Millions of Americans whose past felony convictions forbid them from casting ballots may regain voting rights under a bill introduced this week in Congress.
The Democracy Restoration Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), would allow all former inmates to vote in elections for federal offices. Currently, the bill notes, nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting. Three-fourths of them are finished serving their sentences and would have their voting rights restored if the bill becomes law.
“Disenfranchising citizens who have been convicted of a criminal offense and who are living and working in the community serves no compelling State interest and hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into society,” Conyers writes in the bill. He adds: “The United States is the only Western democracy that permits the permanent denial of voting rights for individuals with felony convictions.”
The bill would not apply to elections for local and state offices. Currently, only Maine and Vermont do not restrict current or former inmates from voting, 35 states ban former inmates who are on parole from voting, 31 ban them while on felony probation, and 11 mandate lifetime voting bans in some cases, according to the bill.
The legislation would end a ban that disproportionately affects black Americans, who face disenfranchisement at four times the rate of non-black citizens.
Interesting. Now I get it. I never figured out why anyone who had repaid his or her debt to society wouldn’t be allowed to vote. I didn’t see the connection. It took the Huffington Post to enlighten me. This practice controls voters, in particular, black voters.
Governor Robert McDonnell initiated restoration of voting rights while he was in office and Governor Terry McAuliffe has continued this initiative to reinstate voting rights in Virginia. Those who have been convicted of non-violent crimes were immediate eligible to vote automatically once “off paper.” Those with a violent conviction have to wait 3 years and apply for reinstatement. That is a step in the right direction.
Barring the desire by some groups to restrict the voting rights of some Americans, there is simply no reason to prevent anyone who has committed a crime at the felony level from voting once they are no longer incarcerated. The Democracy Restoration Act of 2015 should be passed immediately. It is simply wrong to disenfranchise any group of people who are no longer in prison. It denies former inmates their constitutional rights. There is no connection between voting and crime. Disenfranchisement is purely punitive.
I am sure that this concern for the voting rights of convicted felons has nothing to do with the fact that they tend overwhelmingly (>70%) to support Democrats. I saw an analysis that concluded that felons would have swung Florida to Al Gore in 2000 if they were allowed to vote.
When Cummings also wants ex-felons to have ALL of their rights back, then I’ll believe this is to help them vs help the Democratic party.
say what you mean, Cargo.
That would have been ok by me!!!
Actually I have heard just the opposite. My resident expert on such matters tells me just the opposite. Maybe he meant just white convicts. I didn’t break down the comment by race, but then again, I hadn’t thought of that component of the question.
I think voting one party or the other is a mighty sorry reason to deny voting rights to any group of people, whether former felons or immigrants.
Of course felons should automatically get the right to vote back. I mean if there’s anything that will make this country better it’s more criminals voting. But why stop there, felons should be allowed to vote while they are in prison.
The reason felons are banned from voting is that they have shown themselves to be poor citizens. How can you expect them to make decisions in for the common good when they have already shown they are unwilling to obey the law?
I’m OK with selectively restoring voting rights to felons who apply for it and can show they have changed their ways. But an automatic restoration of voting rights for all felons is both stupid and dangerous.
I dont see why it is stupid and dangerous. How does voting relate to crime?
If we went along with your way of thinking then everyone who ever broke the law should just get executed and be done with it.
What is wrong with people serving their time and getting a clean slate?
Plenty of folks also show themselves to be poor citizens by committing serial misdemeanors.
Wow, if we are going to throw stones let me toss two:
— anyone who filed for bankruptcy shouldn’t get voting rights or the ability to donate to a candidate. We just don’t need people with poor financial skills from engaging in political speech. (That should eliminate half of all campaign spending)
— Anyone with a divorce on their record–Same deal. If you made a mistake in love you clearly aren’t suited to choose elected officials. (That eliminates most of Congress.)
If we start judging who is and isn’t “good enough” to vote it will be discrimination city. What about all those demented patients at assisted living facilities that vote?
It is not a good plan to have government workers decide which citizens are responsible enough to vote whether they should keep their jobs. Small government is the goal, right?
I’m willing to prohibit sending absentee ballots to the jail but otherwise all citizens should be free to vote.
Totally agree, Ed. It has nothing to do with race, in my case.
How about those who have had tickets….ever. Lets keep them from voting too. 🙄
Everyone tries to turn this into a racial issue, but state laws that banned felons from voting pre-dated the the disproportionate rate of minority convictions. If I am not mistaken, the states implemented these constitutional amendments in the early to mid 1800s.
I do not necessarily see the rationale for allowing felons to vote after they get out of the slammer. In general, their crimes indicate poor judgement and disdain for his fellow man. I am not sure that someone who has stolen, injured, killed, assaulted, threatened, swindled or otherwise committed a crime against another citizen should ever have the opportunity to cancel out the victim’s vote.
This bill passes, and one of those allowed to vote again may be Mrs. Conyers.
That would be fine. What did Mrs. Conyers do to land in federal prison?
Why do you feel she should never be allowed to vote again?
Take that back. According to the map, it seems Mrs. Conyers could vote again once she was released from the federal slammer in 2009.
@Ed Myers & Moon-howler
Ah, reductio ad absurdum. The last refuge of the losing argument.
Just because I do not favor automatically restoring voting rights to criminals who have broken societies most serious laws such as murder, you think I favor all your crazy examples from posts 6 & 7? Is your moral compass so truly broken that you can’t distinguish between violent crimes and speeding tickets?
Felons are people who have broken the most serious laws society has. In general, they have disregarded the most basic rules of society and cannot be trusted to vote in the best interests of society. Some felons may have genuinely changed their ways, which is why there should be a process where felons can apply to have their voting rights restored. But just because a felon has been released from prison does not mean they deserve a “clean slate”.
Since you want to play the reductio ad absurdum game, I assume you’d be perfectly OK with a convicted child molester being hired as a school teacher as soon as they are released. After all, they served their time and deserve a clean slate, right?
So if you favor restoring the vote to felons automatically, what is your rationale for taking it away while they are in prison? Voter turnout should be great, since they don’t have much to do. Just think, we can have big campaign rallies in the prison yard. “You give me four more years, I’ll give you four fewer years” the candidate promises.
But I’ll stop playing your silly game and get back to reality. I’d argue that many crimes that are currently felonies should be downgraded to misdemeanors so that there are fewer felons. But automatically restoring voting rights to unrepentant criminals IS dangerous and stupid.
Well, that was quite a diatribe, Furby. Not all felons are convicted of violent crimes. Some are white collar crimes, some are drug crimes, often for repeat offenders for something as benign as smoking weed. You have failed to convince me that having a felony conviction has one damn thing to do with voting.
To suggest that I ever want child molesters out of jail is absurd. Why can’t people vote in jail? Basically logistics. While incarcerated, you have lost your liberties. After you are out, you should have no loss of liberty. If you screw up, you go back. That’s pretty simple. However, to take away civil rights on a permanent basis ….I have a problem with that, especially an issue that has no cause/effect.
I am not willing to by the danger or the stupid part of your argument. Do you think that crime is worse in those two states that automatically restore rights? I would say it is probably less than in Virginia.
I don’t have a rationale for taking anyone’s vote away, but if it is considered part of the punishment of incarceration that is at least reasonable. I’m more inclined to allow all prisoners to vote. Yes, they should be able to vote for the candidate who promises to repeal 3-strikes- and-you-are-out laws.
Once someone has completed their sentence I don’t believe we should keep punishing them. If someone robbed a liquor store that doesn’t mean that once released from jail they can’t go into a liquor store ever again. For high recidivism crimes like child abuse it may be reasonable to place criminals in half-way houses near the end of their sentence to help them learn impulse control and teach them how to avoid future criminal behavior. The half-way house would restrict contact with kids, for example. But once the sentence is over they should be free. A sentence for child sexual abuse might be 10 years in jail and 20 years in probation so long restrictions on certain freedoms are part of the sentence.
What is wrong with hiring a previously convicted sex offender as a school teacher? (Say a 18 y.o. who got his 15 y.o. girlfriend pregnant or one who shared her nude pixs with his high school friends after she cruelly dumped him.) The ad absurdum is the number and breath of laws that are felonies. But there is no politician who wins being soft on crime so I don’t expect reform in the classification of crimes to ever happen. Nice deflective try though.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Ferguson, laws are often used to mistreat the vulnerable. The poor people are abused. Since the poor are also generally darker skinned it gives this effort a racial component, too.
Once you start down the path of government deciding subjectively who is fit to vote, you end up on the low road. There is nothing dangerous or stupid about allowing everyone to vote unless you have contempt for the majority and want to circumvent their wishes by eliminating the vote from as many as you can who you assume would not vote your way.
Recidivism is very high among sex offenders, especially child sex offenders. Anyone in law enforcement or the psychiatrics of this disease will tell you that its very difficult to cure. Bear in mind that prison offers very little rehabilitation. It houses those we want to remove from society. I wouldn’t hire someone with sex offender on their rap sheet for any amount of money just to be honest. I especially wouldn’t hire them to be around kids.
I don’t believe that people convicted of statutory rape should be labeled sex offenders. Your example is simply vindictive parents. I would remove those charges from the sex offenders list. that is an abuse of the sex offenders list and furthermore, without other charges really, in my opinion, isn’t sex abuse if it is consensual sex. Now…if you get great differences in age, then that’s another story. Someone 35 with a 15 year old is …just wrong.
I don’t think adults with pre-pubescent teen fetishes should be middle school teachers either. Judges should put job restrictions into post-jail probation and give long probation for these sexual predators or the option for castration in exchange for shorter sentences.
But once a criminal is done with the criminal justice system (including probation or parole) they should be redeemed and free.
There are already restrictions on the types of jobs people can take if they are felons. Also, probation is pretty standard for people convicted after 1995.
I agree that once a criminal has finished serving time, that should be the end of it, except for sexual predator crimes. Basically, I don’t think they should be turned lose. I don’t mean the people who were 18 and had consensual sex with a 16 year old. I mean real sexual predators.
I hope she learned her lesson. I would like to think that there were level one security prisons for women.
Prison is never a picnic, according to my sources. There are some pretty bad dudes in there, even at low security prisons.
I wouldn’t want to think that Bob McDonnell went to Mecklenburg. I don’t think he should serve time anyway though.
@Moon-howler
Let’s start with where we agree. We both agree that there are people in prison for crimes that really shouldn’t be felonies. We also agree that at least some felons should have their voting rights restored after they reenter society.
Where we disagree: That all felons, including unrepentant repeat offenders should have their voting rights automatically restored.
Some felons are people who made mistakes, paid a high price and learned their lesson. They should have their voting rights restored.
Some felons are morally defective people who will only have a negative impact on society by voting. These people should not be allowed to vote as they have demonstrated they are unable or unwilling to abide by the most serious rules we have as a society. If you are unwilling to obey our most basic laws, why should you have the right to participate in the making of those laws?
So you implement a screening process as most states have done so that voting rights can be restored to those felons that have reformed and can contribute to society again. But society is protected from unreformed felons.
It is dangerous to society for unreformed felons to vote, because they will support positions that are to the detriment of society. Worse, allowing large numbers of felons to vote creates a special interest group that is against the very basic foundations of society. Simply put, unreformed felons are not capable of participating in the democratic process because they are ineligible to vote. They are ineligible to vote because unreformed felons are not capable of participating in the democratic process.
Many states restrict the legally insane from voting for the same reason, particularly people who were found not guilty of a crime because of insanity. They just aren’t capable of making rational voting decisions. Same with children. Their might be some smart kids that would be capable of voting at 16, but as a rule they aren’t capable to vote and are excluded from doing so. It’s not a punishment or a political thing. It’s a measure to protect society from people whose votes would bee dangerous. Maybe not so dangerous that they need to be locked up (to be clear, I’m talking about felons now, not kids), but still dangerous.
It’s even the same with gun ownership. I disagree with the NRA and other groups that support gun ownership for felons. There are certain rights you forfeit by being convicted of a felony. Gun ownership is one. Voting, for the worst of felons, is another.
I have no idea what percentage of felons should have their voting rights restored. I don’t know the details. But I know some certainly should and some certainly should not. That seems a lot more reasonable than restoring them for everybody.
I don’t believe that unrepentant felons should be out of prison. There is the difference in our views.
I am not so sure many felons should not have their gun rights restored either. Those who are still thugs don’t care about laws. They will have a gun the afternoon they get out of prison. Those who want to change are the ones being penalized. I think it is a semi toothless law. Maybe a partial plate, as it were.
I also don’t think I am soft on crime. I am a big supporter of the death penalty. I hate the prison system. It is inhumane and creates more problems than it solves. Personal space is a bigger problem than being locked up.
In particular I hate the drug incarcerations–not for king pins but for personal use…that’s absurd. That’s where there are a lot of felony lock ups.
I think it is too time consuming, difficult and costly to implement the screening process and it sets a bad precedent for screening others that are not criminals but deemed deficient for some reason from voting. I’ll stipulate that there is a finite but tiny percentage of criminals that don’t deserve to vote. I also don’t think any of them are out of prison. I don’t think it is worth it to mess around with voting right to keep that tiny percentage from voting. The K.I.S.S. principle argues for allowing all felons to vote because that is the simplest solution that has the least bad effect.
@Moon-howler
We might agree that the prison system shouldn’t let unrepentant felons out of prison. But it does. Every single day. Conyers wants those unrepentant felons to automatically have their voting rights restored. I think it should be selective.
As I’ve aged, I’ve become more reluctant about the death penalty. Too many people wrongly convicted for my comfort. I’m not advocating abolishing it. Just that it should be used rarely and where the evidence is overwhelming. Timothy McVeigh type cases, not run of the mill murder cases. Not even OJ Simpson. One of the Carolinas, can’t remember if its North or South, has a state funded independent group that reviews the cases of everyone on death row looking for errors. Virginia should do the same. If we are going to execute people, let’s do only when we are absolutely sure of the person’s guilt.
I do give the military a freer hand in death penalty cases because often times they are dealing in matters of live and death. I know they aren’t, but it wouldn’t bother me if the Army tried to get a death sentence for Bergdahl. He deserted in time of war and soldiers died because of it.
I think the standard for deciding to executing people should be very high. I don’t disagree. I want DNA evidence if possible. I would probably include OJ in my death penalty list however. That killing was evil and brutal. I don’t mind an independent group as long as it was only people who believed that the death penalty should be applied for some people.
I don’t know enough details of the Bergdahl case to have an opinion. Maybe, as more is revealed, that may change. I believe one of his charges does carry either death penalty or life in prison.
I don’t think any punishment should go on after release, once probation has been satisfied.
It would be interesting to see how many people, if given the opportunity, would vote. I generally want more people to vote rather than fewer.