Support NeoGAF

[Squirrel Killer]

Perhaps there's no real proof but not being able to vote on policies that may be beneficial to you as a person such as local job creation and drug sentencing laws sure as hell ain't helping the recidivism rates.

That's a pretty big, tangential logical leap to support platocplx's statement.

 

[Frankfurter]

Sound good. Why wouldn't they be allowed to vote anyway?

 

[Dryk]

now give them back their 2nd amendment. they served their debt to society.

I can see an argument being made for that if they weren't violent criminals. But the ability to vote carries negligible risk so it's a lot safer to allow felons to have it.

 

[kess]

Tom DeLay can vote again!

 

[witchedwiz]

"...who have completed the terms of their sentence and their parole or probation..." -- Seems fair.

ehhh i mean op the thread is a clickbait..
given what's reported by wrens, it doesn't sound that bad..

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I can see an argument being made for that if they weren't violent criminals. But the ability to vote carries negligible risk so it's a lot safer to allow felons to have it.

Even if someone was an ex offender here in the UK they can still get a firearm license, there's no blanket ban on it depending on the details of what they did, though it doesn't help their case at all. I think felons should be able to apply to get their rights to own firearms back if they apply to a court and prove that they've truly changed their ways and have successfully reintegrated back into society, say after no convictions in 5+ years, have a job, etc. especially if non-violent. I enjoy the sport of target shooting sometimes (albeit with pellet/BB guns, I don't have a firearm license), so don't know if this biases me or not.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Most felons don't even give a fuck.

 

[SURGEdude]

Oh the irony at Republicans seeing this as a tactic to get Hillary voted in. Even if it wasn't the right thing to do they hardly have a leg to stand on when it comes to using their elected power to shape who is enfranchised or not. Their voter ID bullshit is likely part of the reason democrats are re-engaging this long term injustice. Should have been done long ago in states that have these BS rules but hey progress is progress.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Virginia stay winning.

 

[fantomena]

All felons, including those currently serving time in prison, should be permitted to vote.

America doesn't have this as law?

 

[siddx]

Nobody should be denied a vote. The fact this fuckery of a law still exists is a poorly hidden attempt to continue denying minorities the right to vote by filling up jails with young blacks and Hispanics.

 

[DrForester]

So do they have full voting rights? Will they be able to vote in the national election this November or is that a federal thing and this just limits them to state elections?

 

[robochimp]

How have laws stripping voting rights from felons not been thrown out by the Supreme Court?

Seems unconstitutional that states can just decide certain people can't vote anymore.

The ability for states to do this is actually in the constitution, the 14th amendment.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Nothing wrong with the idea in principle. But the timing of this is just shameful political maneuvering.

Right thing done for wrong reasons.

I'll go back to this really quick, but since laws like these exist to disenfranchise poor people and take their right to vote away from them, doesn't it just create a neutral situation, where revoking the ban for political reasons merely brings it back to zero?

 

[Htown]

So do they have full voting rights? Will they be able to vote in the national election this November or is that a federal thing and this just limits them to state elections?

The secret is that all elections are state elections. Even when you're voting for President, you're just voting for your state's electors.

Registration requirements are up to the states, with a few restrictions, so if Virginia says they have full voting rights they have full voting rights. Federal law basically only says "you can't deny someone the ability to vote because of X, Y, or Z". It doesn't really say who isn't allowed to vote.

In fact, the only reason non-citizens can't vote is that the states all individually banned them from doing it.

 

[SURGEdude]

The ability for states to do this is actually in the constitution, the 14th amendment.

Wouldn't it be possible to circumvent that by arguing to the SC the effect such a system has on the well documented unequal prosecution and sentencing of minority and poor people?

With a new court I could see them accepting that almost incontrovertible injustice as something akin to Jim Crow style skirting of voting rights.

 

[cameron]

AP: "Virginia GOP Lawmakers to Sue Over Felons' Voting Rights"

Republican lawmakers in Virginia will file a lawsuit challenging Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe's decision to allow more than 200,000 convicted felons to vote in November, GOP leaders said Monday.

Republicans said that they have hired an attorney and plan to contest the governor's executive order, which restored the rights of felons to vote, run for office and sit on a jury.

GOP lawmakers argue the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority with a clear political ploy designed to help his friend and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton get votes in the important swing state of Virginia this fall.

"Gov. McAuliffe's flagrant disregard for the Constitution of Virginia and the rule of must not go unchecked," Senate Republican Leader Thomas Norment said in a statement. He said McAuliffe's predecessors and previous attorneys general examined this issue and concluded Virginia's governor does not have the power to issue blanket restorations.

The governor's spokesman didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.

The governor's order enables every Virginia felon to vote, run for public office, serve on a jury and become a notary public if they have completed their sentence and finished any supervised release, parole or probation requirements as of April 22. The administration estimates this population to include about 206,000 people.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Fuck Republicans

 

[Orbis Tabula]

The Virginia GOP doesn't want felons voting for governor.

They just want a felon to be governor.

 

[Voost Kain]

All a part of the Liberal Marxis agenda to get Hillary elected.

 

[Bowdz]

AP: "Virginia GOP Lawmakers to Sue Over Felons' Voting Rights"

Everyone saw this coming. The GOP will do everything in its power to try and prevent expansions of voting rights considering how screwed they are as a party demographically.

 

[Link]

Fuck Republicans

Pretty much my motto at this point.

If anyone wants to give any sort of defense for voting for them, be my guest.

 

[Fried Food]

I see nothing wrong with this other than the fact that they couldn't vote already. They did their time.

 

[Voost Kain]

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

 

[XenoRaven]

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

Why do you think it's a bad thing?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

Well the idea is fundamentally that a government that is voted on by the people is one that the people can hold accountable. Theoretically, democracies lead to a society where the interests of the people are served because, if they're not, then they can vote out whoever is in charge.

 

[Poltergust]

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

Read:

The governor's order enables every Virginia felon to vote, run for public office, serve on a jury and become a notary public if they have completed their sentence and finished any supervised release, parole or probation requirements as of April 22. The administration estimates this population to include about 206,000 people.

They have finished their sentences to the fullest extent and are now free people.

 

[Link]

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

Because it's their right as citizens?

 

[stump sock]

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

because people can be reformed? because all people are fallible? because it should be a basic citizen right?

an alcoholic or drug offender who has served their sentence and gotten clean shouldn't be barred from voting for the rest of their lives?

I know the american justice system does a bang-up job of making criminals look like sub-humans because it makes it easier to justify denying them basic human rights, but this is silly.

 

[Effect]

Read:


They have finished their sentences to the fullest extent and are now free people.

This. Not allowing them to vote (which was their right before going to prison) is continued punishment after their sentences have been finished. They're suppose to be free and allowed to contribute to society. That should include all manners and the most direct, simpliest and overt way everyone can contribute is to vote. You can't keep punishing people after they've served their sentence.

I would like to see what the republicans reasoning for suing. It's going to be a complete BS and we know why they're suing but still would like to see what they come up with outside it's a political ploy when they have to present their case.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I would like to see what the republicans reasoning for suing. It's going to be a complete BS and we know why they're suing but still would like to see what they come up with outside it's a political ploy when they have to present their case.

From the update: "GOP lawmakers argue the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority." It just happens that the real reasons line up nicely with PR-friendly reasons.

I haven't delved too deep in to this topic, but in states that disenfranchise felons, typically the governor has a clemency power to restore voting right in individual cases. I imagine McAuliffe just used that power en mass and this action is within his power.

 

[DrForester]

AP: "Virginia GOP Lawmakers to Sue Over Felons' Voting Rights"

Be curiosity to see Cruz comment on this. For him being wrong in everything else, hasn't he been a proponent of judicial reforms?

 

[hiryu64]

AP: "Virginia GOP Lawmakers to Sue Over Felons' Voting Rights"

GOP lawmakers argue the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority with a clear political ploy designed to help his friend and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton get votes in the important swing state of Virginia this fall.

And there it is. Funny how defense of constitutional rights falls to the wayside as soon as it's perceived to be against their own interests.

I don't like usually taking sides, but why do people think that having felons vote is a good thing?

The systematic removal of rights and privileges, including voting rights, from felons reinforces a stigma that they (without exception) are inherently worthless people and perpetuates the suffering and hardship of an entire group of people by stuffing them into a permanent and inescapable underclass. It is effectively our society branding them and telling them that they are not wanted and that they can never earn their way back into society (a society that should have never condemned them to such a miserable existence in the first place).

They are assumed to be dumb, ignorant, depraved, and subhuman rather than troubled, flawed, and vulnerable, and this attitude further drives a wedge between them and the society that they would want to re-integrate into if only they were given the chance. In addition, due to the presumption of guilt (and let's be honest--innocent until proven guilty is a falsehood when it comes to perception), innocent lives are sacrificed to the god of retribution, doomed to pay the price for crimes they never committed by wearing a brand that they never should have been branded with in the first place.

There is much, much work that needs to be done to overhaul the US justice system, prison system, and perception of justice. This law is a small step, perhaps the first of many, toward moving away from a vengeful, retributive justice system that seeks to validate the existence of law-abiding citizens by placing law-breaking citizens beneath them and toward a more humane, rehabilitative system that utilizes compassion rather than petty attempts at superiority.

The subtext of your question is that (ex-)felons being given the right to vote is not a good thing, so--if I'm correct--I'd like to ask you why you feel that is the case. And if you make reference to this being a political ploy to get votes as the GOP suggests, then I would also like to ask you how you might feel in a hypothetical reality where the demographic trends were reversed--that is, if the perception were that felons overwhelmingly vote R instead of D. This should not be a partisan issue.

The Virginia GOP doesn't want felons voting for governor.

They just want a felon to be governor.

 

[_Ryo_]

My Gov just did some good work.

also

FUCK the GOP.

 

[GaimeGuy]

We know the real reason teh Rs oppose, but we also know the real reason Ds support.

Wrong. I don't support the ability for tourists to vote. I fully support the ability for all adults of sound mind who are citizens of the US or permanent residents or in the process of or have full intention of pursuing citizenship or permanent residence to participate in the political process and have a say in who runs this country. That is the fundamental principle of a democratic Republic.


If letting more Americans shape America happens to always hurt the Republican Party, I think the Republican party itself and all Americans should reflect on what that means about the content of their policies and whether or not they are actually acting in the best interests of this country and its people.

 

[MJPIA]

Press release.

http://www.williamjhowell.org/house...hallenge-mcauliffes-rights-restoration-order/

RICHMOND, VA – Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) and Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R-James City) Monday announced that House and Senate Republicans have retained attorney Charles J. Cooper to challenge Governor Terence R. McAuliffe’s (D) order restoring the civil rights of over 206,000 convicted felons. Mr. Cooper is a founding partner and chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC and a nationally recognized litigator and appellate attorney.

“Governor McAuliffe adopted an unprecedented view of executive authority and exceeded the powers granted to him by the Constitution of Virginia when he issued the order restoring the rights of more than 200,000 convicted felons,” said Speaker Howell. “It is the obligation of the legislative and judicial branches to serve as a check on overreaches of executive power. To that end, we are prepared to uphold the Constitution of Virginia and the rule of law by challenging Governor McAuliffe’s order in court.

“We have retained Attorney Charles J. Cooper to challenge the Governor’s order. Mr. Cooper is an experienced attorney with over 35 years of public and private practice experience. An Assistant Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, he has argued cases before the United States Supreme Court. The National Law Journal named Mr. Cooper one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington. He will immediately begin developing the best path to challenge the Governor’s action as quickly as possible. Our goal is to challenge this order and to win, and that means we must act with due diligence as we prepare to move forward. Taxpayer funds will not be used for this lawsuit.”

“Governor McAuliffe’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution of Virginia and the rule of must not go unchecked,” said Majority Leader Norment. “His predecessors and previous attorneys general examined this issue and consistently concluded Virginia’s governor does not have the power to issue blanket restorations. By doing so now with the acknowledged goal of affecting the November election, he has overstepped the bounds of his authority and the constitutional limits on executive powers.

“We have retained Mr. Cooper to examine the legal options to remedy this Washington-style overreach by the executive branch. Mr. Cooper is an extremely qualified attorney and we have every confidence he will proceed prudently, judiciously, and expeditiously.”

vs
http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Virginia-restores-voting-rights-of-200000-felons--376747671.html

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME – GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia requires that all those convicted of a felony be deprived of their civil right to vote unless they have their civil rights restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority; and

WHEREAS, it is estimated that approximately 206,000 Virginians are permanently disenfranchised from participating in political life due to prior felony convictions even after completing their court-ordered sentences; and

WHEREAS, such disenfranchisement disproportionately affects racial minorities and economically disadvantaged Virginians; and

WHEREAS, Virginians have increasingly advanced the ideals of equality of all races and peoples, while rejecting the indefinite and unforgiving stigmatization of persons who have committed past criminal acts; and

WHEREAS, the Governor is empowered by Article V, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia “to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction,” thus to restore the political rights of any persons disqualified by Article II, Section 1; and

WHEREAS, the power granted to the Governor under Article V, Section 12 to remove political disabilities is absolute and without any limitation not expressly stated within the Constitution of Virginia; and

WHEREAS, all individuals who have served the terms of their incarceration and any periods of supervised release deserve to re-enter society on fair and just terms, including to participate in the political and economic advancement of Virginia; and

WHEREAS, the restoration of civil rights has been noted to achieve substantial benefits for those individuals who have felt long-exiled from mainstream life; and
WHEREAS, democracy is strengthened by having more citizens involved in the political process;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Terence R. McAuliffe, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by and through the authority vested in me under Article V, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia, do hereby order the removal of the political disabilities consequent upon conviction of a felony imposed by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia from all those individuals who have, as of this 22nd day of April 2016, (1) completed their sentences of incarceration for any and all felony convictions; and (2) completed their sentences of supervised release, including probation and parole, for any and all felony convictions. The civil rights restored by this Order are: (1) the right to vote; (2) the right to hold public office; (3) the right to serve on a jury; and (4) the right to act as a notary public. Nothing in this Order restores the right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

I'm kinda curious to see how that lawyer spins his argument to say that McAuliffe's executive order goes against Virginia's constitution.

Section 12. Executive clemency.

The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.

He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.

I see nothing there about not being able to grant across the board pardons.

 

[Voost Kain]

because people can be reformed? because all people are fallible? because it should be a basic citizen right?

an alcoholic or drug offender who has served their sentence and gotten clean shouldn't be barred from voting for the rest of their lives?

I know the american justice system does a bang-up job of making criminals look like sub-humans because it makes it easier to justify denying them basic human rights, but this is silly.

Except they were in jail for being felons.

I don't see how they have the constitutional right to vote by violating state/federal constitutional law.

I mean if you were in jail for like mids, or maybe the felony was later downgraded or removed sure. But I mean these are felons.

Would you let a sexual offender who did things with 4 children vote?
Would you let a killer vote?
Would you let someone who smuggled drugs and messed up communities vote.
Would you elt someone who hospitalized his or her spouse vote?
Etc.

 

[Voost Kain]

Why do you think it's a bad thing?

I didin't say that.

 

[metalslimer]

Except they were in jail for being felons.

I don't see how they have the constitutional right to vote by violating state/federal constitutional law.

I mean if you were in jail for like mids, or maybe the felony was later downgraded or removed sure. But I mean these are felons.

Would you let a sexual offender who did things with 4 children vote?
Would you let a killer vote?
Would you let someone who smuggled drugs and messed up communities vote.
Would you elt someone who hospitalized his or her spouse vote?
Etc.

Yes I would let all of those people vote of they had finished their parole. I don't think I would go so far as to say people in prison should be given the right but we might as well just lock people up forever of they don't deserve their rights to be returned.

How do felons who have served their time voting negatively impact society?

 

[Damaniel]

Most felons don't even give a fuck.

That's no excuse to disenfranchise them. Add me to the list of 'everyone, even those in jail, should be allowed to vote' list. Those felons are still represented by their local politicians - why shouldn't they get a say?

Actually, this leads to the larger issue of segregating felons from society - the inability to get a job, rent an apartment or travel outside their state/country does nothing to reduce recidivism rates. The best way to reduce reoffending is to allow felons to rejoin society fully - also, if an individual is so likely to reoffend that they are a danger to society, then perhaps they shouldn't be released until they no longer are.

Yes I would let all of those people vote of they had finished their parole. I don't think I would go so far as to say people in prison should be given the right but we might as well just lock people up forever of they don't deserve their rights to be returned.

How do felons who have served their time voting negatively impact society?

There's a perception that felons will vote for Democrats (which makes sense; minorities are disproportionally represented in the prison population and the demographics lean toward Democratic support) - naturally, Republicans don't want that. It's never been about fairness to the GOP, it's about racism and their actions used to silence minority voices.

 

[stump sock]

Would you let a sexual offender who did things with 4 children vote?
Would you let a killer vote?
Would you let someone who smuggled drugs and messed up communities vote.
Would you elt someone who hospitalized his or her spouse vote?
Etc.

yeah, absolutely, if they've served their sentences. possibly even if they're still serving.

 

[Voost Kain]

Yes I would let all of those people vote of they had finished their parole. I don't think I would go so far as to say people in prison should be given the right but we might as well just lock people up forever of they don't deserve their rights to be returned.

How do felons who have served their time voting negatively impact society?

They can change elections and they also vote for who benefits them. Not all criminalswho finish are "rehabilitated" and most don't.

 

[Link]

They can change elections and they also vote for who benefits them. Not all criminalswho finish are "rehabilitated" and most don't.

Newsflash: Everyone votes for who benefits them.

I never got that argument. That's the entire point of voting.

 

[metalslimer]

They can change elections and they also vote for who benefits them. Not all criminalswho finish are "rehabilitated" and most don't.

So you're saying citizens of the country actually get a day in how their country is run?

*gasp* You are also forgetting their are hundreds of thousands of felons who were convicted on drug charges that were harsher than they currently are who have permanently lose the right to vote

 

[stump sock]

They can change elections and they also vote for who benefits them. Not all criminalswho finish are "rehabilitated" and most don't.

nobody votes altruistically. everybody votes for what benefits them. denying groups of people the right to vote makes elections LESS fair. it's not like letting a pedophile vote means that pedophilia will be legalized.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Except they were in jail for being felons.

I don't see how they have the constitutional right to vote by violating state/federal constitutional law.

I mean if you were in jail for like mids, or maybe the felony was later downgraded or removed sure. But I mean these are felons.

Would you let a sexual offender who did things with 4 children vote?
Would you let a killer vote?
Would you let someone who smuggled drugs and messed up communities vote.
Would you elt someone who hospitalized his or her spouse vote?
Etc.

Once they're out of jail, yes.

 

[Link]

nobody votes altruistically. everybody votes for what benefits them. denying groups of people the right to vote makes elections LESS fair. it's not like letting a pedophile vote means that pedophilia will be legalized.

Right? I'm not even sure what he's arguing. Are we going to start having "Pedophilia Freedom" bills up for vote or something?

 

[Voost Kain]

Newsflash: Everyone votes for who benefits them.

I never got that argument. That's the entire point of voting.

There's a difference between that and voting for someone who benefits you in committing crimes. Your type of view is why the system is corrupt on all levels in the first place.

 

[Voost Kain]

So you're saying citizens of the country actually get a day in how their country is run?

*gasp* You are also forgetting their are hundreds of thousands of felons who were convicted on drug charges that were harsher than they currently are who have permanently lose the right to vote

And I said above for the lesser of those you can move the conviction down below a felony.

There are also hundreds of thousands of felons who are like the ones I mentioned above.

 

[Link]

There's a difference between that and voting for someone who benefits you in committing crimes. Your type of view is why the system is corrupt on all levels in the first place.

Yeah, I'm done replying to you, as you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Though I should have known better when you started your argument with "I don't usually like taking sides, but..."