Community Messageboard: Sounds like people deliberately missing the point more than anything. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Sounds like people deliberately missing the point more than anything. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/04/2012 07:45:40 AM

I would love to hear the legal rationale for that suit, since it has always been taken for granted that committing a felony usually forfeits the right to vote in US elections. Unless they are arguing against that principle, it is hard to see how the suit can have any merit.

The specific legal rationale is that Cali law prohibits felons currently in prison or on parole from voting, many are being transfered to county jails, which aren't prisons, and obviously jails have typically allowed voting... there was flap about that in Cook County in 2010, people freaking out because absentees were being given to people there, forgetting that jail usually is where people go prior to being convicted of anything... anyway there are a lot of state's that have fairly explicit language about that matter just to prevent denying people awaiting trial or sleeping off a misdemeanor being disenfranchised, especially against fears someone might lock a bunch of people up on election day. It's got about a snowball's chance but this is Cali we're talking about.

Like the allegations disenfranchising felons is racial prejudice, they are bypassing a problem they cannot solve to address one that does not exist: The problem there is overcrowded prisons, which might be an issue of draconian law enforcement, widespread crime, or a combination of those and/or other factors. It is not that disenfranchising convicted felons throughout their sentence suddenly becomes wrong simply because of where they happen to be at the time. Sounds like a poorly written law easily corrected by changing the language to bar voting by convicted felons while serving their sentence, while just as specifically preserving the voting rights of those NOT convicted of anything and/or who have completed their sentence and regained their voting rights.

I just fail to see what would possess anyone to pursue something like this unless they genuinely feel felons should be able to vote during their sentence, in which case I can only say: 1) Good luck and 2) why does it bother you so much more now than it did two years ago?

Which is a decent argument—that the LEGAL (not electoral) system is racially biased. Responding to that by altering election law rather misses the point, at the expense of restoring voting rights to many rightfully incarcerated felons who have no business voting. Given the popularity referenda substituting democracy for republicanism, that is ill-advised, since even in a strictly republican system it could result in felons retroactively exonerating themselves by electing representatives who repeal laws against their crimes. "When outlaws have votes, nothing will be outlawed," or something.

Personally, and I like to think I'm speaking as objectively as I can without regard to who such votes would favor (improbable put who knows?) I think a waiting period post parole and incarceration is legit, as is something like a 200 word essay as opposed to an application, though I'm biased since I used to use essays as a punishment in lieu of screaming and I felt it worked better, people think about stuff when writing about it. If my opinion were asked I would actually say view it as a coin flip, calculate based on the given variety of offense the usual odds of recidivism and pick the midway point to when that takes place, if they make it past that period I feel they can officially be qualified as better than even chance of going on the straight and narrow, that just seems more logical to me, something along those lines, but I think so long as they can't vote in prison (or Jail while serving a felony) and have at least some non-ridiculous path back to vote, then it's okay, and that appears to be the case in most places.

Seems reasonable to me, but it does not favor any groups pet agenda, so it is probably hopeless.

Last I heard, FL was getting hit over claims of racism for wanting it to be permanent, again, even for people who committed their crimes in other states that have since restored their voting rights. In other words, if you robbed a liquor store in VA 25 years ago, VA may have forgiven you, but FL NEVER will. Florida also got in trouble in 2004 for mass registration purges immediately before the election, not only because of the draconian nature of their laws, but because the purges incidentally and erroneously affected many non-felons. The case that stuck in my mind was a US Congresswoman denied the right to vote because she had been purged from the registrar on the grounds she was a felon.

If I remember FL's situation correctly the governor wanted to re-institute the five year after rule they used to have until about a decade, and have a 200 word essay as opposed to a 1 page application (yeah 200 not 2,000, half a page) that's from memory so grain of salt and all.

That would be reasonable, at least if they do not make people who have already been through the appropriate process in another state submit to theirs on movingn to FL. A person should not have to re-apply for permission to vote every time they move to another state (in fact, it seems to contradict at least the spirit, if not letter, of the Constitutional requirement states respect each others laws.)

That, in so many ways, may be the core problem with government in modern America (among other places, e.g. Greece:) We expect government to serve us, but also expect it at no cost, because we are entitled to its services as taxpayers. That logic is only practical to the extent we actually ARE taxpayers. Or to quote a line popular at Mission Control since before I was born, "when 200 miles in the air at 30,000 mph, remember: You're doing it on lowest bid....

Yeah, lowest bid jokes... the other one we did a lot in the Army was to joke on how our stuff was made by the blind, Skil-Craft and all, not that they don't provide perfectly quality stuff but the jokes are generic and don't have to make sense. Well it's certainly true you get what you pay for, except when you don't even get that because you got scammed, and the gov't has a crap history on both fronts and the voters have generally been partially responsible for a lot of that, though any candidate who ever made the mistake of pointing to the truism that in a democracy you've only yourselves to blame would be out on their ass in a heartbeat.

This is why I'm increasingly demarchist, rule by jury basically, I think we need a lot more done at the democratic level but we can't get into depth for everyone and so we should assemble panels of random persons to dip a bit deeper into stuff, not criminal just efficiency and such, I think we'd see less scapegoats that way at least. You know, grab a dozen random persons to look into something like how we do school lunch funds and let both sides present a case and if they can pick something 10-2 or better, just roll with it.

But there is that other joke about how, as dumb as "the average man" is, half of them are, by definition, dumber than THAT. On the other hand, popularity contests rarely ensure the most honest, competent or otherwise effective person gets the job (else President McCain would have succeeded President Gore in 2008, assuming President Clinton managed to defeat President Bush in '92, which is debatable.)

I like elected representation, I just wish policy received far more attention and personality far less. LBJ and Truman were foul-mouthed SOBs, and the former regulary conducted Cabinet meetings on the White House toilet, but they got the job done. Carter and Hoover were genuinely nice friendly guys, but totally unsuited to the presidency, at least during any serious crisis (though I still think Carters CIA submarined him as routinely, if less lethally, as they did JFK and LBJ.)

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Reply to message

No voter fraud Mr. Holder? I beg to differ.....

Anonymous2000 - 09/04/2012 07:13:46 PM 660 Views

The irony of a Republican-leaning person pointing this out...

*NM* Larry - 09/04/2012 08:37:33 PM 153 Views

Why is it ironic? Isaac - 09/04/2012 09:54:10 PM 411 Views

The irony is merely that of the pot and the kettle Larry - 10/04/2012 01:05:39 AM 305 Views

If you are referring to FL in 2000.....those machines were bought by Dems..... Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 01:17:26 AM 295 Views

Was thinking more about Ohio to be honest Larry - 10/04/2012 01:22:55 AM 305 Views

Intentional Voting Suppression is what they are trying to do in Florida right now(due to a 2011 law) Roland00 - 10/04/2012 04:22:25 AM 451 Views

Honestly, I'm fine with convicted felons permanently losing their right to vote..... Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 04:34:31 AM 286 Views

I am also fine with stupid people not being allowed to vote Roland00 - 10/04/2012 04:36:20 AM 250 Views

Agreed - stupid people should not be allowed to vote, maybe an IQ test? Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 05:17:43 AM 253 Views

Also the poor should not be allowed to vote Roland00 - 10/04/2012 10:13:27 PM 253 Views

Hey, to jump in here. callandor1000 - 18/04/2012 04:12:15 AM 250 Views

I don't know about permanently... LadyLorraine - 10/04/2012 02:10:10 PM 272 Views

Who is talking about letting felons vote in prison? Joel - 10/04/2012 02:24:29 PM 350 Views

The League of Women Voters, for one Isaac - 10/04/2012 08:50:39 PM 273 Views

Well, that is simply ridiculous then, and merits no consideration. Joel - 10/04/2012 11:53:04 PM 358 Views

To play Devil's Advocate, there's some legitimacy to the concept Isaac - 11/04/2012 04:24:37 AM 321 Views

Sounds like people deliberately missing the point more than anything. Joel - 11/04/2012 07:45:40 AM 344 Views

Ohio? When? *NM* Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 04:30:29 AM 103 Views

2008. Larry - 10/04/2012 04:37:15 AM 249 Views

Once again, Dems were running those polls and counties. Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 05:19:14 AM 225 Views

they were not in 2004 and still had vote supression and irregularities moondog - 10/04/2012 04:44:36 PM 260 Views

I think you've got your facts wrong Isaac - 10/04/2012 09:00:55 PM 269 Views

well, to be fair, it *has* been 8 years

moondog - 11/04/2012 03:49:17 AM 349 Views

Fair Enough, my 'memory' is mostly google based on this anyway, from about a year ago and now Isaac - 11/04/2012 04:00:57 AM 325 Views

Stating something doesn't make it true Isaac - 10/04/2012 04:10:33 AM 319 Views

I'm impressed that you wrote so much in reply Larry - 10/04/2012 04:36:02 AM 274 Views

Then demonstrate that by having the courtesy to rebut it or withdraw your remarks Isaac - 10/04/2012 06:30:52 AM 330 Views

How long voting takes is a function of machines, not voters. Joel - 10/04/2012 02:08:39 PM 345 Views

It's a function of various factors, that can certainly be one Isaac - 10/04/2012 08:12:08 PM 294 Views

Ohio in 2004 was hinky enough to prompt the only Congressional challenge since 1876s Corrupt Bargain Joel - 10/04/2012 11:36:52 PM 416 Views

I know it's a bit pot/kettle but dude... stay on topic Isaac - 11/04/2012 01:34:26 AM 320 Views

I LOST PORKINS!

Joel - 11/04/2012 07:26:41 AM 336 Views

The fact that it's possible doesn't mean it's widespread, nor that every countermeasure is justified *NM* Tim - 10/04/2012 11:57:16 AM 119 Views

As long as people need not purchase their voting requirements, voter IDs are fine by me. Joel - 10/04/2012 12:53:35 PM 356 Views

It's frightening when I agree with you. Tom - 10/04/2012 02:52:23 PM 273 Views

Law of averages, maybe.

Joel - 10/04/2012 04:44:55 PM 389 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="249253">
<quote id="249246"><quote id="249221">I would love to hear the legal rationale for that suit, since it has always been taken for granted that committing a felony usually forfeits the right to vote in US elections.  Unless they are arguing against that principle, it is hard to see how the suit can have any merit.</quote>
The specific legal rationale is that Cali law prohibits felons currently in prison or on parole from voting, many are being transfered to county jails, which aren't prisons, and obviously jails have typically allowed voting... there was flap about that in Cook County in 2010, people freaking out because absentees were being given to people there, forgetting that jail usually is where people go prior to being convicted of anything... anyway there are a lot of state's that have fairly explicit language about that matter just to prevent denying people awaiting trial or sleeping off a misdemeanor being disenfranchised, especially against fears someone might lock a bunch of people up on election day. It's got about a snowball's chance but this is Cali we're talking about.</quote>
Like the allegations disenfranchising felons is racial prejudice, they are bypassing a problem they cannot solve to address one that does not exist:  The problem there is overcrowded prisons, which might be an issue of draconian law enforcement, widespread crime, or a combination of those and/or other factors.  It is not that disenfranchising convicted felons throughout their sentence suddenly becomes wrong simply because of where they happen to be at the time.  Sounds like a poorly written law easily corrected by changing the language to bar voting by convicted felons while serving their sentence, while just as specifically preserving the voting rights of those NOT convicted of anything and/or who have completed their sentence and regained their voting rights.

I just fail to see what would possess anyone to pursue something like this unless they genuinely feel felons should be able to vote during their sentence, in which case I can only say:  1) Good luck and 2) why does it bother you so much more now than it did two years ago?

<quote id="249246"><quote id="249221">Which is a decent argument—that the LEGAL (not electoral) system is racially biased.  Responding to that by altering election law rather misses the point, at the expense of restoring voting rights to many rightfully incarcerated felons who have no business voting.  Given the popularity referenda substituting democracy for republicanism, that is ill-advised, since even in a strictly republican system it could result in felons retroactively exonerating themselves by electing representatives who repeal laws against their crimes.  "When outlaws have votes, nothing will be outlawed," or something. :P</quote>

<quote id="249246"><quote id="249221">Last I heard, FL was getting hit over claims of racism for wanting it to be permanent, again, even for people who committed their crimes in other states that have since restored their voting rights.  In other words, if you robbed a liquor store in VA 25 years ago, VA may have forgiven you, but FL NEVER will.  Florida also got in trouble in 2004 for mass registration purges immediately before the election, not only because of the draconian nature of their laws, but because the purges incidentally and erroneously affected many non-felons.  The case that stuck in my mind was a US Congresswoman denied the right to vote because she had been purged from the registrar on the grounds she was a felon.</quote>
If I remember FL's situation correctly the governor wanted to re-institute the five year after rule they used to have until about a decade, and have a 200 word essay as opposed to a 1 page application (yeah 200 not 2,000, half a page) that's from memory so grain of salt and all.</quote>
That would be reasonable, at least if they do not make people who have already been through the appropriate process in another state submit to theirs on movingn to FL.  A person should not have to re-apply for permission to vote every time they move to another state (in fact, it seems to contradict at least the spirit, if not letter, of the Constitutional requirement states respect each others laws.)

<quote id="249246"><quote id="249221">That, in so many ways, may be the core problem with government in modern America (among other places, e.g. Greece:<i></i>)  We expect government to serve us, but also expect it at no cost, because we are entitled to its services as taxpayers.  That logic is only practical to the extent we actually ARE taxpayers.  Or to quote a line popular at Mission Control since before I was born, "when 200 miles in the air at 30,000 mph, remember:  You're doing it on lowest bid.... (8"</quote>
Yeah, lowest bid jokes... the other one we did a lot in the Army was to joke on how our stuff was made by the blind, Skil-Craft and all, not that they don't provide perfectly quality stuff but the jokes are generic and don't have to make sense. Well it's certainly true you get what you pay for, except when you don't even get that because you got scammed, and the gov't has a crap history on both fronts and the voters have generally been partially responsible for a lot of that, though any candidate who ever made the mistake of pointing to the truism that in a democracy you've only yourselves to blame would be out on their ass in a heartbeat.

This is why I'm increasingly demarchist, rule by jury basically, I think we need a lot more done at the democratic level but we can't get into depth for everyone and so we should assemble panels of random persons to dip a bit deeper into stuff, not criminal just efficiency and such, I think we'd see less scapegoats that way at least. You know, grab a dozen random persons to look into something like how we do school lunch funds and let both sides present a case and if they can pick something 10-2 or better, just roll with it.</quote>
But there is that other joke about how, as dumb as "the average man" is, half of them are, by definition, dumber than THAT.  On the other hand, popularity contests rarely ensure the most honest, competent or otherwise effective person gets the job (else President McCain would have succeeded President Gore in 2008, assuming President Clinton managed to defeat President Bush in '92, which is debatable.)

I like elected representation, I just wish policy received far more attention and personality far less.  LBJ and Truman were foul-mouthed SOBs, and the former regulary conducted Cabinet meetings on the White House toilet, but they got the job done.  Carter and Hoover were genuinely nice friendly guys, but totally unsuited to the presidency, at least during any serious crisis (though I still think Carters CIA submarined him as routinely, if less lethally, as they did JFK and LBJ.)
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password