Skip to main content

View Diary: Holder: Felons should not lose their voting rights permanently (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why? (7+ / 0-)

    racism...

    In 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote because of felony disfranchisement.[5] Approximately thirteen percent of the United States' population is African American, yet African Americans make up thirty-eight percent of the prison population.[2] Slightly more than fifteen percent of the United States population is Hispanic, while twenty percent of the prison population is Hispanic.[2] People who are felons are disproportionately people of color.[1][2] In the United States, felon disfranchisement laws disproportionately affect communities of color as "they are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and subsequently denied the right to vote".[1] Research has shown that as much as 10 percent of the population in some minority communities in the USA is unable to vote, as a result of felon disfranchisement
    protecting the 'status quo' - people convicted of felony drug crimes cannot turn around and vote people out of office who support those said laws. The people the laws actually affect and with deep knowledge of flaws in the system might actually be able to hold people accountable.

    It is all based on some iffy wording that some white guys somewhere used to benefit themselves, as they tend to do:

    Unlike most laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. In Richardson v. Ramirez (date), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States which deny the vote to male citizens, except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.

    "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

    by LieparDestin on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:59:08 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site