Once again I find myself confused. For years I've heard Republicans complain about felons voting illegally and how invariably such miscreants could be counted upon to vote for their Democratic allies.
Not only that, but the idea has been constantly reinforced by the incredibly balanced reporting of such outstanding journalists as Michele Malkin, who helped to expose Acorn's use of felons to register voters in places such as Milwaukee.
And add to that the heartfelt concern of the congenial CNN host Lou Dobbs, whose concerns that real Americans' votes were being diluted by illegal ballot stuffing by convicted felons, and one can't help but castigate Democrats for their abuse of the electoral process.
(See video beneath the fold)
Now I come to find out that Democrats, long supporters of felons, and led by Al Franken's attorneys, have the audacity to challenge the ballot of a felon just because it was illegally cast for Norm Coleman and John McCain. I mean, just when Republicans are willing to allow felons to vote on a case-by-case basis, the Democrats get all huffy about it.
Today it was reported in the Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald that convicted felon Eric Stephen Willems of Warroad, Minnesota was sentenced to thirty days in jail for having illegally cast a ballot in November's election.
Willems' crime was uncovered by an astute probation officer to whom the 25 year-old felon confessed that he'd voted in compliance with the requirement that he report to the probation officer whenever he goes outside his home.
According to the Herald:
Willems is required to inform his probation officer, Tom Murphy, of the state’s Department of Corrections, whenever he goes anywhere outside his home. He left a message on the probation officer’s telephone on Election Day, Nov. 4, telling him he was going to vote. The probation officer returned the call later that day and told Willems he had just committed a felony, and then informed the local prosecutor. Willems initially was charged with a felony for being an ineligible voter who knowingly cast a ballot.
Now, one might think that a progressive Democrat such as Al Franken would embrace Willems' desire to participate in the electoral process. But no. Willems did not receive any such positive re-inforcement.
Instead, Franken's attorneys set out to make an example of Willem:
Attorneys for Coleman’s challenger, DFL candidate Al Franken, have mentioned Willems’ case as an example of why some ballots should be thrown out.
Now, I don't know about you, but I must admit that I'm impressed that the Republican Party would be defending the right to vote of a convicted sex offender. Now perhaps this only occurs in Minnesota, where if I recall correctly, no official challenged Republican Senator Larry Craig's right to cast a ballot.
But I'm confused by this sudden turn of events. I mean, can Democrats still claim the loyalty of convicted felons, or is that a constituency that seems likely to align itself with Republicans? And might that be a normal consequence of so many Republicans having been convicted of felonies in recent years?
ALL SNARK ASIDE:
It's clear that Republicans have been lying about the voting records of convicted felons. Moreover, this particular story illustrates how outrageous are the laws that forbid convicted felons from voting.
Now, I don't know anything more about Willem's case than what has been reported in the story, but in essence it seems that he was 21 years old when he engaged in sexual activity with his girlfriend, who was 15 years old. I'm not sure that either were exercising the best judgment, but I daresay that they weren't and aren't criminals.
But even if you believe Willems' sexual exploit was criminal, I can't think of any reason to deny him the right to vote. Even felons are citizens, and given how many felons are convicted of offenses that shouldn't be crimes in the first place, I think it's fairly important that they be permitted to participate in the process of deciding who's going to represent them and craft legislation that defines criminal activity.