfranchisement laws from such strict scrutiny. It construed Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment as granting states an “affirmative sanction” to disenfranchise those convicted of criminal offenses,65 and therefore reversed theCalifornia Supreme Court’s ruling that the disenfranchisement of ex-felons was unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection guarantees.66

Eleven years later, in Hunter v. Underwood,67 the Supreme Court unanimously declared that Section 2 did not protect disenfranchisement provisions that reflected “purposeful racial discrimination” that otherwise violated the equal protection clause.68 The court held unconstitutional a provision of the Alabama constitution that disenfranchised offenders guilty of misdemeanors of “moral turpitude” after finding that the intent of the provision had been to prevent blacks from voting and that it continued to have a racially disproportionate impact.69

Criminal disenfranchisement laws may also be vulnerable under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, which was adopted to remedy persistent racial discrimination in American voting. As amended in 1982, the legislation bars voting qualifications, practices, etc. that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color regardless of whether such a provision was

enacted with racist intent70 It is an unsettled question in the federal courts, however, whether the Voting Rights Act can be used to strike down criminal disenfranchisement laws.71

[bluestateguy]

2. Didn't Florida change that law?

Didn't Florida change that law to allow most felons the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence?

Then again, that all depends on them not having a Secretary of State who is the governor's buttboy and fucks everything up again.

[unblock]

4. don't know what ever happened to that.

i know there was some talk about that happening. don't know if it did.
even if it did, i don't know if it applied retroactively or if it just meant they wouldn't do it for new convictions.

besides, i'm not going to be overly excited by comparatively minor changes in one state. nearly every state in the union has some form of this and it's reprehensible in every case.

[Patsy Stone]

13. Yes. He's already done it.

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/restoring_the_right_to_vote_gains_momentum/

[unblock]

15. although, as your link points out, it's merely a step in the right direction

the disenfranchisement law is still in place; it's now merely somewhat easier for some to regain voting rights.

any victory is worth celebrating, but there's plenty more work to be done, even in florida.

[Patsy Stone]

16. Especially in Florida.

But, he did as he said he would, and I have to give him credit for that.

Here's a Reuters article, just because: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0516735220070405

[DaveJ]

3. Perhaps for a few years

If anything, give them a few years to get their right to vote back. I think in Illinois someone committed to a mental institution can again buy a gun after about 7 years. So I don't see why someone should not be rewarded for good behavior by giving them their right to vote back (not their right to a gun though).

But I do understand your point. If we really don't want them to participate in government they should be exiled. If they are U.S. citizens, they should have the right to vote.

[unblock]

5. another valid angle. good enough to pay taxes, but not good enough to vote?

[billky]

7. disenfranchisement of blacks in Fl

Why do you say just blacks are disenfranchised in Florida? Nobody's votes are going to be counted in fl. I'm really sick of just a few people saying "poor me". Maybe they should act like somebody and stay out of jail, then they wouldn't have to worry about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Welcome to DU.

You ain't foolin nobody.

[Arkham House]

10. Enjoy your stay...

...have a nice day...

[Richard Steele]

12. Pfft.

[unblock]

17. i don't have any sympathy for felons. but i also have no sympathy for politicians who rig the game

i'm not in this to be nice to felons and ex-felons.

i'm in this because i actually believe in democracy.

[fascisthunter]

9. There's That Reality Again

good post

[Richard Steele]

11. Grrrecommended.

[BrotherBuzz]

14. Conned: How Millions Went to Prison, Lost the Vote and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House

by Sasha Abramsky

THE CRIMINAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT THAT AFFECTS MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

It seems when you’re convicted of a felony, the scarlet letter is there. You take it everywhere with you.
—Jamaica S., a twenty-five-year-old on probation in Tennessee who lost her right to vote

More than four million Americans, mainly poor, black, and Latino, have lost the right to vote. In some states, as many as a third of all African American men cannot take part in the most basic right of a democracy. The reason? Felony disenfranchisement laws, which remove the vote from people while they are in prison or on parole, and, in several states, for the rest of their lives.

Award-winning journalist Sasha Abramsky takes us on a journey through disenfranchised America, detailing the revival of antidemocratic laws that came of age in the post–Civil War segregationist South, and profiling Americans who are fighting to regain the right to vote. From the Pacific Northwest to Miami, with stops in a dozen states in between, Abramsky shows for the first time how this growing problem has played a decisive role in elections nationwide—from state races all the way up to the closely contested 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

With a new national Right to Vote campaign having just helped to overturn Iowa’s felony disenfranchisement laws and similar campaigns under way in eight other states, this book comes at a time when many Americans have begun to recognize these laws as a fundamental threat to democracy.

<more>

http://www.sashaabramsky.com/conned.html

I met Sasha a few years ago. His book meshes with your subject so I'm compelled to plug it, and Sasha.