SCOTUS and felony disenfranchisement laws: will this be readdressed? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 12:16:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  SCOTUS and felony disenfranchisement laws: will this be readdressed? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SCOTUS and felony disenfranchisement laws: will this be readdressed?  (Read 3711 times)
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« on: September 14, 2013, 04:22:22 AM »
« edited: September 14, 2013, 04:28:04 AM by greenforest32 »

How has this gone on for so long? Is the status quo actually going to remain as far as the courts are concerned?

----

http://prospect.org/article/ex-con-factor

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/felon-voting-rights_n_1924535.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2013, 05:56:32 PM »

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/10/shame-not-letting-convicted-felons-vote/7126/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_ICCPR%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Shadow%20Report.pdf

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2013, 07:43:52 PM »

The most recent floor vote in Congress on restoring felon voting rights (in federal elections) was in 2002:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000016

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2013, 02:49:35 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2013, 03:01:33 PM by greenforest32 »

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!

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?
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2013, 06:30:14 PM »

Quote
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.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2013, 08:12:29 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2013, 11:55:27 PM by greenforest32 »

Quote
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.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2013, 01:18:58 AM »

It should be more than just looking at it from right in terms of a specific sequential process while so many people are being affected callously. There has to be some basis to check these provisions against and Congress is missing in action from that job.

Constitutional amendment isn't happening, Congress nationalizing voter registration/etc to a uniform standard isn't happening, Congress inducing the states to change their felon disenfranchisement laws isn't happening (at least not with a GOP House or filibustering Senate), and states repealing it on their own will take decades at this rate. Meanwhile an increasing number of people, now measuring in the millions, are affected by these laws and essentially blocked from participating.

The states need a kick in the ass on this issue from the courts. The moral outrage from an expanded electorate would basically be confined to the racists and voter-suppressing hacks. This is disgraceful.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2013, 01:16:54 PM »

Really, I think it's too rigid to let a situation like this go on and on with soft support holding it up and it's not like we're talking about legal challenges to these laws in the context of the 1930s or the 1960s: it's the 2010s, there's much less public support for discriminatory policies compared to 50+ years ago though obviously still plenty enough with today's Republicans. I just assumed this issue would have been dealt with by now. The idea that all this will continue for another 20 or 40+ years is incredible. I was hoping there was something simple being overlooked but I guess I'll have the answer (or at least a clearer picture of what's going to happen) by the end of the decade. Too long.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.