Support NeoGAF

[Schattenjäger]

The article in the OP does a poor job of stating the facts and seems to just vilify him
Even huff post does a better job.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/matt-bevin-voting-rights_567ac72ee4b014efe0d7aaec

He wants it to be a legislative issue and not handled through executive branch .. It's written into the constitution and should be taken out so that it isn't at the mercy of party politics
I'd implore everyone to read the huff post article

Also from what I gather, ex felons can still get voting rights it's just not automatic

Lousy source in the OP

 

[Fergie]

Bevin campaigned on this

Highest Medicaid-dependent counties supported Bevin

That is... Quite incredible.

 

[Sushi Nao]

I'd imagine as a possible deterrent to not commit a felony

It's so they can't vote against exploitative racial profiling and discriminatory police tactics.

 

[Christopher]

It's so they can't vote against exploitative racial profiling and discriminatory police tactics.

Ok that's what must be going through these felons minds

 

[GnawtyDog]

You're ether not good at reading or... actually I give up.

It's okay. Hillary Gif's aren't understood either at gaming. Then they ask you to explain the damn joke - which obviously you have to refuse to do, cause, who explains their own jokes to some stranger (probably being thick for the sake of it) that doesn't get it?

 

[kaching]

He wants it to be a legislative issue and not handled through executive branch .. It's written into the constitution and should be taken out so that it isn't at the mercy of party politics
I'd implore everyone to read the huff post article

That doesn't explain what compelled him to rescind the executive order before there was legislation that could pass through KY's House and Senate to make it a permanent solution. If he's really in support of automatic restoration of voting rights, no reason not to keep the XO until the legislature can see eye-to-eye long enough to provide something more concrete.

 

[Slayven]

That doesn't explain what compelled him to rescind the executive order before there was legislation that could pass through KY's House and Senate to make it a permanent solution. If he's really in support of automatic restoration of voting rights, no reason not to keep the XO until the legislature can see eye-to-eye long enough to provide something more concrete.

The bible he was sworn in on wasn't even cold before he started his fuckery.

 

[ivysaur12]

Also from what I gather, ex felons can still get voting rights it's just not automatic

It's an arduous process.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 186,348
Rate: 5.97%

African American Disenfranchisement: 49,293
Rate: 23.70%

Kentucky, like Florida, has one of the most restrictive laws regarding the loss of
voting rights for a felony conviction and, like Florida, these laws have received
significant public attention since 2000. The Kentucky Constitution disenfranchises
all persons for life upon conviction for a felony offense. In 2001, the Kentucky
Legislature passed a bill to simplify the process of applying to the governor for rights
restoration. The new law requires the Department of Corrections to inform
individuals of their right to apply to the governor for the restoration of voting rights.
In addition, the Department is directed to collect information regarding all eligible
persons who have inquired about having their voting rights restored and to transmit
that list to the governor’s office.

In 2004, Governor Ernie Fletcher issued an executive order that reversed some of the
progress made toward easing the restoration process in 2001. The policy change
required all applicants to submit a formal written letter explaining why they believed
their voting rights should be restored in addition to three letters of personal
reference. Consequently, the numbers of people who had their rights restored under
the Fletcher administration declined relative to prior governors. This policy was
subsequently abolished in March 2008 by Governor Steve Beshear. The new policy
eliminates the requirements of a filing fee, personal statement, and letters of
reference. As of July 2008, Governor Beshear had restored rights to 790 people since
the policy change in March.

When she was a star basketball player at the
University of Kentucky, Tayna Fogle understood the
importance of voting. After receiving her degree in
1984 and becoming the recreational director at the
Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center in La
Grange, Fogle continued to take seriously her right to
vote. So after her conviction for a drug offense, a six-year incarceration and
drug treatment, she quickly sought the return of her voting rights.

“It took me 13 years to get my voting rights back,” said Fogle as she recalled
the painstaking pardon process required in Kentucky for voter restoration. At
the time Fogle regained her voting rights, Kentucky policy required citizens
with felony convictions to “jump through hoops” for the governor to even
consider a restoration application. Fogle jumped through the hoops, she said,
and received backing from a mayor, senator and officer of the court. In
September 2006, Fogle’s right to vote was finally granted. “I cried as I came
out of the voting booth,” she stated. “It was like my first Christmas.” Still,
reform is not moving as fast as she would like for others who are
disenfranchised. She believes automatic restoration upon completion of
sentence must be adopted as a Constitutional amendment, so she volunteers
in grassroots campaigns and voter registration drives in hopes of advancing
reform.

 

[Enzom21]

Ok that's what must be going through these felons minds

No that is what is going through the minds of people who are making sure felons don't have the right to vote.

How is not being able to vote a deterrent? Most people don't vote as it is, so do you really think a felon will think; "Better not commit this crime, won't be able to vote." Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Wilsongt]

Lowering the minimum wage seems the more malevolent act to me.

He's about to strip people of healthcare, also. He's just getting started.

 

[Schattenjäger]

That doesn't explain what compelled him to rescind the executive order before there was legislation that could pass through KY's House and Senate to make it a permanent solution. If he's really in support of automatic restoration of voting rights, no reason not to keep the XO until the legislature can see eye-to-eye long enough to provide something more concrete.

Well then why not ask why the previous governor waited 4 years to do it on his way out ?
He's following the constitution of the state which to him is more important

 

[ivysaur12]

Well then why not ask why the previous governor waited 4 years to do it on his way out ?
He's following the constitution of the state which to him is more important

I actually can't find any example in Kentucky's constitution of this:

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

Apr. 19, 1792 - Kentucky Constitution Is First among US States to Establish Criminal Disenfranchisement

Kentucky's state constitution is ratified. It states "Laws shall be made to exclude from... suffrage those who thereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib59.pdf

What it does say, or what I can find, is this:

Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years who has resided in the state one year, and in the county six months, and the precinct in which he offers to vote sixty days next preceding the election, shall be a voter in said precinct and not elsewhere but the following persons are excepted and shall not have the right to vote.

1. Persons convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of treason, or felony, or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the General Assembly may declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage, but persons hereby excluded may be restored to their civil rights by executive pardon.

2. Persons who, at the time of the election, are in confinement under the judgment of a court for some penal offense.

3. Idiots and insane persons.

I don't think what Beshear did was unconstitutional through the Kentucky constitution, since he's an "executive person". Obviously eliminating "felony" from this section as a constitutional amendment would be the right thing to do, but that already passed the Kentucky house (which Democrats controlled) and had been stalled in the Republican senate.

If Bevin was actually serious about this, he'd continue the executive order while also working with Republicans in the state senate to get the constitutional amendment passed and sent to be ratified.

 

[Kevin]

If the Republicans had their way, we would all be working for 20 cents an hour. They would probably still be complaining about it.

 

[Malyse]

If the Republicans had their way, we would all be working for 20 cents an hour. They would probably still be complaining about it.

Be reasonable.

No way they go as high as 20 cents.

 

[hypernima]

Pretty much why in that one thread about how whites are starting to feel the effects of conservative/republican actions I felt very little sympathy for them.

Serious? I would love to see that thread.

 

[Cynar]

Genuinely surprised to see this is a republican governor. This is democrat bullshit.

Ummm... Both of your parties are pretty bad but this vile shit is usually claimed by republican evangelicals.

 

[Schattenjäger]

I actually can't find any example in Kentucky's constitution of this:

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



http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib59.pdf

What it does say, or what I can find, is this:



I don't think what Beshear did was unconstitutional through the Kentucky constitution, since he's an "executive person". Obviously eliminating "felony" from this section as a constitutional amendment would be the right thing to do, but that already passed the Kentucky house (which Democrats controlled) and had been stalled in the Republican senate.

If Bevin was actually serious about this, he'd continue the executive order while also working with Republicans in the state senate to get the constitutional amendment passed and sent to be ratified.

I agree with your last statement
Let's see what happens

 

[ezrarh]

Why should someone lose the ability to vote simply because they have a criminal record?

Well, if they could vote, then the politicians would legalize crime to get their votes!

 

[jackissocool]

What's his plan for dealing with all the starving and homeless people that will inevitably arise when the wage rates trend to zero? Poverty leads to an increase in birth-rate, which means that supply of workers will increase as demand decreases. A worker will typically only find out whether the market thinks they needed to be born in the first place after they've already reached working age.

That's what he wants. The reserve army of labor. Large unempolyment is beneficial to capitalists because it means workers will accept lower wages.

 

[kaching]

Well then why not ask why the previous governor waited 4 years to do it on his way out ?

Because he's not the governor anymore. Because we're talking about the current governor's actions and how consistent they are with *his own* campaign pledges, not the previous guy's.

Status quo for Bevin entering office was an existing exec. order to restore voting rights to formerly incarcerated felons, regardless of how long the order had been in place before he got there. Given ivysaur's findings that there doesn't appear to be anything unconstitutional about the order, there really shouldn't be any reason for someone who claimed to support automatic rights restoration on the campaign trail to change that.

 

[BobTheFork]

I've never gotten how 'the market' decides on issues like employment. Jobs are kind of a life necessity. You could cut wages in half and what the hell would people do? They still need to try and work and get money to live. If you took away public water and charged $100 a gallon, yeah you'd be amazed at the high demand people still have for it.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I've never gotten how 'the market' decides on issues like employment. Jobs are kind of a life necessity. You could cut wages in half and what the hell would people do? They still need to try and work and get money to live. If you took away public water and charged $100 a gallon, yeah you'd be amazed at the high demand people still have for it.

Yep, it's all bullshit. Libertarian values don't hold up past a few seconds of thought.

Capitalism requires a portion of the people to be poor and unemployed. How is this something we all just accept as our system? Why do we think this is best for everyone?

People hear statements about "the market" and just believe in it, I guess because they assume other people are smarter about this stuff so it must be true.

 

[BobTheFork]

Yep, it's all bullshit. Libertarian values don't hold up past a few seconds of thought.

Somehow people hear it and just believe in it, I guess because they assume other people are smarter about this stuff so it must be true.

It's especially odd when it comes from Republicans as they seem hellbent on as few of their core voters getting higher education as possible.

 

[Late Flag]

I've never gotten how 'the market' decides on issues like employment. Jobs are kind of a life necessity. You could cut wages in half and what the hell would people do? They still need to try and work and get money to live. If you took away public water and charged $100 a gallon, yeah you'd be amazed at the high demand people still have for it.

Who is "you?" If you're talking about a single employer, sure, they could cut their wages in half. But all their halfway-decent workers would go elsewhere.

If you're talking about the government, sure, you could cut the minimum wage in half. It would no effect whatsoever on most workers, whose equilibrium wages are already well above the legal minimum anyway.

If you mean "employers as a group," there's no way for them to agree to cut wages in half. There's too much incentive for individual firms to raise their wages a little to poach good workers, and courts won't enforce written contracts of this nature.

 

[Sushi Nao]

Ok that's what must be going through these felons minds

So disenfranchising people isn't enough, we have to also dehumanize them as being incapable of understanding the political process?

Lots of felons are aware of public policy.

 

[GaimeGuy]

There's too much incentive for individual firms to raise their wages a little to poach good workers.

Then why do wages not match pace or outpace inflation? Why is peak employment in capitalism considered to be 97-98%?

 

[BobTheFork]

Who is "you?" If you're talking about a single employer, sure, they could cut their wages in half. But all their halfway-decent workers would go elsewhere.

If you're talking about the government, sure, you could cut the minimum wage in half. It would no effect whatsoever on most workers, whose equilibrium wages are already well above the legal minimum anyway.

If you mean "employers as a group," there's no way for them to agree to cut wages in half. There's too much incentive for individual firms to raise their wages a little to poach good workers, and courts won't enforce written contracts of this nature.

It doesn't matter who 'you' is..The point is that the market doesn't settle anything for what is a life necessity. How can it be argued that demand for a job is going to determine the pay when there will always be demand for work? I think the flaw is the reasoning, not the application.

 

[Late Flag]

Then why do wages not match pace or outpace inflation? Why is peak employment in capitalism considered to be 97-98%?

Because in any given month, some people are going to lose their jobs for cause, or voluntarily quit their job, or have their firm close down, or something similar. Those events take place in any normal, healthy, well-functioning economy. Not all employee-employer matches work out, and some firms will inevitably fail. That's life.

 

[Dai101]

Why the fuck are Americans so hung up this myopic hatred for social welfare that benefits anyone other than the people in their own racial or class grouping.

The "fuck you, got mine" mindset so prevalent in american society. Also known as pull your own bootstraps.

 

[Team Alucard]

Why the fuck are Americans so hung up this myopic hatred for social welfare that benefits anyone other than the people in their own racial or class grouping.

Because we are an unbelievably racist country.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Because in any given month, some people are going to lose their jobs for cause, or voluntarily quit their job, or have their firm close down, or something similar. Those events take place in any normal, healthy, well-functioning economy. Not all employee-employer matches work out, and some firms will inevitably fail. That's life.

But if there is such a demand for workers, shouldn't they be able to immediately find new work within the month? Keep in mind that 2-3% unemployed is people who are willing and able to work, but who are unable to find work.

That means that even at peak employment, between one out of every 50 and one out of every 34 people who want to work, and can work, are not being provided work.

There is a surplus of laborers, not on labor. There is adequate room to replace one laborer with another at a lower compensation rate. There is downward pressure on employee pay, not upwards pressure.

 

[BearFlexington]

While eliminating a felon's right to vote could make sense at face value, knowing how the criminal justice system has been used to enslave blacks and hispanics in this country (US), to me this seems like just another ploy to remove them from the democratic process, further marginalizing these groups.

That being said, I've never met a felon who gave two shits about voting.

 

[Link]

While eliminating a felon's right to vote could make sense at face value, knowing how the criminal justice system has been used to enslave blacks and hispanics in this country (US), to me this seems like just another ploy to remove them from the democratic process, further marginalizing these groups.

That being said, I've never met a felon who gave two shits about voting.

I can think of one:

 

[Late Flag]

But if there is such a demand for workers, shouldn't they be able to immediately find new work within the month? Keep in mind that 2-3% unemployed is people who are willing and able to work, but who are unable to find work.

That means that even at peak employment, between one out of every 50 and one out of every 34 people who want to work, and can work, are not being provided work.

There is a surplus of laborers, not on labor. There is adequate room to replace one laborer with another at a lower compensation rate. There is downward pressure on employee pay, not upwards pressure.

There's a demand for workers, but it's a mistake to think of :the" labor market as one big homogeneous market. For lots of people, losing their job (for whatever reason) is going to entail a few weeks of searching for a new one in something resembling their current line of work. As your occupation becomes more specialized, that search period gets longer and longer. That's why the standard advice for folks in professional occupations is to have several months of living expenses set aside in an emergency account.

I can use myself as an example here. I'm a college professor. Suppose my university shuts down tomorrow and I find myself unemployed. It is impossible for me to find work at this point until next August. That's a fairly extreme example, and I may or may not count as "unemployed" in the interim depending on how long my search takes, but you get the idea. People who are let go generally don't jump on the first opening they see at McDonalds, and we wouldn't expect them to do so in a healthy labor market.

 

[GnawtyDog]

I can think of one:

Never fails to shock.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Maine Gov. vows to veto ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/264401-maine-gov-vows-to-veto-obamacares-medicaid-expansion

"We have vetoed Medicaid expansion five times," LePage said in his weekly radio address, according to the Maine Public Broadcasting Network, "and we will veto it every time electioneering politicians try to bring it up.”

“Unfortunately, there are some politicians using a real addiction pandemic to push welfare expansion to score political points in an upcoming election year,” LePage spokeswoman Adrienne Bennett told the Lewiston Sun Journal. “The governor doesn’t play that game.”

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Maine Gov. vows to veto ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/264401-maine-gov-vows-to-veto-obamacares-medicaid-expansion

How on Earth did this guy get reelected with his bottom-of-the-barrel approval ratings in a blue state?

 

[Slayven]

Maine Gov. vows to veto ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/264401-maine-gov-vows-to-veto-obamacares-medicaid-expansion

Fuck helping people

 

[dabig2]

How on Earth did this guy get reelected with his bottom-of-the-barrel approval ratings in a blue state?

He won with only 38% of the vote. The independent and dem nominees split the rest of the vote at 36% and 19% respectively. Also, midterms.

I think it was literally the same story for 2010 as well. Dems really dropped the ball in Maine on both occasions and now people are going to suffer for it...again.