Say Anything Blog

Being one of those 30 percenters who actually made it, I agree with you fully.

I feel that there should be a period of time after a person has completed his or her sentence where that person could demonstrate that they are useful members of society.  After that period of time, then all of their rights should be fully restored.

The period of time should take into consideration the scope and seriousness of the crime itself.

An interesting point about that taxation without representation you mentioned.  There is a growing number of ex-felons who have been winning unpublished court cases which are allowing them to drop out of the tax programs.  It is only a matter of time before one of these federal judges will publish one of these decisions.

Andrew,

My argument has nothing to do with arguing that felons don’t have a right to vote; I explicitly say at the start of my comment that I think felons should vote.

My argument critiques Rob’s argument, because his argument doesn’t support his conclusion.

Dave,

The biggest problem with your arguement is that you’re arguing that non-citizens don’t have the right to vote even though they pay taxes.  This, however, does not pertain to felons at all.  If the ex-felon is a tax-paying citizen, then they should be allowed to vote.

No problem.

Oops, my bad.  I missed that first part.  Sorry bout that bud.  I should remember not to blog on 4 hours of sleep.

Rob, while I generally agree with you that felons who have served their time should be eligible to vote, there are a number of problems with your argument as you wrote it.

1) “What legal basis do we have for denying them the right to vote?” The legal basis is that some states prohibit felons from voting.  There is no legal theory/standard that proscribes the states from imposing such a limit on a felon’s life.  Also, not all felons are citizens; therefore, a felon who is not a citizen should not be eligible to vote after being released.

2) “Felons send kids to publicly-financed schools, therefore, they should vote.” Most public school districts in this country are funded through property taxes. In larger cities, schools tend to be funded through the state government’s budget allocations.  One’s citizenship has little relation to school funding.  This obviously varies from system to system, but, again, I’m not sure what the connection is.

3) “Road repair/driving.” Most money spent on roads is spent on the federal highway system, which is allocated to the states by the federal government on the basis of a formula that calculates miles of highway, weather patterns, etc.  Again, I don’t know what the connection to citizenship and voting is here.  Illegal immigrants and people here working on work visas also drive, as do tourists from foreign countries.

4) “I pay taxes, therefore I should vote.” All people who earn an income in this country, whether they are citizens or not, and whether they are eighteen years of age or not, must pay taxes on that income.  Obviously, if the income is illegal (as in the case of illegal aliens) the income likely is not taxed.  Again, I don’t see the connection between taxes and voting.  Further, residents of Washington, DC who are citizens have no voting representation; “no taxation without representation” is nice because it rhymes but there’s no real legal standard there.

It’s just an argument based on idealism Rob.  Ordinarily i’d have no problem with this statement:

When a prisoner is released from prison having fulfilled his or her obligation in that regard (including parole time) they are free. Period.

Except that in a world where “Life in prison” can mean as little as 12 years of incarceration, who can say that someone has “fulfilled their obligation”?  Life is life, and 20 years is 20 years, period.  Until we get that one straight, these petty little compromises are just band-aids, and there’s little point in arguing the “principle of such matter”.

If indeed that is going to be one of the punishments for serving time, then such should be stated outright in the sentence itself.  To be frank, too many of the legal consequences the state places on the convicted are not stated outright and that seems like a form of tyranny to me.

"Except that in a world where “Life in prisonâ€? can mean as little as 12 years of incarceration, who can say that someone has “fulfilled their obligationâ€??”

Society, by way of the state, has determined that 12 years is a satifisfication of the incarceration.  However, normally a person sentenced to “life” is still considered “under sentence” because they will most likely be under supervision of he state for the remainder of their lives.

As an ex-felon myself, I have been off supervision of any kind for eighteen years now.  I do not believe that anyone considered “under sentence” should be allowed to vote.  But once that sentence is completed, then yes, they should have their rights given back to them.  Otherwise, how could you possibly call them “rights”?

The legal basis is that some states prohibit felons from voting. There is no legal theory/standard that proscribes the states from imposing such a limit on a felon’s life. Also, not all felons are citizens; therefore, a felon who is not a citizen should not be eligible to vote after being released.

Your allusion to non-citizens isn’t germain to this argument.  Clearly we’re talking about ex-convicts who are also U.S. citizens.  And I understand that the state has a right to put limitations on a felon’s life, but we’re not talking about felons.  We’re talking about ex-felons who have finished their sentences, paid their debt to society as it were, and are now free men and women living in our society.  Bearing that in mind and remembering that our is a system founded on the idea that those who pay taxes have a right to representation in our government, how can we honestly say that they cannot vote?

Most public school districts in this country are funded through property taxes. In larger cities, schools tend to be funded through the state government’s budget allocations. One’s citizenship has little relation to school funding. This obviously varies from system to system, but, again, I’m not sure what the connection is.

You seem to be assuming that ex-felons don’t own property.  Some, obviously, do own property.  And even if they do not, they likely rent space in an apartment with their rent going to the apartment owner who pays property taxes on the apartment.  So they do pay property taxes, either directly or indirectly, but if we were to take your argument seriously we’d restrict voting rights to only those ex-felons who own property?  And if we do that...should we restrict all voting rights to those who own property?

That’s how our system was originally set up, but I’d be very much against a return to that.

Most money spent on roads is spent on the federal highway system, which is allocated to the states by the federal government on the basis of a formula that calculates miles of highway, weather patterns, etc. Again, I don’t know what the connection to citizenship and voting is here. Illegal immigrants and people here working on work visas also drive, as do tourists from foreign countries.

Most highways and freeways are funded in that manner.  Residential and other streets fall under local jurisdiction, at least where I’m from.  My county commissioners are in charge of allocating funding to keep the street my house is on free of snow and in good repair.  If they do a poor job of that, I don’t vote for them.  Shouldn’t felons have that same right?

And foreigners driving on our roads is a separate issue.  We’re talking about ex-felons who are U.S. citizens released back into society.

All people who earn an income in this country, whether they are citizens or not, and whether they are eighteen years of age or not, must pay taxes on that income. Obviously, if the income is illegal (as in the case of illegal aliens) the income likely is not taxed. Again, I don’t see the connection between taxes and voting. Further, residents of Washington, DC who are citizens have no voting representation; “no taxation without representation� is nice because it rhymes but there’s no real legal standard there.

Again, you’re confusing the issue here.  Are you saying that ex-felons earn illegal, hence non-taxable, income?  That’s a pretty wild assumption to make.  When our nation was a group of colonies (populated partly, ironically enough, by convicts and descendents of convicts sent here from England) the citizens here were taxed by Britain without having representation in Britain’s government.  This was one of our primary reasons for fighting the Revolution.  Now getting back to the present day, if we release an ex-convict into society and expect him or her to become law-abiding, tax-paying citizens how can we tell them that they are not allowed to vote for representation in the government?

Repsectfully, David, my arguments do support my decision.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

HI JUST WANTED TO SAY YES THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE , AS LONG AS THEY ARE OUT OF PRISON AND SERVE THEIR TIME THERE ARE SO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WENT TO PRESON FOR DRUG CHARGES SOME WHO HAVE GOT THEIR GED AND TURN THEIR LIVES OVER TO THE LORD , AND ANOTHER THING THEY GO OUT TRYING TO MAKE A NEW START THEY HAVE CLEAN THEIR LIVES UP , GO FILL OUT AN APPLICATION AND THEY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT BEING IN PRISON AND THE EMPLOTERS WILL NOT GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO PROVE THEY CAN DO THE JOB AND CAN BE A RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYE.AND THEY GET DISCOURAGE WELL THEN THEY LIE ,WELL YOU NO WHAT HAPENS THEN .THEY WILL THEY SAY NO . BUT IF THEY TELL THE TRUTH YOU NEVER HEAR FROMT THEM THEN AT ALL.  MARY

I am an ex-con.  In 1987, I plead guilty to a crime for which I was not responsible, all in an effort to escape jail time and to avoid bringing shae to my mother.  At the time of the incident, I was a high school drop out, unemployed, and African-American.  Since that time, I have done much to improve my situation. Currently, I am a Ph.D. Candidate and have three degrees under my belt (B.S., M.S., M.Ed).  However, my efforts have not been rewarded as it has been difficult for me to secure employment that is representative of those efforts.  I would like to vote, as well as have the opportunity to show my relative worth.  I deserve that much.  I have earned it!

I would like to vote...

Rod, you can vote in all but thirteen states. Those thirteen states (Florida and Virginia come immediately to mind), require a governor’s pardon, which is next to impossible to actually get. But the rest of the 37 states in the union allow felons to vote. Some states require two or five years after the sentence before they allow.

I used to have a handy website I would give out that lists all of the states and their various restrictions, but it no longer works. Wish I could give you more info, but I would suggest that you should find out if your state is one of them. More than likely you’re in an area that allows voting.