Policy 2020: Felon/Imprisoned Suffrage

[bad_teammate 13218]

One of the major issues that Democratic candidates for 2020 are (rightly) playing up is voting rights. The franchise. Suffrage. The 'ole voterino.

Things they all agree on (except Klobuchar who says you should only be allowed to vote after a trial by fire and binder):
- no automatically being kicked off the rolls
- federal oversight in historically oppressed areas (I forget the official phrasing and I'm too lazy and stupid to look it up)
- proper funding for polling places and equipment
- probably some other stuff that's good and cool

Hotter issues, however, are felon voting and imprisoned voting.

from last night's town halls on CNN

Bernie kicks it off by advocating for mass murderers to get 100 votes each

Kamala follows up with a classic politician "let's have the conversation" request

Pete says no

What say you, Surly hordes?

Should felons (released from prison) have the franchise?

Should those in prison get the voterino?

(I say yes and yes)

[Js1 85439]

Released from prison and they have completed their sentences and debt to society? Hell yes.  Sign your voter registration card when you get back your belongings on release day. 

Felons still in prison? Nope.  Your forfeit a lot when you commit a felony*.  Finish your punishment and then let's talk. 

*I am willing to discuss voting rights based on what they are incarcerated for.  Hey, if you murder someone, the family gets your vote since you took a potential voter's life. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Released from prison--absolutely.

Currently in prison--- I don't really give a fuck either way.  But, a bigger issue is reducing the number of people in prison.  We shouldn't be taking away fundamental rights, voting or otherwise, from many (most?) of the people currently incarcerated.

[Celery Man 20973]

I could stand to think about it more, but what seems like the most compelling argument to giving currently imprisoned felons the right to vote would be better addressed by ending the war on drugs and dealing with racial injustice more head on.

[bad_teammate 13218]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Felons still in prison? Nope.  Your forfeit a lot when you commit a felony*.  Finish your punishment and then let's talk.

A couple of things...

- Do you think the consideration of what America's prison and police state actually is weighs more heavily on this issue than a more airy, theoretical take? We are the most imprisoned nation on earth. Our prisons are FULL of black men. Our police state shovels black men in there like Goofy shoveling coal in Tugboat Mickey.

Should this factor in?

- When we are in prison, we (gratefully) retain many (most?) of our human and citizenship rights. This is a good thing and each right we give is a testament to us. Do you think our "BE TOUGH ON CRIME" attitude is helpful?

[GSU&UT 1798]

What I just learned is that many states count the prison population when using gerrymanders knowing they cannot vote.

Any enfranchisement for felons voting has to come at a federal level, you have seen the Florida GOP try to put impossible burdens on felons by paying all restitution, court costs, and fees before they can get their voting rights established. Worse yet you know, just as that lady was jailed in Texas for voting when ineligible, they will immediately charge them with another crime if they unknowingly vote while still ineligible.

Edited April 23, 2019 by GSU&UT

[bad_teammate 13218]

3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I could stand to think about it more, but what seems like the most compelling argument to giving currently imprisoned felons the right to vote would be better addressed by ending the war on drugs and dealing with racial injustice more head on.

I can see that being a cleaner way of dealing with it from the perspective of our justifiable fear of Willie Horton ads, but if restoring the right to vote means emptying the prisons, we might be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Looking at this issue as an issue of racial justice, though, definitely makes one think.

This isn't an issue I'd given a lot of thought to until last night, frankly, and it's one of those things that I found myself surprised that I hadn't been thinking about. Thank you for your perspective.

[bad_teammate 13218]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Any enfranchisement for felons voting has to come at a federal level...

This is a good point. It kind of stresses the need for universality in all rights. Once you start slicing and dicing, you're giving the regressives and racists the tools they need to disenfranchise the poor and minority populations.

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

Haven't they suffered enough?

[Blotto 23560]

After release, I have no issue with restoring voting rights. While incarcerated, I say no.

[bad_teammate 13218]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Haven't they suffered enough?

[Chrispy 132]

Nope and nope. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Interesting

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

One of the major issues that Democratic candidates for 2020 are (rightly) playing up is voting rights. The franchise. Suffrage. The 'ole voterino.

Things they all agree on (except Klobuchar who says you should only be allowed to vote after a trial by fire and binder):
- no automatically being kicked off the rolls
- federal oversight in historically oppressed areas (I forget the official phrasing and I'm too lazy and stupid to look it up)
- proper funding for polling places and equipment
- probably some other stuff that's good and cool

Hotter issues, however, are felon voting and imprisoned voting.

from last night's town halls on CNN

Bernie kicks it off by advocating for mass murderers to get 100 votes each

Kamala follows up with a classic politician "let's have the conversation" request

Pete says no

What say you, Surly hordes?

Should felons (released from prison) have the franchise?

Should those in prison get the voterino?

(I say yes and yes)

Released from prison (with parole or not and, after the full sentence has been met they should be able to petition the court for reinstatement of voting rights.

Voting from prison fuck no. You give up rights when you commit criminal acts.

[Pescado_Rojo 19426]

Lots of good thoughts already on the thread, but here's mine (Coming from a guy who had both parents incarcerated for a big part of my childhood)

I think voting rights should be restored when the sentence has been completed and the person is no longer in any sort of custody.. Giving an incarcerated population that is beholden to others for their well being voting rights seems ripe for abuse, among other things.

Not sure how you would handle Probation/Parole. I think Probation, no because the probation is the punishment. Parole, you theoretically served some part of your time and were released because you have been a good citizen. I think I'd be okay with parolees voting. 

Most importantly, I agree with Celery that we need to address prison and punishment reform first and foremost. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Released from prison (with parole or not and, after the full sentence has been met they should be able to petition the court for reinstatement of voting rights.

Voting from prison fuck no. You give up rights when you commit criminal acts.

Agreed. Prisoners are prisoners. They do not have full constitutional rights and that should include voting. However, I believe once you're released that right should be automatically reinstated so long as you were eligible prior to incarceration.

[ChickenSandwich 9843]

Letting the Boston Marathon Bomber vote from jail?  Bernie is a fucking idiot. 

Complete your sentence and serve your time, yes to voting. 

[Js1 85439]

40 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

What I just learned is that many states count the prison population when using gerrymanders knowing they cannot vote.

Which

Is

Bullshit

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Agreed. Prisoners are prisoners. They do not have full constitutional rights and that should include voting. However, I believe once you're released that right should be automatically reinstated so long as you were eligible prior to incarceration.

I don't know that I agree with automatic restoration, but I can also see conditional restoration as a potential abuse of power by judges, unless there's a clear checklist of criteria met.

I think the entire sentence period needs to be used as the first step to reinstatement.  Parole would be what I consider a first step to restoration of privileges in society, but voting should be seen as something valuable, and the consequences of crime cause the loss of that right.

[bad_teammate 13218]

44 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Giving an incarcerated population that is beholden to others for their well being voting rights seems ripe for abuse, among other things.

Could you expound on this? I'm not sure I follow what you mean.

Do you mean guards forcing prisoners to vote a certain way?

44 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Prisoners are prisoners. They do not have full constitutional rights and that should include voting.

While prisoners clearly need to have some of their Constitutional rights restricted (assembly, for instance), what is the logic behind removing the right to vote?

I'm wary of merely punitive standards, because those are absolutely ripe for abuse. I think the government intervention into the rights of citizens should have some kind of rubric attached.

[Pescado_Rojo 19426]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Could you expound on this? I'm not sure I follow what you mean.

Do you mean guards forcing prisoners to vote a certain way?

While prisoners clearly need to have some of their Constitutional rights restricted (assembly, for instance), what is the logic behind removing the right to vote?

I'm wary of merely punitive standards, because those are absolutely ripe for abuse. I think the government intervention into the rights of citizens should have some kind of rubric attached.

yes, that's exactly what I mean. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

3 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

yes, that's exactly what I mean. 

Do you think that's a problem that would be difficult to manage?

When I think of voting here in Texas, we stand in a three-sided booth where election supervisors can see our backs. While I'm sure there are prisoners who wouldn't be trusted in a three-sided booth, I think the vast majority of prisoners would be able to handle that without destroying the equipment or otherwise making trouble.

[wildcat09 29355]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

A couple of things...

- Do you think the consideration of what America's prison and police state actually is weighs more heavily on this issue than a more airy, theoretical take? We are the most imprisoned nation on earth. Our prisons are FULL of black men. Our police state shovels black men in there like Goofy shoveling coal in Tugboat Mickey.

Should this factor in?

- When we are in prison, we (gratefully) retain many (most?) of our human and citizenship rights. This is a good thing and each right we give is a testament to us. Do you think our "BE TOUGH ON CRIME" attitude is helpful?

And this is at least partly due to the fact that it's easy to sell the public on "felons shouldn't be allowed to vote" and then criminalizing a lot of shit black people do to disenfranchise them.

As a theoretical matter, I have no problem whatsoever with denying currently imprisoned the franchise. As a practical matter, that approach has clearly led to imprisoning a shitload of black people for terms grossly disproportionate to the offenses they have frequently been convicted for. It has led to imprisoning a shitload of black people for offenses for which white people are frequently charged with misdemeanors, or if they're young enough sometimes even simply picked up and given a ride home. And it has led to these evil results based in no small part on what was originally a specific intent to disenfranchise black Americans following reconstruction. That is a much greater evil, and is much more harmful to our democracy, than allowing felons to vote would be. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Released from prison (with parole or not and, after the full sentence has been met they should be able to petition the court for reinstatement of voting rights.

What about those that release themselves on their own recognizance?  You know, those that the institution no longer has anything to offer.

[bad_teammate 13218]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That is a much greater evil, and is much more harmful to our democracy, than allowing felons to vote would be. 

I tend to agree with this.

I think responses like "address prison and punishment reform" come across as extremely vague and insufficient.

We aren't going to fix our racist police state anytime soon even with the best of intentions, and I don't know why Americans should suffer lost rights needlessly while we wait for our national heart to change.

[henrygandorf 29194]

i think bernie got boxed in last night.  when you're preaching "full rights for all" then you're gonna get questions like "do you think the boston bomber should be allowed to vote", then you kind of have to say, "yes, he's a person, he's a citizen."  it's not a great moment, but unavoidable and pretty innocuous within the bigger framework of his ideology.

i think if they're going to draw a line - violent or sexual related crimes maybe, then i don't have an issue with that.  of course white collar criminals in minimum security prisons for financial crimes are the most likely to have an agenda, so who knows what's right.  once you start drawing lines, it's slippery.  i think felony conviction forfeits some rights, and i have no issue with this.  prison/drug reform obviously needs an overhaul, and has for decades.

if you watch movies, you wouldn't think inmates even have access to information to properly research their votes, but i think realistically, they likely have access to cable tv and the internet like we do.  10% of surly is probably posting from the clink right now.

[wildcat09 29355]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I tend to agree with this.

I think responses like "address prison and punishment reform" come across as extremely vague and insufficient.

We aren't going to fix our racist police state anytime soon even with the best of intentions, and I don't know why Americans should suffer lost rights needlessly while we wait for our national heart to change.

The "fix the real problem rather than the symptom!" approach tends to be some sound-good bullshit peddled by people who aren't remotely affected by the problem and don't want to actually change anything. Fixing the underlying problem would be amazing, and the fact that it's probably impossible to ever really solve doesn't mean we shouldn't continually be trying to at least make improvements. None of that conflicts in any way with addressing the symptoms of the problem that harm actual people every day, especially given that the symptoms reinforce the underlying problem.

[GSU&UT 1798]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The "fix the real problem rather than the symptom!" approach tends to be some sound-good bullshit peddled by people who aren't remotely affected by the problem and don't want to actually change anything. Fixing the underlying problem would be amazing, and the fact that it's probably impossible to ever really solve doesn't mean we shouldn't continually be trying to at least make improvements. None of that conflicts in any way with addressing the symptoms of the problem that harm actual people every day, especially given that the symptoms reinforce the underlying problem.

Bingo bango bongo. Just look at some of the replies in this thread from posters who we all know aren't exactly going to be vocal supporters of actual meaningful radical change to destroy the extremely racist prison and justice system.

Edited April 23, 2019 by GSU&UT

[bad_teammate 13218]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think bernie got boxed in last night.  when you're preaching "full rights for all" then you're gonna get questions like "do you think the boston bomber should be allowed to vote", then you kind of have to say, "yes, he's a person, he's a citizen."  it's not a great moment, but unavoidable and pretty innocuous within the bigger framework of his ideology.

Dealing with this kind of hostile framing is important for bernie and the other candidates to learn to adapt to. better to workshop the best answers to these things now, a year and a half away from the general election.

I don't think it is CNN's goal to forge the candidates, but hopefully that's what the result of it is.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Dealing with this kind of hostile framing is important for bernie and the other candidates to learn to adapt to. better to workshop the best answers to these things now, a year and a half away from the general election.

I don't think it is CNN's goal to forge the candidates, but hopefully that's what the result of it is.

yep, you have an oppo team for a reason.  if cnn wants to lend a hand, cool.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

You people actually want to let a black guy who is in jail for 10 years for possessing an ounce of pot vote? Are you insane? The only right he should have is to work on a chain gang. These criminals aren't even human, they're animals. Should we let dogs vote? Once again, insane leftists are trying to destroy our country. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19426]

49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think that's a problem that would be difficult to manage?

When I think of voting here in Texas, we stand in a three-sided booth where election supervisors can see our backs. While I'm sure there are prisoners who wouldn't be trusted in a three-sided booth, I think the vast majority of prisoners would be able to handle that without destroying the equipment or otherwise making trouble.

I think in a perfect world where people actually cared and did the right thing, it would be easy to manage. 

I think in our real world, where prisons are a P&L for the most part, if there's a way to make a buck off the incarcerated population someone will figure out how to do it. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

You people actually want to let a black guy who is in jail for 10 years for possessing an ounce of pot vote? Are you insane? The only right he should have is to work on a chain gang. These criminals aren't even human, they're animals. Should we let dogs vote? Once again, insane leftists are trying to destroy our country. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

 

Just now, Hank Scorpio said:

You people actually want to let a black guy who is in jail for 10 years for possessing an ounce of pot vote? Are you insane? The only right he should have is to work on a chain gang. These criminals aren't even human, they're animals. Should we let dogs vote? Once again, insane leftists are trying to destroy our country. 

A guy busted for selling pot can't vote.

Henry Kissinger can.

lol

[bad_teammate 13218]

Just now, Pescado_Rojo said:

I think in our real world, where prisons are a P&L for the most part, if there's a way to make a buck off the incarcerated population someone will figure out how to do it. 

There's no doubt in my mind that the private prison complex would do everything in their power to influence prisoners' votes. However, I guess I don't see that as sufficient cause to justify withholding suffrage from imprisoned Americans. I think a more compelling argument is one that says, "They will try to steal or influence or threaten your vote, but we will institute safeguards to make sure they don't know who you voted for. And if any of them violate that, they will join you in this prison."

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

A guy busted for selling pot can't vote.

Henry Kissinger can.

 lol

I have to go to work every god damn day and Henry Kissinger still gets to be alive? How is this fair? The only candidate I trust to murder Henry Kissinger is Bernie. Ok, maybe Klobuchar, but only because she confuses him for a doorman and beats him to death. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:36 AM, GSU&UT said:

Bingo bango bongo. Just look at some of the replies in this thread from posters who we all know aren't exactly going to be vocal supporters of actual meaningful radical change to destroy the extremely racist prison and justice system.

Jeebus aren't we the jump to conclusion town crier....  I'm betting you're speaking of the conservatives here, and you'd be dead wrong with many of those assumptions.  

I'm 100% for prison reform, and most importantly the way in which we incarcerate for vengeance rather than rehabilitation.  We're a puritanical culture, and the Puritans sucked shit.  Education, skills training, apprentice opportunities once released, and actual psychological help while in and out of prison are all keys to breaking the cycle of the hardened criminal created in confinement.

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[BrazilHorn 6619]

I think you decriminalize marijuana at federal level which will reduce a ton of incarceration for possession etc

enact meaningful prison reform. 

This is a great symbolic issue for Ds. 

Bulk of people in prison would skew D, it also gives Ds credibility with minority groups as they’re disproportionately impacted by drug laws etc today. 

No lose issue. 

Me personally I think even if you are released from prison if you’ve raped someone you shouldn’t be able to vote. 

[Foosters 17858]

It's similar to the death penalty debate:

I don't believe in the death penalty and believe it should be abolished.

But what about child rapist and murderers!?

As I said, I don't believe in the death penalty.

?? But what about serial killer rapists??!

Again, I don't believe in the death penalty.

Why do you like serial killers??

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Why do you like serial killers??

They lessen the carbon footprint?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Looking forward to Trump rallies at Sing Sing and Rikers Island.

[F250 28788]

5 hours ago, Chrispy said:

Nope and nope. 

[GRHorn 105]

Yes to voting when they’ve completed their sentence. 

No to voting when incarcerated. 

3 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

You people actually want to let a black guy who is in jail for 10 years for possessing an ounce of pot vote? Are you insane? The only right he should have is to work on a chain gang. These criminals aren't even human, they're animals. Should we let dogs vote? Once again, insane leftists are trying to destroy our country. 

Hopefully Jared and POTUS continue their work on criminal justice reform and remedy more of these situations. 

[bad_teammate 13218]

@henrygandorf

I don't want to turn the Pete thread into this thread...

Quote

i think on this issue you run the risk of "whether prisoners are informed, or whether their vote can be suppressed/compromised, especially within a privatized prison setting".

Votes can be suppressed/compromised anywhere. Safeguards to protect rights are necessary both within and without prison walls.

How informed a voter is is immaterial. That is not a standard for voting rights. Donald Trump is our president; anyone trying to make an argument that a man should lose his right to vote because he is not "informed" enough is going to have a rough time establishing that more than 50% of voting Americans are "informed" to any meaningful extent.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

@henrygandorf

I don't want to turn the Pete thread into this thread...

Votes can be suppressed/compromised anywhere. Safeguards to protect rights are necessary both within and without prison walls.

How informed a voter is is immaterial. That is not a standard for voting rights. Donald Trump is our president; anyone trying to make an argument that a man should lose his right to vote because he is not "informed" enough is going to have a rough time establishing that more than 50% of voting Americans are "informed" to any meaningful extent.

shitty arguments are still arguments.  any right a free non-jailed person has will have to go through some argument to prove that jailed citizens deserve it.  i was pointing out a potential roadblock, just like you argued against the 2nd amendment and so on.  some are obvious softballs, and some aren't as clear.  where do you draw the line, or is there no line?

arguing that you don't need to worry about compromising/suppressing votes for prisoners because that's already happening out in the open is not making the case for it.  it's already happening - and needs looking after.  i can't imagine how they'll enforce that in a privately owned prison.

[F250 28788]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

  i can't imagine how they'll enforce that in a privately owned prison.

Easy.

Abolish private prisons.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

Easy.

Abolish private prisons.

f250 for president.

[bad_teammate 13218]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i was pointing out a potential roadblock, just like you argued against the 2nd amendment and so on.  some are obvious softballs, and some aren't as clear.  where do you draw the line, or is there no line?

Of course there is "a line"; it's a matter of looking at each right and judging whether or not the government has a valid interest in removing it from the citizen. If there is no just cause for the right's removal, then it should be protected.

I'm not advocating putting all the rights in a t-shirt cannon and firing them into the air and seeing which ones land in the "ALLOWED" circle and which ones land in the "DISALLOWED" circle.

We have gotten where we are by essentially saying, "How punitive are we allowed to be to burnish our tough-on-crime persona while not alienating too many voters?" in response. We should have a more just, fair, and nationalized standard.

Quote

arguing that you don't need to worry about compromising/suppressing votes for prisoners because that's already happening out in the open is not making the case for it.  it's already happening - and needs looking after.

What I said: "Votes can be suppressed/compromised anywhere. Safeguards to protect rights are necessary both within and without prison walls. "

How you characterized it: "arguing that you don't need to worry about compromising/suppressing votes for prisoners because that's already happening out in the open is not making the case for it."

That's extremely dishonest.

[hayden_horn 11362]

6 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

What I just learned is that many states count the prison population when using gerrymanders knowing they cannot vote.

Any enfranchisement for felons voting has to come at a federal level, you have seen the Florida GOP try to put impossible burdens on felons by paying all restitution, court costs, and fees before they can get their voting rights established. Worse yet you know, just as that lady was jailed in Texas for voting when ineligible, they will immediately charge them with another crime if they unknowingly vote while still ineligible.

yeah, as to your first sentence, i think if you count the prisoners as part of the population, then you have to give them the agency to be represented as part of that sum total.

the census should absolutely count prisoners, but states should not be allowed to use those numbers during redistricting. for that matter, if you have ex-felons who cannot vote, those numbers should also not be used as part of redistricting, nor should those of foreign nationals. 

i see the point that office holders represent the whole population, but it just feels exploitative to count people who do not count come election time.

[F250 28788]

Granting ex-cons and prisoners the right to vote isn't the solution to criminal justice reform but it is a piece of reform. Addressing other necessary steps to bring about reform should be addressed as well.

Bernie has a list of items regarding reform but this one piece was plucked out to make it more controversial than it really is. The conversation should encompass a number of issues that need to be addressed like shutting down private prisons, addressing the war on drugs, prosecutorial discretion, etc..

At this point, the best thing that can be done is to bring this conversation to the forefront and the people that can best make that happen are the D frontrunners not named Bernie. They can normalize these ideas or paint them as extreme ideas crazy Bernie represents.