home

Conned

by TChris

Laws that disenfranchise felons who have finished their prison terms undermine democracy. They also have a disproportionate impact on African American voters.

Today, nearly 5 million Americans are disfranchised from the right to vote either because they are in prison, on parole or probation, or because they live in a state that extends disfranchisement beyond the end of one's sentence. Racial, ethnic and economic disparities in the criminal justice system, and the "war on drugs" have resulted in the most severe impact hitting communities of color. Where African-Americans comprise only 12.2 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses, causing critics to call the war on drugs the "New Jim Crow." Nationally, an estimated 13 percent of African-American men are unable to vote because of a felony conviction. That's seven times the national average.

AlterNet has an interview with Sasha Abramsky, author of Conned: How Millions of Americans Went to Prison, Lost the Vote, and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House. Importantly, Abramsky explodes the myth that former felons wouldn't vote if given the chance.

< Bush Dances on Immigration Policy | Hunter Thompson Is Smiling Today: Lisl Auman is Free >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    If they can't vote, they should be exempt from all laws and all taxes. It's only fair.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    Good news! Felons cannot vote for politicians that are soft on crime. There are 280M people in the US. 5M is LESS than 2%. Voter turnout is not high and this 5M is in the noise anyway.
    Congratulations Naruis!!!!! You have once again missed the point of yet another TalkLeft posting! By the way... One fact that your small mind has failed to realize... Out of the 280M people in the US, 21% (58.8M) consist of minors between the age of 0 to 14. This means they are not eligible to vote. In short, your feeble attempt to provide a percentage of disenfranchised voters is incorrect.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#5)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 10:42:47 AM EST
    Congratulations Naruis!!!!! You have once again missed the point of yet another TalkLeft posting!
    Cal Ripken, look out!

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    These are felons who paid their debt, and should have their voting rights restored. Why does the thought of your fellow citizens voting frighten you so?

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    These are felons who paid their debt, and should have their voting rights restored. Why does the thought of your fellow citizens voting frighten you so?
    Narius believes there is no limit on the debt a felon owes to society. No amount of punishment is enough in Narius' narrow view.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    Yeah, this is a problem, but I'm not convinced that getting states to restore voting rights to felons is the best solution. That helps people who've finished their felony sentences, but it doesn't help people who shouldn't have felony convictions on their records in the first place: the wrongly convicted, and criminals who break laws which should be mere misdemeanors. That approach would require either a widespread movement across the states, or a federal stomping of states' rights, anyway. If we're going to assume either of those is feasible, it might be better to focus instead of de-felonyizing victimless or not-so-serious crimes (like anything pot-related), and improving fairness of trials. That way we don't just restore voting rights, we keep people from enduring unnecessarily harsh sentences and losing their voting rights in the first place. As a bonus, it helps those who wouldn't be able to vote anyway.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    This just in! Narius has diverted the thread again! Is voting a privelage or a right? If it is a right, how can it be taken from you? For any reason? The 15th states that the gov cannot abridge the right due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude... The 19th states that gender cannot be a reason to deny the right to vote... The 24th states that the right to vote cannot be taken because you have no money. The 26th reminds us that the right to vote cannot be denied to those aged 18 or over... I think when it comes to something as profoundly basic as denying people a vote, we need to create an amendment to the US consitution. Think it would pass?

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    I think when it comes to something as profoundly basic as denying people a vote, we need to create an amendment to the US consitution. Think it would pass?
    Not 'til we finish disenfranchising all the liberal voters :) But seriously, while you're right that voting is a "right", none of our rights are absolute. The plain English interpretation of the Constitution isn't the whole story. There are laws, verified as Constitutional by various courts, limiting our rights of expression, assembly, keeping & baring arms, and so on. Assemble a group of fifty people shouting Presidential death threats toward the white house while carrying machine guns and you'll see what I mean. More specifically, if you're convicted of a crime, you lose rights. You lose the right to walk around in public, for instance. And the right to privacy. And a variety of property rights. And the right to bare arms, completely while in prison and partially thereafter. The Constitution says this must follow due process, but it doesn't require specific amendments for each right to be taken away.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    i have no problem with restoring the right to vote to those who've served the sentence provided by law. the historic root was the desire to strip african americans of the franchise, this is not at issue. however, to extrapolate from that, and claim that these 5 million would: a. all have voted in 2000 & 2004., and b. all have voted for gore or kerry, is a reach. for the sake of argument, let's assume 50% of all eligible voters actually voted (it was really something like 48%, but i feel charitable today), only 2.5 million of them would have cast a ballot. again, assuming they dispersed at rates roughly equivalent to that of the vote in those years, the additional pick-up in votes, by gore and kerry, would have been modest, at best. as it is, gore did win the popular vote in 2000, but lost the electoral college, because of the population distribution. unless the author and you are purporting to claim that their numbers were such, in florida and ohio, that they alone would have tipped the balance, your logic is flawed. show me. you, and sasha abramsky, would do better to focus on the two year major media war on al gore, and the subsequent war on kerry, that had a great deal more to do with sending bush to the white house, than a loss of voting rights by convicted felons did. focus on that, ensure it doesn't happen to the next democratic candidate (who surely won't be al gore), and the vote will take care of itsself.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    I was convicted of felony possesion of marijuana(two ounces), in 1977 in Missouri. They made sure I was informed I could never vote,along with the other rights they take away from you, but being only twenty at the time, I really did'nt care about voting. After watching Bill Clintons performance in the White House for his first term, I decided I would try to vote to show my support for him, I had moved to Colorado then. I don't remember if I committed "voter fraud" or not,,ie ,,if I was asked about felony conviction, but I have voted in almost(I was in the hospital for the last pres election) every election since. I encourage everyone convicted of a felony to at least attempt to vote. You never know if they count your vote, felon or not.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    Eoy, the problem is that you can't just infringe on rights at a whim. You need a reason to take away the right to vote. And I don't see one. If somebody runs on a platform of giving every convicted felon a million dollars, guess what? They won't get much besides the felon vote.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    Actually, that brings me to another point. Supposedly politicians would pander to former felons. So friggin what? Is this really the lowest form of pandering? Keep in mind the gay-hating amendments and the Schiavo debacle...

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    Good for you signal....don't take no for an answer.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#16)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    This looks exciting. I can't wait to read it. It is long overdue. I simply don't understand why the Democrats, after thirty-six years, continue to fight Richard Nixon's other dirty little war, the drug war. It is the drug war that is the root of all of this. Most convictions are for drugs. Drug use was the litmus test that Richard Nixon and the Wallace red neck wing of the 1970 Democrats created to subvert and neutralize the 1965 Voter Rights Act and the 1970 26st Amendment. Both laws electorally empowered minorities and nonconformists, who are in the streets protesting. The drug war was Nixon's way to, as H.R. Haldeman reported in his diary: "[ Richard Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." The drug war is that system and at disenfranchising minorities and nonconformists it is a huge success. Pennsylvania Republicans are currently in the process of trying to make it tougher for released convicts to vote. This, in spite of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: "Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Constitution of Pennsylvania, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, Article I, ß5. Pennsylvania -democracy incarcerated- The King Co. Bar Association in Washington state has a series of reports on drug war policy including a 2001 report "Report of the Task Force on the Use of Criminal Sanctions to the King County Bar Association Board of Trustees" with this footnote: "According to the Washington Department of Corrections, over 3,000 offenders were officially "discharged" in 2000, whereby their civil rights were restored; but about 10,000 offenders were "terminated," unable to get their civil rights restored because of unpaid legal financial obligations." My rant on these topics: How America's right wing has successfully subverted our democracy

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#17)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    Our last presidential election was decided by 3 million votes. this report talks about nearly five million disenfranchised. More Americans are disenfranchised than make the difference in presidential elections. A New York Times editorial from Dec. 2004 speaks of a felon class in America that is 13 million strong with implications for both our democracy and culture with so many locked out of society. Why Some Politicians Need Their Prisons to Stay Full This is what truly mystifies me. Why are Democrats still prosecuting Nixon's wars for him Democrats have wondered why they can't get a better margin at the polls. The obsess over gerrymandering once every ten years. They rant about the polling place subversions and denial of access crap once every 2-4 years. But both of these issues are the fringe that in themselves do not amount to a decisive victory. Compound these two periodic acts of subversion with the daily mass disenfranchisement of the drug war and felon disenfranchisement and the margin is suddenly a chasm. This is why Democrat politicians think that they cannot win unless they run to the right for votes. The Drug War Democrats have abandoned the left/liberal/progressive/minority vote that is the real target of these tactics.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#18)
    by Johnny on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    I understand Roy-but the amendments are purposefully "to the point". They do not contain language such as "voting is a right unless..." Much like the 2nd does not contain language like: "You may own a gun unless..." Voting is a fundamental right in a democracy. It should not be used as bait. Property? yes. Freedom? yes. Voting? Never. When a person has lost everything else, they should at least be able to have a say in the governmentmal process. It is an absolute right. There are no "if's, and's or but's" in the constitution regarding voting.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#19)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    Drug use is a litmus test for conformity to America's right wing hegemony. Disenfranchisement is right wing America's anti-biotic for the disease of having a free will. If a person uses an 'illicit' substance they are questioning the established laws and dictates right wing America. (That is how Nixon and the right wing Wallace Democrats saw it in 1970.) Any person who shows a proclivity to question one law is as likely to question other dogma and dictates of the political leadership. Much like the 'pot smoking hippies, college students and Blacks' of the 1960-70's questioned authority. When the threats of mandatory minimums of anal rape tough love don't work. And when the gulags of American rehab can't re-program the person criminal disenfranchisement is the final solution.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    aahpat, Hate to disagree with you but I am righter than right and I beleive that whatever you want to put in your body is your business. I would spend about one tenth of what we spend incarcerating drug felons on treatment and get rid of the DEA. Oh, and I would get rid of the FDA too because I think whatever you want to put in your body is your business. To prove my right bonafides, I still support the war in Iraq, a flat tax, and the death penalty. I just hate the drug laws. Very respectfully, Jimbo

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#21)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    Jimbo: You can disagree with me all you want but you would simply be contradicting yourself since we are in basic agreement, on drug policy. Except not on the FDA. I like the FDA just not how it is abused for political and economic purposes.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    According to the Sentencing Project (PDF), only three states (FL, KY, and VA) prevent all felons from voting forever, even after completing their sentences, while nine others disenfranchise some felons who've finished their sentences for at least some time. In all the other states, felons are able to vote after completing their sentences. Have all those states had a problem with politicians pandering to the felon vote? Hell, in Maine and Vermont, people can vote while they're in prison. That seems a bit extreme to me, but it hasn't caused a breakdown in society, has it?

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#23)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 06:05:45 PM EST
    I smell the rotty intellect of a right winger in the forum. I can always smeel right wingers, thir rants stink with personal attacks, innuendo and character assassination because they have nothing at all to contribute to a full and wholesome group meal of responsible and mutually respectful dialogue. Burning rotting flesh falling off the fetid bones of their rightousness is the only thing that right wingers ever have to offer the world.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:15:40 PM EST
    I smell the rotty intellect of a right winger in the forum.
    Chuck is no right winger, well maybe deep down inside he's a frustrated one cause he couldn't pass muster. He's just a troll who likes to take contrary positions and flame other posters. Don't feed trolls. That said, I have no problem with giving back voting rights as long as the person getting their rights reinstated has earned it. Part of their "Debt to society" when they were convicted was the loss of certain rights, voting and firearm possession among them. But in every state that I am aware of there are avenues to get those rights reinstated. Making someone earn a right back, that they lost with due process, might make them think twice before risking losing the right a second time.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#25)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:34:12 PM EST
    Patrick: Thanks for the tip about Chuck. Democracy cannot and will not survive when it can so easily be denied. Denial of suffrage inevitably leads to contempt for institutions that deny it and those who assume a right deny suffrage to others. Democracy denied under the guise of democratic process is a cynical subversion and perversion of the concept of democracy. If the due process is the result of justice applied rather than justice denied I can agree with you about other sanctions. Not on suffrage though. The drug war was not created to apply justice. It was created to deny justice. And deny democracy. I have seen the undemocratic and unconstitutional means that the drug warriors have used to intimidate and coerce legislators into staying with the drug war. There is no democracy in the process. The institution of drug war is dependent on prohibition economics. Prohibition economics are anarchy. The opposite of democratic institutions of regulation, licensing and taxation. In fact to end the anarchy of the alcohol prohibition America applied democratic regulatory institutions. Try talking to drug warriors about applying regulation and licensing to this problem. They cynically refuse to entertain the idea. they scoff at regulation. They laugh at licensing. They have every rationale imaginable to explain why democratic institutions will not work with the drug problem. The drug war is and always has been an assault on American democratic institutions. Criminal disenfranchisement is a vestige of Jim Crow racism. It is also applied disproportionately to minorities. Coincidence? I think not. In fact I laugh at anyone who tries to tell me that it is not racist motivated. I know racist pretentious fraud when I hear it.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#26)
    by aahpat on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 08:25:06 PM EST
    Suffrage suffers without sufferance.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:23:46 AM EST
    Why do ya think that is, paddy boy?
    Because they lost their rights through due process. But I'm not telling you something you don't already know, just something you refuse to accept.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#28)
    by Patrick on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:27:06 AM EST
    Ahhpat,
    Try talking to drug warriors about applying regulation and licensing to this problem. They cynically refuse to entertain the idea. they scoff at regulation. They laugh at licensing. They have every rationale imaginable to explain why democratic institutions will not work with the drug problem.
    The irony of your statement directed to me is quite, well...Ironic. As a "drug warrior" and all.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#29)
    by Patrick on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    Well Chuck, Thanks for clearing that up. LOL.

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    They paid their price. Leave people alone. What are you afraid of anyhow? This country is just full of hate. Where'd the Left really go?

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#31)
    by aahpat on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    Patrick, April 26, 2006 09:27 AM Your career choice is your crime against humanity to carry with you to your maker. I am gratified that you were honest enough to not refute my assertions. It is always a pleasure for me to confront drug warriors with the un-American, anti-democracy terrorist funding psychosis of their profession. I personally consider all drug warriors to be committing treason against the United States of America. You are giving bin Laden aid and comfort by continuing the drug war with your participation. TREASON! Have a nice night and a pleasant tomorrow. (If your conscience will allow it.)

    Re: Conned (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 05:43:39 AM EST
    I'm an ex-inmate (the term ex-felon suggests that the felony has somehow gone away)in Kansas. I called the Voter Registration Office a few years ago, and found that anyone not currently in custody can vote. So I did. and do.