November 16, 2005

Where Are the Voting Rights for Ex-Felons

DERRICK Z. JACKSON

Where are voting rights for ex-felons?
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | November 16, 2005

AS WE claim to be spreading democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, we continue to deny full voting rights at home. This week the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Florida law that bars felons who have served their time from voting.

The law goes back to 1868 when white political forces did everything they could to block freed slaves from voting during Reconstruction. A class-action challenge to the law was filed on behalf of 600,000 former felons in Florida just before the bitter 2000 presidential election, one marred by bitter claims of hundreds of black people mistakenly purged from voter rolls in Florida, many of them because they were listed as felons.

Read the whole article here:
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2005/11/where_are_the_v.html

The 1776 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776) United States Declaration of Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_%28United_States%29), written by Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), famously asserts:"We hold these truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) to be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evident), that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness). That to secure these rights, Governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) are instituted among Men." This is one of the things that always comes to my mind when I think about ex-felons losing voting rights, but then they will say the right to vote is a privilege?

The other thing is that this country is based on no taxation without representation (Boston tea party). Well how can one be fairly represented when one does not have the ability to vote? You cast no influence upon the winner when the winner doesn't have to be concerned with your viewpoint.

My simple answer would be to stop paying taxes until the vote is reinstated but imagine the answer to that.

The 1776 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776) United States Declaration of Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_%28United_States%29), written by Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), famously asserts:"We hold these truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) to be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evident), that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness). That to secure these rights, Governments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) are instituted among Men." This is one of the things that always comes to my mind when I think about ex-felons losing voting rights, but then they will say the right to vote is a privilege?


Except that the Declaration of Independence isn't a part of the legal system in this country. The Constitution, on the other hand, is, and the Constitution provides for the revocation of the franchise for criminal convictions; see, e.g., the 14th Amendment, section 2.

Also, the "privilege / right" distinction has been abandoned by the Supreme Court.

I wonder how many of our 'founding fathers' had criminal records? Other than treason. Busch would hold them today without bail, lawyer or arraignment as terrorists.

They couldn't have made the declaration part of our legal system, it is written in clear and plain language not open to interpretation and 'amendment'. The constitution on the other hand is whatever the prevailing winds in the Supreme Court says it is except when Congress disagrees and creates new additions to the constitution. Today the declaration would be damning evidence.

When arguing legal points in court lawyers often refer to the original intent of the law in question. The declaration of independence certainly speaks volumes about the original intent of the constitution.

Voting rights are determined under state law, and each state has it''s own take on the matter. Check the statutes.