SCOTUS and felony disenfranchisement laws: will this be readdressed?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All well and good, but as far as US law in concerned, treaties are subordinate to the Constitution, which the US takes pains to point out every time it signs and ratify a treaty. The 14th Amendment explicitly allows States to deny the franchise to those convicted of a crime.

We're not gonna get rid of felon disenfranchisement save on a State by State basis, some sort of carrot and stick approach by the Federal government to induce the States to change their laws, a partial repeal of felon disenfranchisement for Federal elections only (Oregon v. Mitchell narrowly held that Congress can set requirements for voting in Federal elections that are broader than what the States have chosen for non-Federal elections, but cannot set requirements for non-Federal elections) , or a Constitutional amendment.

In other words, we're not getting rid of felon disenfranchisement anytime soon.

(As a side note, I disagree with Oregon v. Mitchell, but it is current law, so I have no objection to option 3 above, tho I'd definitely prefer option 4.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The 14th Amendment explicitly allows States to deny the franchise to those convicted of a crime.

Shouldn't that differentiate between those currently in jail and those who have finished their sentence and are now out of prison? Or is that kind of disenfranchisement for life seriously allowed?

The relevant clause in the 14th allows the right of voting to be abridged "for participation in rebellion, or other crime".  Technically, the States could abridge the voting rights of speeders and litterbugs if they wished.  I can see it now.  Buckle up or lose the vote!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Okay but seriously, say a Democrat wins the 2016 Presidential election and both Scalia and Kennedy retire sometime in 2013-2016 2017-2020 with that Democrat appointing their replacements: couldn't this 'new' SCOTUS revisit state felony disenfranchisement laws, at least the legal practice of disenfranchisement for life for those out of prison?

It's possible that they could revisit whether certain disenfranchisement laws were enacted to disenfranchise certain minority groups.  In that respect they might either stay or overturn such laws, but it would have to be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, not a blanket invalidation of felon disenfranchisement.  With the current constitution, I can't see any way for them to find felony disenfranchisement unconstitutional per se unless they decide to simply toss out the constitution and rule based on what they think is right despite the explicit language of the 14th.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see what makes this so explicitly clear with regards to the laws as they are with life-time bans (the main unique problem with felon disenfranchisement that's been increasing the number of people unable to vote over time).

It seems that it could be interpreted to abridged temporarily, i.e., only for the length of the jail/sentence time.

Considering there were thousands of ex-Confederates at the time who were being denied the vote because of their participation in rebellion, but were otherwise free to do as they wished, there's absolutely no way to make the argument that the provision is limited to only those felons currently in jail or on probation. I agree with your goal, but it goes against the plain meaning and history of the amendment.  This is not a problem the Supreme Court can fix.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see what makes this so explicitly clear with regards to the laws as they are with life-time bans (the main unique problem with felon disenfranchisement that's been increasing the number of people unable to vote over time).

It seems that it could be interpreted to abridged temporarily, i.e., only for the length of the jail/sentence time.

Considering there were thousands of ex-Confederates at the time who were being denied the vote because of their participation in rebellion, but were otherwise free to do as they wished, there's absolutely no way to make the argument that the provision is limited to only those felons currently in jail or on probation. I agree with your goal, but it goes against the plain meaning and history of the amendment.  This is not a problem the Supreme Court can fix.

Why can't the argument be made that it's now limited to that case? Why should things be so heavily weighted to the past that it prevents from helping and protecting in the present?

Not that it's fair to others to have gone through that with no justice or to say that they aren't as important but the context is different now and our interest is to correct mistakes instead of prolonging them, to right a current wrong the elected political establishment will not actively and thoroughly do by themselves for years and years after so many decades.

It sounds reasonable to me.

Because the right way to correct flaws in the constitution, especially when the flaw comes from the direct language of the constitution rather than merely an interpretation of the language, is to change the constitution, not to change the justices on the supreme court.  Yes it can be slow and at times frustrating to go that route.  But it is preferable.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not to right wrongs.  That's Congress' job.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The cure you propose is worse than the disease.  You would change us from having a government of laws to having a government of men.  Having a government of men is all well and good when we have good men in government, but such good is not sufficient to deal the evil caused when we have bad men in government.