Some Dems I know are obsessing on one particular issue

[jumptheshadow]

And it's something that has been totally off my radar screen: voting rights for ex-felons.

There's a group of part-timers at my company who are Dems who have been talking about candidates during the past few weeks. A couple of them have flirted with Dean, but every one of them remains undecided and rather confused with the welter of candidates.

However, they are adamantly opposed to voting rights for ex-felons. This is the second day in a row they've talked about it.

I don't know anything about this issue. Who supports it and what is their reasoning?

Does this topic have any connection with Katherine Harris's infamous witchhunt in Florida and the "cleansing" of the voter lists?

[proud patriot]

1. In California

Once you have done your time and completed parole
your voting rights are restored .

I agree with this 100%

[Eric J in MN]

2. some of the arguments

for:

After a person pays for a crime, he shouldn't go on paying by not being able to vote.

against:

If you want to vote, never commit a felony.
------------
Regarding Florida, what bothers people most is that law-abiding voters were falsely labelled "suspected felons" to rig the election.

[funkyflathead]

4. Never commit a felony.........

Good one.

[jumptheshadow]

10. What is so strange to me

Is that with Bush squatting in the White House, the Iraq War a quagmire, our civil liberties being savaged, the lower and middle classes getting clobbered, the environment being destroyed, etc., etc., etc., they are focusing on this issue. They are saying they will or will not vote for a candidate based on this issue.

I am very surprised.

[jiacinto]

3. Wilile Horton and Michael Dukakis

That's my answer to this thread.

[Don Claybrook]

59. Not a real coherent answer

I don't think the issue has anything to do with furloughs. Do you support the right of a convicted felon to be able to vote? If so, why? If not, why not?

[jiacinto]

64. That's why it's a tough issue

That is what will happen if any Democrat runs on that issue.

[La_Serpiente]

5. I think those felons can seek redemption

they could put in Community Service and in return, get the right to vote. That is fair to me and is a pretty good compromise.

[blm]

11. good answer.

.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

28. And you make yourself look more foolish each time you say it.

[Yupster]

38. If I get the answer right, do I win something?

I think what you're saying is that the Democratic candidate for president doesn't need to spend time during the campaign in a debate full of TV ads where he's arguing that we should give convicted criminals more rights while Bush runs ads explaining that he and his honorable opponent just have a difference of opinion.

"I want to get more rights to victims of crimes. My esteemed Democratic opponent wants to give more rights to the perpetrators (Bush would say evil-doers) of the crime. I don't understand why my Democratic opponent would argue for more rights for the criminals, but I take him at his word that it's his honest belief."

The next Bush ad would be a woman who tearfully cries her story about how her husband was brutally murdered while grocery shopping. "Now Governor Dean wants to give this murderer his right to vote back. What about my husband's rights Governor? Why are you fighting for my husband's murderer?"

Is this an argument we want to have?

Was that your point jiacinto? Do I win anything?

[Rose Siding]

6. It's a political issue because

due to the large (relative) % of ex-felons belonging to minorities. And minorities *usually* vote Dem. That's why Harris caught such heat (or should have) for so broadly purging the FL voter rolls. Doing so cost the Dems more votes than the repubs.

[mopinko]

7. part of the discussion of the war on drugs

i have heard this topic raised recently myself, mostly in connection with the impact of the ever so wrong headed war on drugs.
and it wasn't an accident that innocent people were purged in fla. they specified the widest possible parameters for the purge.

[kainah]

8. In such a debate, it's important to point out

how "felon voter rolls" can and have been used to wrongly purge legally eligible voters from exercising their constitutional votes. It was by using the "felon" tag that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris prevented tens of thousands of people from legally voting in 2000.

Just speaking on a practical level, how do you ensure that this limitation be enforced fairly and without abuse? Should someone be tarred forever, when all their other rights have been restored? Do you want these former felons to feel as though they have a say in their community or do you want them feeling forever disengaged from the society around them? If they have no way to participate in community affairs legally, doesn't that encourage them to abuse the community?

[loyalsister]

35. Exactly!

In Missouri voting rights are restored after the person has completed parole. Many people have been lied to about that, however. I talked to a woman who did not realize she could vote. Apparently some bitter P.O.s have been lying or some were just misinformed. This had happened frequently enough for a legislator to introduce legislation that would require that people be informed of their voting rights and procedures for registering upon leaving prison. I'm very pleased that it passed.
There is no doubt that when people participate and feel like they are a part of society they are more likely to respect it. People who feel marginalized are frequently the people who commit crimes in the first place. It's difficult to get a job with a record, and of course that pushes people into poverty. Why add yet another factor to that sense of marginalization?

[blm]

9. John Kerry was the first to advocate for voting rights for ex-felons.

This might be a rightwing talking point that has been pushed recently to set up Katharine Harris' run for Senate. Make her into a hero for denying the votes of these people, instead of the scum that she is.

[spooky3]

53. Edwards also told MTP he supports it.

[blm]

67. They're close on legal issues, I notice.

That's great.

[Stephanie]

12. It's my understanding that this mostly happens in former Jim Crow states

And that most states do not take away voting rights from felons. This was an issue in Florida too, as I recall, because FL took away the rights of those who were convicted in states that did not have this onerous rule. Florida just went ahead and did it anyway.

This is another sneaky way of suppressing the votes of poor people and people of color - people who wind up with convictions for drug violations instead of comfy Rush Limbaugh rehab centers. When the criminal justice system is fair, THEN maybe it would be fair to take people's rights away. But it is not.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzie]

14. Stick around in life and you will hear some fun things.

I recall a man once telling me he would not vote for Kennedy as he did not like to hear Jackie talk. Now that is a good reason to vote or not vote for a man right?

[Jacobin]

15. Its actually pretty important

Making felons of young African Americans in states such as the one I live in, Louisiana, is a favored tactic of the patricians to make sure that even though minorities might make up a majority of the voting base, that they can't vote.

It's wholesale disenfranchisement under the guise of "law and order" "war on drugs" and other mom and apple pie names.

Usually, its for minor drug offenses. They are given jail time, become felons and poof, no longer can vote.

Also a favorite tactic in Mississippi.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

25. We heard your answer the first two times, Carlos

No need to repeat its simplicity over and over again. Contrary to your apparent belief, many people here aren't so simpleminded to believe an obfuscation if it is simply repeated over and over again.

[jumptheshadow]

18. Interesting post

These folks are against giving voting rights to ex-felons. A couple are real lefties, the other is more moderate, and their other political views range across the Democratic ideological spectrum.

[blm]

23. Exactly.

.

[IrateCitizen]

17. The Last Disenfranchised Class

That's what it had on this week's cover of The Nation, describing the disenfranchisement of voting rights for convicted felons.

It plays out like this:
1. Set up punitive sentencing guidelines for nonviolent drug possession
2. Concentrate your "anti-drug" law enforcement efforts on going after poor people of color
3. Pass legislation denying these people the right to vote

It's a pretty simple formula for rolling back the gains of the civil rights era. Considering the figure that something like 1 in 4 black males is likely to spend time in prison in their lifetime, it's a pretty effective strategy.

It needs to be identified for what it is -- disenfranchisement based primarily on race and socioeconomic status. When you start seeing rich white kids (or pill-popping radio hatemongers) being arrested on felony drug charges at the same rate as poor people, you'll see this turn around in a hurry. Until then, it's hard to garner support -- even among members of the middle class such as your co-workers.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

49. I don't sympathize with violent criminals.

I do sympathize with poor people trying to get by who are charged with a crime for which a gulity conviction could get them 10 or more years hard time, and whose public defenders tell them they have no choice other than to plea bargain down to a lesser felony conviction -- whether they are innocent or guilty.

This is how it works in the real world, Carlos.

[w4rma]

51. not crimials. former criminals who have served their time and (hopefully)

been rehabilitated.

[PVnRT]

62. I don't understand

why there is such bloodlust and desire to punish in this country, rather than rehabilitate.

[htuttle]

20. I think this is missing the overall issue

When former President Carter was asked after the 2000 election whether the Carter Center would consider monitoring a US election, he said that the US election system doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the Carter Center to work with it.

Among other things, he noted uniform ballot election laws, uniform polling hours, non-partisan election officials as qualifications that the United States elections lacked. These are the basic things that the Carter Center expects to be in place before they monitor an election. In other words, much of the developing world has these qualifications, but we don't.

Perhaps the main issue (and one that would need to be dealt with if you wanted to deal with the felony/voter rights issue) is that of making elections laws and mechanisms uniform throughout all 50 states. This is definitely a good side/bad side type of issue, and I sure wouldn't want the angry partisans in office now making up new rules.

However, a constitutional amendment would need to be enacted to change things in any case. The one way that could be avoided would be for the Federal government to create a set of 'suggested' election 'guidelines', and then require states to follow those guidelines in order to get certain election process funding. The almost-uniform 55 MPH speed limit was created the same way. This is, again, a good side/bad side way to go about it.

But the more I think about this, the more I think that it would be altogether too dangerous to start redrawing election laws right now. Let's wait until there are fewer maniacs in office. Just forget I brought any of this up until Bush is gone. Then we'll talk about it.

So without a national standard, it's a state level issue. Here in WI, ex-felons have voting rights. It's a national issue in that disenfranchisement in the US affects all of us (since it affects elections to national office), but it will need to be approached state by state.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jhfenton]

24. Alright, I heard you the first time.

Repeating yourself does not make your point any stronger.

I believe that voting rights of convicted felons should be restored once they are out of prison and off any post-incarceration probation. Once a sentence is complete, they have paid their debt to society. Denying a vote to an ex-felon does nothing to make society safer.

[XanaDUer]

34. What jhfenton said...

Since a great deal of felons are of the busted-in-the-dumb-war-on-drugs variety, they are not violent criminals.


One the "debt to society" is paid, they should have their voting rights restored.

And I have been the victim of crime, and I believe that their rights should be restored.

[Uzybone]

26. Dude can you ...

just hush it on Dukakis and Horton. Not all "felons" are convicted multiple murderers. Besides what does Horton have to do with voting? He wasnt paroleed so he could go out an vote was he? Your probably mixing up 2 different topics. The issue here is can ex-felons who have served thier full punishment have the right the vote. The answer has to be yes. If you dont consider them full citizens, then dont release them.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Why do you have to sympathize with criminals?

It seems like people here are pro-criminal. What about the victims?

I really don't understand many of you. So many of you are pro-criminal, anti-troop, and anti-American. I really don't understand it.

<BANGS HEAD REPEATEDLY ON TABLE>

Wow, that was kind scary even PRETENDING to think that shallowly, if only for a few seconds!

[eridani]

39. Excuse me, but who is the victim--

--if someone is jailed for possessing an ounce of marijuana? These are a lot of our 'felons.'

[IrateCitizen]

56. Please read the entire post, and note the sarcasm...

I was simply attempting to do my best Jiacinto impersonation. By no means do I share his narrowmindedness or unwillingness to listen to others and engage in intellectually honest debate.

[salinen]

30. my bad

i have a problem with a particular type of liberal. the ones that say "there is a new spiritual awakening". what "spiritual awakening"? they say it as if the contagian will spread and we will begin a new era of love. please, step away from the tarot and astrology for a moment and look at the world without those glasses. in my thinking, this is the opposite of a "spritual awakening." and the sooner you come to this the better able you will be in challenging the problems confronting this planet. i love you guys.

[Forkboy]

31. I like you better when you just post in the lounge

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Whoa, Carlos

I know you're a recent crime victim, but for the most part, we're not talking about Ted Bundy types.

We're talking about black and Latino men who got caught up in the drug trade, mostly as minor figures, under a system where possessing small amounts of crack is a felony, while you have to possess larger amounts of regular cocaine (the drug of choice for the rich) to reach the felony level. I don't remember the exact numbers, but you need to have ten times as much cocaine as crack to have it count as a felony. This is in spite of the fact that crack is simply a variety of cocaine, and the idea that it makes people crazier than cocaine is just a myth.

One of the insidious aspects of this system is that major figures in the drug trade can get reduced sentences or even get off by ratting out their "employees," since the system rewards clearing lots of cases, not necessarily going after the top dogs in the chain.

So we've got some unemployed youth who is desperate for a little money, and he succumbs to temptation a couple of times and sells (or even just holds) some crack for a friend or relative. He gets busted. He's sent to prison. Miraculously, he survives prison without becoming a hardened criminal himself and goes straight after getting out of prison and never gets in trouble again. In some states, he can never vote again. Is that fair?

[jiacinto]

65. I am sick of hearing that

I am sorry. I have been mugged and had my belongings stolen. Frankly I'm so sick of being told that I should be sympathetic to the animals who did this to me because we "live in an unfair society".

[Don Claybrook]

60. Buddy Ebsen and Elaine Pagels

That's my answer.

Remember those two names?

Babble incoherently can I too! Azzphumph, by Glory!!! I'm going to London to visit the Queen (and the mice under her throne). Do we really want to be the party of Zoroastrians? In conclusion, wherefor art thou, Rapunzel?

[vdeputy]

32. I work in a Sheriff's Dept

Generally, most of our inmates are young. We sometimes see them come back two or three times but usually, not always, but usually, by the time they get into their 30's, they settle down, get jobs, marry. I really see no point in continuing to deny them the right to vote. We have only the rare "vicious" violent criminal in our jail (we are a primarily rural county). They tend to get into trouble with drugs or alcohol, sometimes theft. I certainly don't think I'm soft on criminals but once they've turned away from that life, they should be able to be full citizens, including the right to vote.

[Orangepeel]

33. The only crime for which one should lose one's citizenship is treason

Otherwise, felon or not, one should have the most fundamental right of citizenship in the United States -- the right to representation.

[Zynx]

36. This was an issue that I didn't used to care about.

But then someone I know very well got caught up in the criminal justice system over a crime that they had no involvment in, but they confessed to the police just to get away from the interrogation and now they are working their way through a five year probationary sentence in which they have been unable to vote. While they will get their rights back after probation is over because this is Wisconsin, there are states like Georgia among others that don't allow this for any felony conviction. I find this disgusting and this is a major issue for me now.

Both Dean and Kerry support enfranchising those who have completed their probationary sentences. There may be an exception for murderers and sex criminals, but I'm not sure.

[David Zephyr]

37. All American Citizens of Voting Age Should Be Allowed to Vote.

Equal protection under the law.

[burr]

40. voting rights is an issue for anyone smart to be obsessed with...

and our party should be the party of voting rights. Not of felons, but of all taxpaying citizens...and yes I mean ex-felons from the convicted murderer to the former tax-evader. If you served your time in jail, you will already have a hard time on the outside...and rightly so! But if you commit no more crimes, you are again a citizen..you should at minimum must be allowed to vote!

But this is not the only issue. Our party must address the issue of how much impact the votes of workers could actually have in a democracy. And we must stress that we are the party which wants their votes to count, whether they are cast for us or against us.

Then all of the voters..independents and even republican voters will finally listen to our message!

[birdman]

41. Bad issue for Democrats

Voting rights for felons ?

Great. For every felon who votes
Democratic we lose 10 votes for
advocating it.

Great ideas of Western man.

[fujiyama]

45. I agree that strategically

this issue is a losing one. I really couldn't see it helping to actually make this a big issue.

That said, there are some real problems with the ways the laws are set up and the inequalities in the system, especially with regard to race and class.

The idea of letting convicted rapists, child molestors, murderers, and other violent criminals vote is ludicrious and I would be dead set against it.

But I really don't see a problem in letting non-violent, ex felons voting. Many of them, being in there for selling drugs, or other such crimes.

The key here is NON violent criminals. Because if society was to be consistent and fair, Rush Limbaugh and Darrel Issa shouldn't be allowed to vote either, and in the latter case, serve as a member of congress (hmm, then again if that forces Issa outta the house...)

[Mairead]

54. No, voting rights for EX-felons, people who've paid their debt to society

Someone who was convicted of a felony but has served their sentence, 'paid their debt to society', is a FORMER felon.

[jiacinto]

66. But that's not how most people see it

nt

[bobbyboucher]

42. What's up with the Willie Horton/Michael Dukakis stuff?

Has anyone else even heard two words about felons voting being an issue before this post? Not me.

I think that I am going to forget about it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

44. well, were it not for "ex-felons" being disallowed their voting rights

Gore would have won Florida by several percentage points.\
I don't even see how denying someone the right to vote is even constitutional.

[DuctapeFatwa]

46. To have the poor vote in large numbers would not be in the best interests

of either branch of the corporate party.

Voters in the US are the top 25% income tier. If the bottom 75% were genuinely franchised, the result would be no less than a revolution.

The bottom 75 would not be content with putting a Democrat face on the same policies, and announcing them in prettier words.

The average apartment now costs almost 4 times the minimum wage, according to the government's own figures.

The gap between rich and poor is widening rapidly.

A revolution of this type would not be increase revenues for corporations, whose PACs fund the politicians.

Although it is unlikely that the inevitable alternative will increase revenues either, the strategy has been to hope that the inevitable is postponed until the next generation.

Recent events have decreased that likelihood, but it is still embraced with lively optimism by both voting class and corporate oligarchy alike.

[stickdog]

47. How many young black males will be ex-felons by the time they

are 40 years old?

I'm guessing over 20%. So this is simply another Jim Crow law IMHO.

[rucky]

48. Well I'm Against Megan's Law...

so you can probably guess where I stand on this one.

[Lexingtonian]

50. An interesting but difficult issue

The best place to begin with on 'our' side is the Brennan Center (http://www.brennancenter.org/).

This is their page about where their efforts are focussed: http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/programs_dem_votrep.html

They used to link to to .pdf file with a long report on changes in ex-felon disenfranchisement. Essentially, most states had some form of ex-felon disenfranchisement statutes and have quietly been clearing them away piecemeal during the past 50 years, i.o.w. in a way so that their voters don't really notice it or pay attention to it. For example, the legislatures cut down requirements of time past end of the sentence (e.g. two years instead of five, five instead of ten) and up the sorts and number of convictions required, disenfranchising ever smaller numbers of ex-felons. In five or ten years these legislatures will then get reports from their Attorney Generals telling them that it's a nuisance to the AG and no benefit to the State to enforce such laws, with a recommendation to drop enforcement and eliminate particular such statutes and, eventually, all of them- the goal intended from the start. The fact that this is taking place all over the country and for many years says that the "morality" of disenfranchising ex-felons is no longer a relevant issue at all legally or among the de facto leaders (religious and otherwise) of mainstream society in ethical matters; the significant problem is combatting the mythology/bigotry- the politics of dealing with the 'outraged'/haters - and, as is notable in Florida, those others who benefit from the advantages of the present arrangement.

The essential facts are something like this: most felons are sentenced while in their twenties and thirties. In the states where they are not obstructed from voting- many states now automatically reenfranchise them-, very few ex-felons do vote- a rate of about 10% is typical. Most do come from poverty, where people vote at very low rates anyway, and many have no meaningful education, political views, or any insight into society at large distinguishable from a child's before incarceration. Ex-felons apparently do tend to vote at higher rates with age, much as the population at large does, therefore more the farther they are from the completion of their sentences.

The ethical argument, imho:

There is no argument about the disfranchising of incarcerated felons. No one wants the result of an election to turn on the ballots returned from a prison. States reenfranchising ex-felons vary in whether parolees are reenfranchised- the proportion of voters they represent is very small, and most of them have so many other things to deal with that as a practical matter voting gets neglected so that it's a symbolic thing in practice.

The argument for disenfranchising ex-felons is that they are permanently tainted and will never act- vote- for the best interests of society at large. This is reinforced by the impression of what freshly incarcerated felons are like as a group- immature, brash, nasty, violent, individually often sociopathic.

The argument for reenfranchising ex-felons is a little tedious.
(1) The serious recidivists and sociopaths are usually back behind bars or drop out of mainstream society and its practices within months or fewer years than even one election cycle. The average voting ex-felon is in their late 40s, 50s, or 60s, and has been out for many (10-30) years.
(2) Therefore, the ex-felons who wish to vote are easily the ones who are most rehabilitated, as a group at least to an extent that they seem indistinguishable from most common people who have not been inside the prison system. In short, you would not run into any of them on the street and see something that would occur to you as reason to disenfranchise them.
(3) The argument that ex-felons as a group do not vote according to the best interests of society is at best silly: either they vote for one of the two Major Parties, which should not count as antisocial (though in some regions not voting for the One True Party does), or they vote for a Third Party that may or may not be anti-societal.
(4) The argument that ex-felons as a group do not vote according to the best interests of society is at worst unAmerican/sociopathic: it assumes demonic possession of all members of a class of American society. Taking this to its logical conclusion, this also assumes that some states are run by a demonic conspiracy- otherwise the local moralists and Believers In The True Faith would point out the difference, wouldn't they?

The politics of it:

The state where this is presently a Big Deal at the moment is Florida. Most other states made ex-felon disenfranchisement part of their general body of law, so disappearing it without catching a lot of scrutiny from voters is possible. Florida made it a part of their Constitution of 1868, and the intent to selectively disenfranchise blacks during and after Reconstruction was clear at the time. About a half dozen smaller states still have nearly as comprehensive ex-felon disenfranchisement statutes, almost all these states lying in the South or Midwest. Florida, in which 6% of voters (most of them black) are excluded, is the largest and most important of these states. It is the one in which the largest total number of people and percentage of voters is disenfranchised, where the rule is most strongly instituted (as Amendment), and the political establishment is most adamant about defending this state of affairs. If/when Florida breaks down, the others will have to give way too. Florida is the remaining bulwark for this particular Lost Cause. (Too.)

The legal/jurisprudential game in the courts:

In Florida the ball apparently got rolling on the matter in mid-2000. I suspect as a side phenomenon of the great Democratic registration drive of 2000 in the black community. The Brennan Center led the plaintiffs in filing the first/major lawsuit (Johnson v. Bush) in the matter in late September 2000- more than a month before the disputed election took place at all. The argument that lawsuit uses is based in the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection, ratified 1865) and the 1964 Voting Rights Act. It claims the Floridian Amendment was intended to disenfranchise blacks selectively, and since Florida ratified the 14th (as a condition of being reaccepted into the Union) there exists a conflict that can only be resolved by striking the Floridian Amendment. (IANAL, but it seems to me that some kind of argument based on the 15th Amendment is needed in there somewhere.)

After a lot of motions and doing nothing for a decent interval during and after the disputed election, Johnson v. Bush went to federal trial in April 2002. The verdict in July 2002 went to the defendants and said the plaintiffs hadn't proven the nature of the discriminatory intent to the necessary satisfaction. The appeal (11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Atlanta) was made this spring and hasn't been handed down yet. My guess it will come out in December or January, at the end of the court's term (business year).

[Lexingtonian]

52. and I forgot

http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRights.cfm?ID=13227&c=167

There was a lawsuit settlement this year in Florida by the Department of Prisons. It failed to help ex-felons petition for return of their voting rights and such. The process existed before 2000; it involves obtaining a pardon from the Governor and was previously granted only in rare cases, certainly less than a few hundred cases.

The ACLU seems to think that the State of Florida would not simply delay processing or at least not deny the petitions. It seems naive to me to think that Jeb Bush will reenfranchise more than a few hundred or thousand additional ex-felons that way before the voter registration deadline in 2004.

+++++

http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRightslist.cfm?c=167

As you can see, Republicans all over the place are trying to drum up new disenfranchisement statutes. The Age Of Enlightenment seems far off yet....

[jumptheshadow]

58. Thank you for the wonderful information

I now feel like I can discuss this issue intelligently with these people.

It's obvious what the ethical thing to do is here.

But if my left-leaning colleagues have a gut reaction to this subject (and I don't know what's in their personal backgrounds), then I smell a Republican wedge issue. And a wedge issue that is replete with opportunities for the kind of shallow sound bites that are intended to generate vehement reactions. Hopefully our candidates will be prepared with sound bites of their own.

[Bridget Burke]

55. Even in Texas

Ex-felons can vote once they're "out" & off parole or probation.

[HFishbine]

57. A related question

Are they in favor of felons who have their civil liberties restored owning guns? Do they know if their state allows such? Do they see the tow issues related in any way?

[JI7]

61. the whore media

the lazy ignorant whore media is responsble for this. they make this into some black or white issue. making those who support it seem like they are soft on crime and some other crap. and they make those who oppose it sound as if they are tough on crime and will protect everyone and all that shit. when in reality the issue is far more complicated and involves racism such as republicans listing mostly black males and others are felons for the reason of voting. and ignores the issue of rehabilitation which can decrease crime.

[PVnRT]

63. Most ex-felons are black

I think it's more of a race issue (and to a certain degree, class as well), and is primarily supported to keep blacks from being able to show up at the polls and vote for Democrats. For the most part, despite the rather silly protestations of jiacinto in this thread, these are people busted for owning an ounce of marijuana, or robbing $400 from a liquor store, and so on. They are not mass murderers, contrary to popular opinion.

I heard one great opinion on the radio saying that voting can help make ex-felons feel more involved in the community, and thus reduce rates of recidivism. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

[Scott Lee]

68. I thought that an EX felon's debt to society was considered paid?

Is that not correct? If so, why would the right to vote not be sustained?