BREAKING: Virginia Gov. McAuliffe Announces Major Restoration of Voting Rights to 206k Former Felons
Source: Blue Virginia
Wow, this is amazing thank you Gov. McAuliffe! I just wish this had happened years ago (e.g., Gov. Kaine concluded he lacked the authority to do a blanket restoration), but better late than never. Note, by the way, that a Democratic governor is busy EXPANDING voting rights, while Republicans focus on RESTRICTING voting rights as much as possible. In Republicans case, the reason they do this is obvious (despite their b.s./false explanation about preventing mythical voter fraud): because they know that the more people vote, the more Democrats win (and that the fewer people vote, the more Republicans win).
P.S. h/t to Jim Nolan of the Richmond Times-Dispatch for the scoop! (http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_771db279-34d6-5a3d-9557-a417a8afb212.html)
Read more: http://bluevirginia.us/2016/04/governor-mcauliffe-announces-major-restoration-voting-rights
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)When will Florida and other states wake up.
Now, shhhh....here it is - "the fix is in"....3...2...1
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)pennylane100
(3,425 posts)I had always thought of him as a lightweight member of the clinton clan. Yet he has done so much for the democrats in Virginia.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)However, I wouldn't count this one in the bag just yet. My suspicion is that this is a Battle of Verdun-style bloodletting designed to keep Republican legal teams busy in the courts on this issue instead of finding a way to reduce turnout somewhere else. Republican lawyers must have had some grand plan up their sleeve to reduce turnout in this election. I wonder what it was?
The first thing that's going to happen is some conservative judge will put a hold on this ruling.
If you are a convicted felon in Virginia I suggest you go to your Registrar--not the DMV, which takes a month to handle the paperwork--right now and start registration proceedings before the GOP can put a halt to it, probably by Monday night.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Sure, the Clintons and their wing of the Democratic Party are not as progressive as many would like to see - but they are a HELL of a lot better than any of the Republicans will every be. Centrist Democrats are still better for the country than even the most centrist Republican might be.
That's why I think the Sanders supporters are being stupid saying if Bernie doesn't get the nomination they will not vote or not vote for the Democratic nominee. That will let in the chance that a Trump or Cruz would win - and that is terrifying!
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Locally, where many life affecting changes are made, in many states, you either get a Centrist Democrat or you get a Republican.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)MAJOR improvement! Plus, her father is Bob Graham who many here laud - but I got accused of "settling" since I supported her run for Congress because she is not as progress as the accuser would like. It doesn't make a difference that no liberal or progressive Democrat ever attempted to run in that district. The voters are blamed for "settling" for a less than full left leaning Democrat.
Sure, I would love to have a far left liberal representing me in Congress but in this part of Florida that is not going to happen any time soon. So I am ecstatic to have ANY Democrat in that office even if she is not as progressive as possible.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)If their votes were important, why were they not restored prior to the start of primary hmm? There was nothing that changed between then and now, except a sudden willingness to enact the change. Like a great many things that mysteriously favor Hillary, it doesn't pass the sniff test.
Liberalator
(74 posts)Virginia General Assembly ended two days ago. Republicans are unhappy with timing.
lowkell Mod 40 minutes ago
Right-wingnut State Sen. Tom Garrett not pleased. Boo-f'in-hoo.
https://twitter.com/TomGarrettVA22
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I posted a few links about it. This is what he campaigned on and he is following through. It has nothing to do with Clinton.
Sometimes politicians do the right thing because it is the right thing.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)However, the timing on this one stinks to high heavens... so I don't buy off on the notion that this Hillary supporter isn't taking full advantage of the timing. Not one little bit.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What specifically leads you to allege this will favor Clinton over Sanders?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)Virginia Democratic Primary results as per Google:
Hillary Clinton: 503,358
Bernie Sanders: 275, 507
___________________
Mrs. Clinton's margin of victory: 227,851
Felon votes restored today, for the moment: ~206,000
Mrs. Clinton's margin of victory if every felon had magically voted in favor of Bernie: ~21,851
Even if every single felon had voted, which they wouldn't, and every single felon voted for Bernie Sanders, which they wouldn't, it would not affect the outcome of the election.
Furthermore, the decision would have been immediately held up in the courts and felons still wouldn't have been able to vote in the primaries, anyway. It's a controversial decision and it's unlikely to be solved in the courts before the general election.
The timing of the decision, in fact, seems designed to distract Republican lawyers from whatever bullshit they were planning to tilt the election their way. As it is they will do what they do best and try to delay the court decisions until after the general election. I expect them to succeed.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)thucythucy
(8,069 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)Let me make this clear to you Clinton supporters:
If more people are allowed to vote, it's an evil plan by Clinton to steal the election.
If less people are allowed to vote, it's an evil plan by Clinton to steal the election.
See you in the Primaries forum.
George II
(67,782 posts)Loki
(3,825 posts)That's a typical Bubzer response, don't do anything that might be considered good even is it's a Democrat doing it. Missouri has laws on the books now that restore voting rights if you have served your sentence and completed your requirements. Every state should do this, but the republican held ones have made it impossible because most likely ex-felons are not republican voters. Good for Virginia and good for McAuliffe. Who knows, some may even vote for Bernie.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Kindly look to post #11 and do try to understand where I'm coming.
Loki
(3,825 posts)Do you have stock in aluminum?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Guess I'll be adding your name to my ignore list. No point in further discussing this with you.
winstars
(4,220 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Loki
(3,825 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=11651 from 2015
I think he is doing this because it was something he campaigned on.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It was enacted June 23, 2015. He could have implemented it then for those 206k Former Felons. He didn't. He waited until those 206k individuals could have zero impact on the primary. He could very easily have chosen to reinstate them before the primary... and, in fact, if he was at all actually interested in granting them real participation, rather than directed participation in voting, he would have reinstated them well before the march 1st primary. As I said before, it doesn't pass the sniff test.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)They are part timers, only in session 30-60 days out of the year. Now they are done for the year, unless the governor calls an emergency session, which he won't.
By waiting until the session ended, the Republicans have no chance to reverse this with additional legislation, no chance to override a veto, no chance to do anything except fight it out in the courts, using Republican money to do it. They could have done all of those other things, or tried, if the Governor had made his move before the primaries. Now they're gonna pay out-of-pocket to try to steal votes, and the people on the Commonwealth payroll are going to defend it.
So yes, the timing was fucking brilliant, coming within 48 hours of the maximum possible time for his decision to overcome any stays in the courts before the general election, maximizing the (admittedly slim) chance that reinstated voters will be able to participate in this election. It's just about as good as he could have done it, though he may have intentionally delayed 24 hours so he could make the Sunday headlines.
And it still wouldn't have changed things for Bernie, who lost by more votes than this act restores.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)
And yet he didn't...why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you why. It was fucking political gamesmanship to increase Her chances.
So, no, the timing wasn't the timing was fucking brilliant.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)You would know exactly why it is, too, if you informed yourself.
This time, I'm not going to tell you.
You don't seem like the sort of chap who can come up with a search string as complex as "political breakdown Virginia assembly," so I will do you that favor and spoon-feed you the links.
Then after that, you are on your own.
Here is some secret magic about how a bill becomes a law in Virginia:
http://virginiageneralassembly.gov/includes/contentTemplate.php?tid=52&ctype=b&cid=90
Here is some secret knowledge on the composition of the Virginia Assembly, including the Senate:
https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_State_Senate_elections,_2015
And the House of Delegates:
https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_House_of_Delegates
Here is the definition of a supermajority, in case you are wondering why a party-line vote can override the Governor's veto in the House of Delegates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
If you can work your way through all of that, and I doubt you will bother, your final exam is to ask yourself what additional options the Republicans would have had to defeat this measure if the Governor had made his move 60 days ago, when the session had just begun. I will give you a hint: it has much more to do with screwing over the felons whose votes the Governor was trying to restore, rather than screwing over Bernie Sanders, who was already well on his way to getting his ass kicked in Virginia without the Governor's help.
Good luck. You obviously need it.
PS: 60 days is two months, not three.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm sure your just pointing to some reference someone else has already linked... which I've already reviewed and found no evidence to show why the felons rights could not have been reinstated in time to be eligible to participate in the primary... particularly since you've already cited that those "part timer" assembly personnel aren't present to obstruct/interfere with an executive order over at least 300 days of the year.
So, in short? You wasted all that time and hard work for nothing.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Someday you may learn how to inform yourself, to accept patiently given information instead of flailing against it.
You may even one day understand how to properly contract "you are."
But today is not that day. Today, your slip is showing, because no Bernie Sanders supporter who is actually worth a damn would take pride in wasting the time of someone trying to help. You are not helping yourself and by not helping yourself you are not helping the candidate you purport to be backing.
But my time was not been wasted. For every bumbling doppelganger like you there are a dozen decent people reading this thread who had a chance to better understand what is happening. Our collective cause is still strengthened...
... And I wonder if perhaps that, in turn, is wasting your time and hard work, whatever it is that you are trying to achieve.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Congratulations... you've managed to nit-pick a few fat-fingered typing errors. Bully for you. What you've utterly failed to do is present any form of cogent argument that wasn't too vapid to be undone by your own commentary.
I had a considerably longer reply typed out, but then I came to the realization that I really don't give a damn what you or most other Hillary supporters here think. I really truly don't. In fact, over the last few days, I've put more of you on ignore than I have anyone over the life of my account.
Cause at the end of the day, one absolute unchangeable fact continues to present itself; the confirmation bias of nearly every Hillary supporter on DU, is extreme enough to give any conservative a run for their money.
No amount of proof, no amount of evidence, no amount of indisputable fact, will ever change the mind of a single solitary one of you. So there's no point in talking to you... at least not until election season is over. Some of you, not even then.
Long story short; you've done one good thing tonight. You reminded me not to waste my time with people such as yourself. So, I'm ending this and future conversations with you. Not quite sure why I've waited this long to put you on ignore anyway.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I've been fighting your ignorance because you're shit-smearing me and the candidate I do support. Now shove off.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Are you trying to be a parody?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're trying to be a parody. Got it.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)...except it doesn't. Done playing your little game. Good bye.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)timing. It would be hard for me to not recognize the value of this decision as my family is mixed race and we have plenty of our older members who are effected by this and my own grandson cannot vote.I have taught him to help in the campaigns in any way that he can. So the governor has given the people this effected by a taste of long overdue justice.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Most impressive.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Most UNimpressive.
Go read post #40
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)I already read that post. Do you go through a lot of tinfoil with conspiracies like this?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)You win an ignore.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Keep up the good work, mate.
I am dealing with very serious health issues and your posts made me giggle. Thanks for lightening my mood. You have no idea of what real problems are and I envy you that.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Frances
(8,545 posts)I appreciate your kind words.
It's my husband who is sick. He has terminal cancer and is on hospice. I am just trying to help him physically and emotionally.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)For him and for you.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You're confusing "context" with "allegation."
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)thucythucy
(8,069 posts)Last I checked you hadn't responded to what looks to be a fairly serious and detailed refutation of your post.
I look forward to seeing your reply.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)That's some twisty bendy logic! It's okay to restrict voting to specific times if we think Hillary would win anyway... congratulations... you may have just won fascism.
George II
(67,782 posts)displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)...which she won with 68% of the vote, if I remember correctly. VA is one of those "Southern States" anyway.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)They were denied the choice... by virtue selectively choosing when to reinstate their right to vote.
I don't understand how any of you cannot see this. We're supposedly the party that DEMANDS the freedom that voting affords. Why, then, were they not made inclusive to the process if that ability was there? Why were they omitted from being able to participate in the primary? You guys think this is about Hillary versus Bernie, when it isn't. It's about choice.
That holds true with my own vote as well. If Hillary could win without all the manipulations that have occurred, then I'd go along with it... grudgingly, but I would... because it would have been the will of the people... rather than the manipulation of the vote.
However, when you look at the accumulation of details... the unlimited amount of money that is funneled to Hillary from corporations because of a DNC rule change mid-game, the enormous amount of voter suppression that has occurred across the country... and team-Clinton only being interested in doing something about it AFTER a primary has occurred. Add to that the obvious and blatant bias of the media, pushing Hillary to the forefront... up to and including threats of job losses if every single mention of Bernie isn't accompanied by a positive comment for Hillary.
I simply don't understand how anyone could look at all these and many more details and not see that this is absolutely a theft of the primary. How, exactly, am I as a Bernie Sanders supporter to even consider Hillary as anything more than a grand manipulator? And in that light, how can I possibly trust her to work for my interests or those of all the people I care about?
And if that wasn't enough, as if to add insult to injury, every time either myself, or any other Bernie supporter reaches out to try and understand, to get a Hillary supporter to maybe give us a way to get passed all the distrust, all that happens is we get shut down! We get insulted. We get told we're not real democrats... or whatever other insult that happens to be handy.
And then all these absurd comments fly around from Hillary supporters wondering why we don't understand... as if we're just supposed to miraculously GET something after all the slings and arrows. Occasionally, one of us will see the comments and again try to reach out... and then the cycle starts all over again.
So, with all that in mind, how exactly am I, or any other Bernie Supporter supposed to look at this as anything but yet another campaign trick to coerce the vote?
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)...after it could have helped her win votes that she didn't need. She must be a witch. Either that or a Bond villain.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I'm done dealing with you, and pretty much any other Hillary supporter. Incidentally, I just wanted to make sure you know; I'll never vote for her. Oh, and you're no longer worth my consideration... as such, I'll be placing you on ignore.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)which seems to offer cogent reasons for the timing of this decision--doing it now, as opposed to earlier or later, so the Republican controlled Assembly wouldn't have the chance to try to over ride this.
The decision and timing seem to me to be based on local legislative considerations, not some deep and contrived pro-Hillary conspiracy.
I voted for Bernie in my state's primary, but I reject what looks to me to be gratuitous Hillary bashing in response to an OP that should have progressive Democrats cheering.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)HRH supporters will not agree with your logical analysis...
Response to Bubzer (Reply #68)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Response to all american girl (Reply #109)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)They DO have the right to vote again. That is a very good thing... even if the timing smells to high heaven.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Hey, look at that... another flawed premise predicated on a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo prompter hoc) allowing one to fully illustrate that bias does indeed, interfere with rational thought.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Your unquestioning support of Hillary illustrates that nicely.
For all your claims of a flawed premise, you've not refuted the premise with anything resembling and argument or logic. So it stands.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)It's silly that the GOP wants to restore gun rights everywhere but not voting rights. It shows what they are actually afraid of. It's not people with guns, it's people with voting rights.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)but not everything revolves around Bernie...I know, right...who knew
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I'm arguing there should have been a FULL and timely restoration of voting rights... rather than playing political gamesmanship with it.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Once you have served your time and been returned to society how do they justify taking away your right to vote in your own community.
Response to Democat (Reply #7)
ProudToBeLiberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Constitutionality
http://www.coopercenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Virginia%20News%20Letter%202015%20Vol.%2091%20No%201.pdf
The key is Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:
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.
The corollary to that, it was decided in 1974, is that states have the right to take away the votes of "criminals," and of course they get to decide what a "criminal" is. At one point in the 1870s, when Jim Crow laws had driven former slaves into desperate poverty, Virginia added petty larceny to the list of crimes that would revoke one's right to vote, so that people who stole food for their families were permanently removed from the voter lists.
In Virginia, the felon law was unabashedly racist in conception and application, enshrined in the Constitution of 1902 and perpetuated in its revision in 1971.
There is no escaping irony here. The felon laws were Democratic in conception and application when codified in 1902; now it will be the Republicans who fight the restoration of voting rights tooth-and-nail.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Speeding is a crime, being gay used to be a crime. Anything can be a crime.
Maybe this will be challenged again in the future when the court is more liberal.
Just think, we're all only two or three votes away from being disenfranchised, while those wealthy enough to keep their crimes off the books become the only ones who can vote.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)he was elected to City Council, but can't take his seat.....
News
> Allegheny
Print
McKeesport councilman can't take office because of old drug charges
Matthew Santoni
By Matthew Santoni | Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016, 7:33 a.m.
Corey Sanders
Corey Sanders
Photo by Patrick Cloonan | Tribune-Review
Related Stories
Sanders expects to be on the ballot for McKeesport council
Corey Sanders laid out his life in paperwork for attorney Rachel Morocco, and must do the same for five people in Harrisburg to remove the felony conviction that kept him from joining McKeesport City Council on Monday.
Sanders, 45, has a drug conviction from 23 years ago that state law and the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office say bars him from taking the council seat he was elected to in November.
Sanders finished fourth and took the fourth open seat in both the primary and general elections but was not sworn in at Monday night's council meeting with his counterparts because he is awaiting a pardon from Gov. Tom Wolf.
I have been practicing criminal law since 1992, and in all my years, I've never seen an individual come out of a felony conviction and make such strides in rehabilitating himself and his life, said Morocco, recalling the conference table covered in Sanders' personal records, history and achievements. If anyone's deserving of a pardon, it's him.
Sanders is the owner of a barbershop, vice chairman of the McKeesport Downtown Business Authority, a deacon in a Pittsburgh church and is married with four children.
In 1993, he pleaded no contest before Common Pleas Judge David Cashman to felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and was sentenced to four years in state prison. Apart from traffic tickets, his record has been clean since his release in 1997.
It's real overwhelming for me to get the support from all kinds of people, all walks of life, Sanders said.
Assistant District Attorney Kevin Francis McCarthy said in a letter to McKeesport Mayor Michael Cherepko that Sanders will need a full pardon from the governor to hold public office.
It is unfortunate that this situation has arisen given the fact that Mr. Sanders has put his past indiscretions behind him and, by all accounts, lived an exemplary life since then, McCarthy wrote. Nonetheless, we are all called upon to uphold the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania.
Article 2, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution bars anyone who's been convicted of embezzling public money, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime from election to the state Legislature or any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth. McCarthy's letter also referenced a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Griffin that upheld that any felony could be considered an infamous crime.
Sanders submitted his application for a pardon in late October and was waiting to hear whether he would get a hearing with the Board of Pardons. He is going to await a pardon rather than fight for his council seat in the Court of Common Pleas, Morocco said.
He's not getting it soon, said New Castle minister Gary Mitchell, 59, who lost a similar battle and said he has been following Sanders' with interest.
Mitchell, who was elected to New Castle's council in 2011, filed for a pardon from then-Gov. Tom Corbett but said his case was denied during the transition to Wolf. Without a pardon, the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas blocked him from taking his seat.
The courts will not wait, and the pardons board will not expedite, said Mitchell, who spent 18 months in prison on a 2002 conviction for two counts of delivering crack cocaine.
Sala Udin, who served 11 years on Pittsburgh City Council, sought and received a state pardon for convictions he said were related to his civil rights work in the 1960s, but he was never barred from office.
There were questions raised, but everyone knew I had good legal representation, and I usually just referred those questions to them, Udin said.
He is still waiting to hear whether he'll get a pardon from President Obama for a federal conviction for carrying a gun across state lines in Kentucky in 1970, when Udin said he carried a shotgun in his car trunk for protection while registering black voters in the South.
The Sanders case caught the attention of U.S. Senate candidate and Braddock Mayor John Fetterman, who put out a statement Tuesday calling on Wolf to issue a pardon, connecting Sanders' denial from office to problems faced by many nonviolent drug offenders in finding jobs or rehabilitation following their release.
J.J. Abbott, deputy press secretary to the governor, said in a tweet that the pardon process has many steps before the paperwork reaches the governor's desk.
Abbott linked to a guide to seeking a pardon published by Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, which noted that it can take up to six months to get a complete criminal history from the state, two years to get a visit from a state parole agent for interviews, and a year before a case gets to the five-member pardons board for a recommendation to the governor.
The Associated Press contributed. Matthew Santoni is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-391-0927 or msantoni@tribweb.com.
More Allegheny
Igel
(35,317 posts)The right to vote is taken away upon conviction. It's not taken away after you're returned to civil society.
Note that in every state I've read up on there are ways for ex-felons to get their right to vote restored. In some cases they require a review board showing that you're an upstanding citizen and rehabilitated. In other cases, it's a pro forma application. "Hey, can I vote?" "Sure, here ya go."
That many do not know this is simply a sad fact--many voters in NYS didn't realize after years of living there that the primaries were closed, so ignorance isn't just the province of ex-felons. I have to wonder if NYS is like my home state years ago--late in our junior year, before any voter registration deadlines and before we turned 18, we were given voter registration forms, how to fill them out, and the basic voting laws were explained to us. We had sample voting machine bits and were taught how to use them. (And did it matter? For those who were engaged, sure. For those who were low-information voters, those who might vote a single issue or candidate, for the disengaged, no.)
Odds are that many simply don't care that they can't vote: When voter turnout is under 50%, I have to assume that around 50% of the ex-felons (at least) wouldn't vote anyway and that any hurdle (even weatherstripping on a threshold) would be too high. For many, simply knowing the voting laws in their state is too big a civic responsibility to ask an informed, responsible citizen to be aware of.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)This is why we vote blue.
We could've ended up with Ken "Kooky Nelly" Cuccinelli, who vigorously pursued an illegal agenda (such as prosecuting climate scientists) while he was Attorney General. Oh and Cuccinelli collaborated with Robert McDonnell to cover up McDonnell's crimes, by trumping up charges against a witness (McDonnell's chef).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-virginia-governor-robert-mcdonnell-should-go-to-prison/2016/01/14/594054de-b4b0-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)good, this should be National.
Yesterday on PBS news I heard 8% of 'work ready' Americans have a Felony conviction that makes it impossible to get a decent job and in many states they can't even vote. Many felonies are from decades ago and many are for non violent crimes. All have served their time and shouldn't be second class Americans for life.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)But to your last point I think the real solution is not to restore rights and opportunity to felons but to change what constitutes a felon. When you can become one for selling a bag of weed or driving home after a couple beers too many, but also for torturing and killing a bunch of people, it pretty much makes the word meaningless. IIRC in the US it is anything where the maximum possible sentence is over a year. Given the "tough on crime" sentencing races of the 80s and 90s, this means frankly trivial offences became felonies.
Historically felonies were crimes that warranted either total confiscation of lands and property or execution. It was a feudal system construct that meant even an Earl could be made entirely landless if he committed a felony - an incredibly serious punishment in a society when land = wealth. The idea that a person who committed a minor theft or assault would be dispossessed or killed would have been ludicrous. That's what fines were for. That we have become less merciful to our miscreants than the likes of King John or Edward I should be a disgrace.
I am no bleeding heart here. I am fine with the DP at least in theory, and believe LWP should mean what it stands for. I think prisons for violent offenders of the worst kind should be rigorous and less than pleasant. I think criminals should be both rehabilitated and treated AND punished for wilful harm to others, and have no problem with curtailing the rights of the worst of them. But I want those punishments assigned to killers, rapists, violent predators, maybe truly incorrigible and major career robbers, not to folks who walked out of a restaurant without paying or chose a different recreational drug to mine.
Hawaii Hiker
(3,166 posts)All I ever read are stories where GOP governors are doing everything they can to restrict the vote.....It's great to see a governor do something to EXPAND voting rights for once....
HOO-RAY for Governor McAuliffe,
BumRushDaShow
(129,084 posts)"Turd Way" means that none of what just happened from this Governor is possible. Better to have the GOP in there instead.
winstars
(4,220 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)takes a small hit.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Capital to withstand the backlash from Republicans. The Governor makes us all proud.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I think he is doing a great job as governor, and I was skeptical myself.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Governors in Virginia are prevented from serving consecutive terms. They are lame ducks from the day they take office, and often unafraid to take political risks like this because they won't personally suffer any electoral consequences.
Because of the demographic changes which have happened thanks to Republican policies, it's now difficult for Republicans to win elections open to the whole of the Commonwealth: Governor, Senator, and President are usually safely Democratic or highly competitive for us.
Gerrymandering, however, keeps Congressional and state legislature elections safely--even overwhelmingly--Republican. As a result, this governor has vetoed dozens of crap bills that the legislature has produced, and he's going far out on the limb to grant this restoration. The GOP will certainly talk over impeachment, but the governor is more likely to serve out his term before they can get around to it.
Some years ago now I tried to restore voting rights in Virginia for a friend of mine who was a convicted felon. My recollection was that each individual had to start the process by writing a letter to the governor. Whether it's law or regulation, I expect that will be the first place that Republicans will start to fight this, and I expect them to succeed off the bat, because the courts are safely conservative, too. So we can expect this to roil about in appeals, probably far past this election.
Edit: In fairness, it's important to add that this issue was brought forward by the previous, Republican, Governor Bob McDonnell. It was also supported by then-AG Ken Cuccinelli, who was running for governor at the time. However, something tells me that all of that will be forgotten by the opinion pages of the Sunday papers....
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)that see it as a purely partisan effort to not impact the primary but only the upcoming election.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Check out the bluevirginia link and scroll down to read all the statements.
IronLionZion
(45,450 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)follower.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Hitler painted flowers. That didn't make his other poor choices better.
PBass
(1,537 posts)If we want former felons to integrate back into society, we have to give them a chance to participate in our democratic system of government, just like everybody else.
Voting should be a Constitutional right which cannot be rescinded. If you're an American citizen, you should be able to vote.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And I was not a Mac fan, as I remember how bad of a DNC chair he was in the early 2000's, but he has been a breath of fresh air as governor.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)May it be a tidal wave throughout the country.
beastie boy
(9,373 posts)And he is fighting the gun lobby just as hard!
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)It always seemed wrong to take the votes away from people after they paid for their transgressions (if they were guilty in the first place).
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Gothmog
(145,303 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)..are saying that as the ex-manager of Hillary's campaign, he did this to increase the vote for her in an important swing state.
That has the ring of possibility about it, to me.
But even if done for this reasonthank God it's happening at last. The right thing done for the wrong, cynical reason.
Pundits are also saying that because it was done by decree it can also be undone should a Republican governor come in and he should have done it in a way that would ensure its future safety. Another reason it looks (to me) like it was for Hillary.
But againthank God and it should be the law of the land.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)But I remember the arguments here when he announced his candidacy, he's "Third Way", he's a member of the DNC, he's close to the Clintons, he's no better than a Republican and the usual inane prattle that one reads here.
Just as inane and inaccurate as stating that Hillary wouldn't be any different than Trump or Cruz.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)IronLionZion
(45,450 posts)and the Dem is many times more likely to do the right thing. Centrist Dems are better than centrist repubs too.
And VA governors are limited to one term so they don't need to pander to anyone to get re-elected.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)This move takes some balls. Good one.
classykaren
(769 posts)CBHagman
(16,986 posts)I do hope that this is the beginning of a trend across the country.