home

Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting Ban

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 01:45:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In 2000, Bush reportedly won the Florida election by 600 votes. Due to a law enacted in the 19th Century, felony offenders are permanently denied the right to vote, even those who have served their sentences.

There are 600,000 felons in Florida who have completed their sentences and supervision terms. One in 10 African American adults in Florida,not counting those currently incarcerated, is prohibited from voting.

The Supreme Court was presented with a chance to review the issue and today decided to let the ban remain in effect without any review. The case is Johnson v. Bush, 05-212.

"The court not only missed an opportunity to right a great historic injustice, it has shut the courthouse door in the face of hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised citizens," Catherine Weiss, the Brennan Center for Justice lawyer for the Florida ex-felons, said Monday.

Courts in other states have ruled for the ex-offenders:

Last year, justices left intact a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed current and former inmates to challenge as racially discriminatory a Washington state law stripping them of their right to vote. The high court also let stand a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the opposite direction, in the case of a convicted New York felon.

Iowa courts have upheld Gov. Tom Vilsack's executive order restoring voting rights to felony offenders who have served their sentences.

As TChris wrote here:

Voting is a right of citizenship. Voting fosters rehabilitation by allowing ex-offenders to feel a connection to others, to be woven into the social fabric.

Background on the Florida lawsuit is here. There are 5 million disenfranchised citizens in the U.S. who are being deprived of the right to vote because of felony convictions. Many are minorities. The Democrats should be backing these lawsuits 200%.

< Did Rover Roll Over? | Rep. John Conyers: Help Stop the Patriot Act Expansion >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting Ban | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    What could the logic be for this. Is seems cruel and unusual. Why not just tatoo ex-felons on their forehead if they can never pay for their crime, that would be more honest.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    1 in 10??? If that's not an indictment of a social system gone haywire, I don't know what is. Disgraceful, but to be expected from the land of stolen elections.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    If Florida wants to let felons vote, that's OK with me. I'd prefer to address the racial problem by scaling back felony drug convictions and raising visibility on cops, prosecutors, and judges who help penalize minorities more harshly than whites who commit the same crime. That said, the 14th Amendment argument doesn't hold water. The law is not race-neutral in effect, but I don't see how that could make it unconstitutional. If that's the standard, then any law which is violated by any group out of proportion to that group's population is unconstitutional. So felony crack cocaine laws are unconstitutional because they disproportionately affect blacks. Ditto on heroine and whites. Most serial killers are single white males, so those laws are biased. Racially-motived hate crimes are disproportionately commited by whites, so that can't be a felony. Heck, laws against violent felonies disproportionately affect males, so they're all right out. I'm lazily passing along some stereotypes here, btw, but so long as a few true non-trivial examples exist I think my point holds. ... Along another tangent, if states have the authority to bar felons from voting while in prison -- which nobody seems to doubt -- then they probably have the authority to bar them from voting after release.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Hey, if you want to vote, don't be a felon. Seems kind of simple to me but I'm sure there is some nuance I'm missing. F*ck them and thier complaints, they are convicted felons and deserve the odd punishment of not being able to vote. Afterall if people made such bad choices that got them put in prison in the first place why shoud I have confidence that they would make good choices in their political choices. Of course the Left needs votes where they can get them so I'm not surprised that they would embrace rapists, drug dealers, violent criminals in general or even the Enron felons looking for a constituancy. Seems rather pathetic to me.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    I live in Florida and don't get this life long ban on voting. Ok, while you are serving time in prison (not jail) I can see not allowing a felon to vote and MAYBE for a period of time while on probation, but for life? No way does this make since. Some kid with swipes a video game, digital camera, or whatever that is valued over $300 when he is 18. Does his sentence, which would probably be no more than probation anyway, and now he can not vote for the rest of his life? Bad plan Florida.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    I've read the case law and I understand the states' rights arguments on it, but I'm still left with one big question: if we, as a nation, consider ourselves so morally superior to other nations - even other democracies - and if the right to vote is the be all and end all of what this country is all about - WHY the hell DEMEAN the right to vote by denying it to ANYONE!!!??? Besides, why should one be punished for the rest of one's life, in such a petty way, for committing a crime and then paying one's debt to society? Lastly, I recall a few years ago (probably the Southern Poverty Law Center or something) a study of several thousand ex-felons and how they would have voted in a presidential election. I was surprised to find that most would have voted for the more conservative or Republican candidate instead of the more liberal or Democratic candidate. Frankly, I don't care WHO they vote for, so long as they are able to vote.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    It seems like we have this argument once a week or so. I'm unaware of every states law, but if they are like California, felons (How can you be an ex-felon?) lose the right to vote permanently. That IS part of their debt to society. However, every person can petition the court for that right to be reinstated. That is how I believe it should be. If you give it away freely, by making the decision to commit a felony, and get caught I might add, you should have to earn that right back. If you make them earn it, they will more than likely not want to lose it again, and perhaps be less likely to re-offend. IMO

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    So, let's take away yet another incentive to reintegrate back into society overwhelmingly young and stupid (and mostly male) felons and perpetuate a growing underclass of disenfranchised citizens. Yup, sounds like a well-thought out plan to me!

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    So, let's take away yet another incentive to reintegrate...
    Also known as an incentive not to commit felonies in the first place.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Roy: Sheer nonsense. NONE of my many clients ever had a clue that they were forgoing their right to vote by committing a felony. And, quite frankly, I doubt you did, until you read it here.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    NONE of my many clients ever had a clue that they were forgoing their right to vote by committing a felony.
    I remember learning it in grade school. Given the connection between poor education and crime, I guess it's not surprising that many don't know, so of course it won't discourage them from commiting crimes. Maybe if states publicize the rule. Still, I'm not sold that returning their vote automatically upon release or completion of parole is an incentive to reintegrate. It's a tool they can use to reintegrate, and it's an incentive not to reoffend, both of which are good things. But if you want an incentive to reintegrate, it should come after evidence of reintegration.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Still, I'm not sold that returning their vote automatically upon release or completion of parole is an incentive to reintegrate. It's a tool they can use to reintegrate, and it's an incentive not to reoffend, both of which are good things. But if you want an incentive to reintegrate, it should come after evidence of reintegration.
    Would you be willing to apply the same standard to people trying to vote in the first place? I know plenty of people who are in no way integrated with society yet are legally allowed to vote.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Jim Crow lives on in Florida. Jimcee vomits his unamerican boredom at unconstitutional disenfranchizement. Roy considers damaging our inalienable right to a chosen government no big deal. When did they EVER care about a black person's right to vote? Never.
    Even after they drove him to the toolhouse, and beat him on the head with their pistols, he refused to be scared, Milam said. So, of course, he and his half brother Roy had no choice. "What else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully, I never hurt a n*gger in my life...But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, n*ggers are gonna stay in their place. N*ggers ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did they'd control the government. They ain't gonna go to school with my kids...Me and my folks fought for this country, and we've got some rights." That was the reason, he said, that he had told Till, "I'm going to make an example of you." That was the reason why he and Bryant took the youth to the cotton gin, forced him to load the exhaust fan (which would be used to weight his body down) onto the truck, and then drove him to the bank of the Tallahatchie. That was the reason he shot him in the head. Caro, Master of the Senate, p. 762: recounting the Emmett Till lynching.


    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    If you pay taxes you should be able to vote. Period. Taxation without representation was one of the main grievances that lead to the American Revolution. Denying a taxpaying citizen the right to vote is un-American!

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    If you pay taxes you should be able to vote. Period.
    A little problematic, since it means some super-rich wouldn't be able to vote...

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    While a Felon is incarcerated I don't have a problem with suspension of his/her voting rights but once that "Debt To Society" has been paid as dictated by the Judicial system, all voting rights should be restored. Felons have to live under the same laws we do and should have some input into electing their Representatives in Government. I can not really think of any crime except maybe Treason that should allow for permanent forfeiture of voting rights.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Ernie,
    If you pay taxes you should be able to vote. Period.
    What about children paying sales tax, or non-citizens in the U.S. on work visas? Mar,
    A little problematic, since it means some super-rich wouldn't be able to vote...
    Ditto some super-poor.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    PiL, You got me. Being OK with disenfranchising convicted felons of all races, and suggesting the states have the authority to do so, is exactly like advocating lynching of innocent black children. My suggestion of making felony laws more fair, and enforcing them with less racial discrimination, is just a smokescreen. You've seen through my clever ruse. scar,
    Would you be willing to apply the same standard to people trying to vote in the first place? I know plenty of people who are in no way integrated with society yet are legally allowed to vote.
    No. I also don't support putting innocent people in prison, so if I'm being a hypocrit at least it's not limited to the voting issue. Besides, my point was simply that if you want the restored right to vote to be an incentive to reintegrate, the restoration shouldn't be automatic. If you want to restore the right to vote just because it's the right thing to do, then automatic restoration makes perfect sense.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    The opportunity to petition for reinstatement of voting rights seems fair to me.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#20)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Perhaps we can carve a generous exception for felonious thieves (larceny, embezzling, etc.), since voting in America is all about claiming others' property anyway. And rapists since, under Republicans, voting is about telling people who they can shag.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "You got me. Being OK with disenfranchising convicted felons of all races, and suggesting the states have the authority to do so, is exactly like advocating lynching of innocent black children." Pathetic, Roy. Here, read it again: "N*ggers ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did they'd control the government." Get it? Do you have to have it tattooed on your arm? "If you pay taxes you should be able to vote." "What about children paying sales tax, or non-citizens in the U.S. on work visas?" Children are not eligible to vote. They are represented by their parents. Non-citizens don't have US representation, or didn't you know that? They are represented by their diplomats. Just keep lying, roy. (For the record, the parenthetical in the Caro quote, which spoils the prose, if from me).

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Lavocat... NONE of my many clients ever had a clue that they were forgoing their right to vote by committing a felony This is something I learned early in school...although I'm not sure how old I was. In fact, I also learned at an early age that crime (especially felonies) was not a good thing.. something, apparently your clients also didn't learn? I do think that the right to vote should at least be something that is petitionable, however I also think criminals should have to repay their victims before they are considered having paid their debt to society. I think that would also make the potential criminal think twice... Of course the word needs to get out, preferably in grade school...

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    ...IS from me. Sheesh.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Posted by BB: 'In fact, I also learned at an early age that crime (especially felonies) was not a good thing.. something, apparently your clients also didn't learn?" Apparently AG Gonzales didn't learn it either, when he REFUSED to investigate AFFIDAVITS FROM ELECTION OFFICIALS who caught Triad Systems in Ohio changing out circuit boards of tabulators to be recounted across the state, felonies in every case. Or when they provided false totals to be reported, also felonies in every case. The same liar who claims we have impeachment rights under the rightwing coup also can't recognize the failure to prosecute felonies. He abets felonies. Felonies are just fine with him. Something, apparently your cronies also didn't learn?

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    OK, PiL is going back on my manual ignore list. The closest I've come to lying in this thread is to imply that he's worth debating. Somebody flag me down if he says something intelligent.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    The law, roy, is being applied to DEFEND JIM CROW. You, by claiming "Being OK with disenfranchising convicted felons of all races" somehow makes the grossly disproportionate disenfrachizement of BLACKS, for which these laws were originally passed, OK is either lying to yourself, or lying to us. Either way...

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    PiL, I did lie, when I said I'd ignore you. That was a silly knee-jerk response and I apologize. How do you feel about the law against murder? That law, as currently enforced, disproportionately affects blacks. Do you think we should get rid of the law because of the disproportionate affect? If not, why is the same reason sufficient to get rid of the law barring felons from voting?
    You, by claiming "Being OK with disenfranchising convicted felons of all races" somehow makes the grossly disproportionate disenfrachizement of BLACKS, for which these laws were originally passed, OK is either lying to yourself, or lying to us.
    One of us has serious language issues, because I can't even parse what statement I supposedly made. Go back and re-read the first paragraph I posted to this thread. He's my clarification. Notice A) we're basically on the same side, and B) I'm not contradicting myself: In the current circumstances, lifting the ban would be an improvement. Just not enough of one. We'll still be disproportionately tossing blacks in prison and executing them. Look at Texas; we automatically restore felons' rights after prison and parole. Still not exactly a paradise for minorities. If felony laws are fairly enforced, then the ban will cease to be a racial issue. If the felony laws are made fair and (I didn't think of this before) people who violated laws which are later made non-felonies get their rights restored, then it won't be an issue of huge numbers of people. Once we're there, I don't have a strong opinion on whether to automatically let the modest, racially-balanced number of felons vote. As for the law being a Jim Crow extension, I want to remove the Jim Crowness without necessarily removing the law. Hit me again, baby.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "I did lie, when I said I'd ignore you. That was a silly knee-jerk response and I apologize." That makes us even. roy: "How do you feel about the law against murder? That law, as currently enforced, disproportionately affects blacks." And? There is no right to murder in our Constitution, as Bushie may well find out sooner or later. There is a right to vote. That right to vote has been blocked by every means imaginable, and this disenfranchizement of ex-felons is just another piece of that same shameful patchwork to cover racism. "How many soap bubbles in a sink of soapy water?" and other vicious guffaw-inducing questions is pretty much gone. Now Florida uses a computer and a crooked company to disenfranchize tens of thousands of blacks. There is no reasonable disenfranchizement of felons who have paid the price of what we call justice. Shouldn't they just tattoo their arms, or put an F on their foreheads? Would that make the racists happy? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." (14th Amendment)

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    PiL,
    That right to vote has been blocked by every means imaginable, and this disenfranchizement of ex-felons is just another piece of that same shameful patchwork to cover racism.
    I mostly agree with that. Probably many rank-and-file conservatives think of it purely in terms of limiting crooks' influence, but the powers that be realize it's a tool for keeping the black man down.
    "There is no reasonable disenfranchizement of felons who have paid the price of what we call justice."
    OK, so we disagree on that point. You care and I don't.
    Shouldn't they just tattoo their arms, or put an F on their foreheads? Would that make the racists happy?
    This is your usual "he support punishing someone to some extent, therefore he support punishing them to an extreme extent" fallacy.
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." (14th Amendment)
    It's a powerful restriction on the government, but it's not absolute. We have a right to walk around freely, but states can abridge that right by throwing us in prison if we commit crimes. Doesn't violate the 14th, so long as due process is followed. Read Section 2 of the 14th. It's an arcane technicality describing some federal election hoodoo, but one point is that it's OK for states to abridge the right to vote for participation in crime. It doesn't literally override Section 1, but it tells you what was on the minds of the writers. Neither the 14th nor any other Article or Amendment in the U.S. Constitution establishes "paid his debt to society" as a cut-off. If you think it's legal to prevent felons from voting while they serve their sentences (I didn't ask earlier), why does that authority not extend past completion of the sentence?

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    "There is no reasonable disenfranchizement of felons who have paid the price of what we call justice." roy: "OK, so we disagree on that point. You care and I don't." What an impoverished view, how unamerican. I've been fighting for ethic equality in the United States my entire life, since I saw a Whites Only drinking fountain when I was six, and the Lord of the Flies when I was ten. You don't care about the rights of others? What a vulgar life you must lead. "Shouldn't they just tattoo their arms, or put an F on their foreheads? Would that make the racists happy? roy: This is your usual "he support punishing someone to some extent, therefore he support punishing them to an extreme extent" fallacy." What about lynching and terrorism to prevent voting don't you consider equivalent to the Scarlet Letter? You are suggesting that someone who commits any felony, say transporting a pound of marijuana, or perhaps an ounce in some states, should never be able to vote again? Because that is flatly ridiculous. "Doesn't violate the 14th, so long as due process is followed." Abridging priveleges and immunities is not some officious nonsense that 'due process' covers. Due process in an unconstitutional court is worthless, or tyranny. Disenfranchizement is the practice of discrimination, and discriminating in basic rights against people who have done their time in respect to that DUE PROCESS, should find their debt payed when they return to society. And as a bonus, this is Jim Crow, continued by whatever means. And on at least that, we agree.

    Re: Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting (none / 0) (#31)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    PiL, For brevity I can only respond to some of your points. Omissions are carefully calculated to make my argument appear stronger than it really is. And I'm about to commit my own favorite fallacy, assuming that you disagree with me only because I haven't explained myself well enough. Let's assume we can only make one massive sweeping change to Florida in the next couple years. That's not strictly true, but it would be easier than making two massive sweeping changes. I say don't treat victimless crimes as felonies, restore the vote to people who've done their time for crimes which become non-felonies, and don't selectively enforce felony laws so as to disproportionately convict or punish minorities. You say let all felons vote after their sentence is complete. Let's look at what happens when my idea is implemented versus your idea. This assumes some time passes to allow changes to go through the pipeline: My results:
    1. Number of people in prison: significantly down overall, becomes racially balanced
    2. Number of people executed: stays about the same or goes down slightly, becomes racially balanced
    3. Number of people deprived of the right to vote: significantly down overall, becomes racially balanced
    Your results:
    1. Number of people in prison: no change, still racially unbalanced
    2. Number of people executed: no change, still racially unbalanced
    3. Number of people deprived of the right to vote: goes way, way, way down, still racially unbalanced
    Are my "numbers" right? If so, which results do you prefer? If you still like yours better, are mine really so awful?

    Supreme Court Refuses to Revisit Felon Voting Ban | 31 comments (31 topical)