Iraqi elections: vote or die?
reposted from my blog:
Wait a minute... We're spending millions to allow, among others, Iraqi prisoners to vote, but we won't lift a finger to help restore the franchise to released felons in the US?
An exercise in democracy indeed.
"Suspected insurgents held in U.S. or Iraqi detention who have not been convicted of an offence are eligible to vote, Iraqi officials said. Saddam - who is jailed and facing trial for the deaths of more than 140 Shiites in 1982 - also has the right to vote but it was not known whether he would." -Associated Press
Wait a minute... We're spending millions to allow, among others, Iraqi prisoners to vote, but we won't lift a finger to help restore the franchise to released felons in the US?
An exercise in democracy indeed.
posted by WL at 3:40 PM
21 Comments:
Of course, you're willfully ignoring the most important clause there:
"Suspected insurgents held in U.S. or Iraqi detention who have not been convicted of an offence are eligible to vote, Iraqi officials said."
That's no different than in the US, I should think. American felons (there is, by definition, no such thing as an ex-felon) are different in that they have been convicted. Thus, they have had their voting rights removed through due process of law, not simply because they are 'suspected' of doing something wrong.
By the way; why is there such consternation from liberals over the voting rights of thieves, rapists and murderers? I'm not being snide; I'd really like to know. If it's a matter of principle that they be allowed to vote, it seems like the principle in question must be very strange; perhaps you could explain it to me. If it's a sheer power play (ie, y'all want felons to vote 'cause you're sure they's vote with you) it's bound to be a net loser. Who, after all, wants to join the Party of Rapists' Rights?
Of course, one could make a very reasonable argument that a bunch of people have been made 'felons' for things that aren't really that bad. If you want to argue that, say, tax evaders should regain the right to vote then you could reasonably argue that tax evasion oughtn't be a felony. But you have to then take each class of crime on its own merits; it doesn't make a lot of sense to lump all the felons together into a single class and argue that they ought to be allowed the vote.
Are prisoners held pending trial at Rikers allowed to vote? I have never heard of poll workers going out there. Maybe their lawyers can slip them an absentee ballot?
In any event, the deprivation of the right to vote has no relation to the crime that a felon may have or did commit (except, perhaps, election fraud). If we accept that voting is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy, then the right to vote is a fundamental right.
Further, the class of Americans who, at the very least, have been convicted, incarcerated, and released form a group of people with an immutable characteristic: a criminal record. This makes them a "suspect class." And herein lies the 14th Amendment equal protection argument for restoring the voting rights of released convicts.
When the law is targeted at a suspect class, or when a fundamental right is implicated, the courts will use strict scrutiny to see whether such laws are constitutional. Only a compelling governmental interest will defeat this test of constitutionality. I don't see the compelling governmental interest in prohibiting at least released convicts from voting. What's the justification for not letting them vote?
If it's that they did wrong and therefore should never be allowed to vote again, then as I said before there is no compelling relationship between crime and voting. If it's meant to be an additional punishment, then we get into 8th Amendment cruel & unusual territory. It's cruel if you're shutting a citizen of the US out of the democratic process wholesale. It's unusual since only 3 states have a total prohibition.
This is not an issue of liberal or conservative power plays. This is an issue that goes to the essence of American democracy. We go over to Iraq to give them democracy but we can't even give it to our own citizens here. Courts have historically ordered changes in the electoral process under a "representation reinforcement" theory (Strauder v. West Virginia) - that since those who are disadvantaged by a deprivation of access to the legislative process (ie, voting) cannot change things themselves, it is proper for the courts to act on their behalf.
I don't take a position on whether to allow convicts currently incarcerated to vote. But at the very least, if we want those who have been released or paroled to become well-functioning members of society, then we must restore their franchise. In the end, voting rights and other re-entry efforts like job and educational training will have a net effect of preventing crime, by preventing recidivism.
I freely confess my ignorance of much of the legal jargon you've used in your post. But mine is a common sense argument, and if it's wrong then its wrong-ness should be explainable in common sense terms, yes?
Now: what do you mean, what's the justification for not letting them vote? I'm sorry, but I almost wonder if that's a serious question. The justification is really, really obvious: they're a bunch of theiving, raping, murdering scumbags who oughtn't be allowed the power to shape our society to their liking. In other words, when they decided to perform their various heinous acts they demonstrated unequivocally that their judgement was never to be trusted. We thus quite sensibly insulate our government from the influence of their corrupted judgement.
In more detail, I'd note that voting is power. That makes it fundamentally different from other rights like the freedom to move around. When you commit a felony you forfeit both your freedom and your power as a citizen. Just because we might, eventually, trust you with your freedom again doesn't mean we'll ever neccessarily trust you with power.
PS Your 14th Amendment argument is extremely weak, even from a lay point of view. The 14th Amednment clearly says we can't abridge peoples' freedoms without due process of law; one assumes that being tried and convicted of a felony in accordance with the 4th-9th Amendments certainly qualifies, no? Furthermore, your 8th Amenment argument is no better. It's quite a stretch to apply an amendment designed to outlaw thumbscrews and keelhauling to this situation.
You both make good points, however I think I'm gonna have to side with Will on this one, althought I don't think the 14th Amendment should trigger "strict scutiny" in this case, because ex-felons are not a racial class. However, I do believe that it doesn't survive the "rational relationship" test that is afforded to all citizens who are not part of a suspect class for all legislation under the 14th Amendment. Denying someone franchise for the duration of their prison term makes sense- it is part of their punishment that has been handed down with due process. However, I don't see rational reason to continue one part of the punishment after the rest of the punishment has been served and the felon gets to rejoin society. Brian's argument to continue to deny franchise mentions "Just because we might, eventually, trust you with your freedom again doesn't mean we'll ever neccessarily trust you with power." But do you have a problem with ex-felons running for office or being appointed to government posts? Because if you do, you shouldn't have voted for George Bush because his 1972 DUI. However, I always thought America was founded on principle that you can make mistakes but if you pull your shit together, you can always make it if you work hard enough. Giving ex-felons the franchise is simply the American thing to do.
This is a bold statement:
"However, I don't see rational reason to continue one part of the punishment after the rest of the punishment has been served and the felon gets to rejoin society."
So, you don't think probation, parole, halfway houses or house arrest should ever be an option? Because that's exactly what those systems do. They terminate one part of a punishment (imprisonment) and continue other parts (monitoring by a PO, restricted movements, mandatory drug tests, etc.). Revoking a felon's right to vote after he's released isn't any different, in principle, from revoking a parolee's right to move out of state. Again we're saying something like "Just because we trust you enough to let you out of the joint dosen't mean we trust you completely."
Now, as for our current President. For one, as I understand it Bush's DUI was not a felony. Even today it would be very unusual for a first-offense, non-injury DUI charge to be a felony; it would have been unheard of in the early 1970s.
More broadly, I'm not arguing that any person who's ever committed any crime be permanently disenfranchised. I don't care about Bush's drunk driving in the 70s any more than I cared about Clinton's pot smoking in the 60s. We really weren't talking about DUIs or vandalism or speeding tickets. We were talking about felonies: robbery, rape, murder, and the like. In my first post, I acknowledge that some crimes now considered felonies oughtn't be, and people who have been disenfranchised on account of committing these crimes ought to have their rights restored. But saying "Bobby got his right to vote taken away, and what he did wasn't so bad" isn't an argument that all felons should have their rights restored; it's an argument that whatever Bobby did shouldn't be a felony.
Now, I have no doubt that there are a large number of people who've been convicted of felonies that ought to be misdemeanors, and consequently have had their rights unfairly revoked. On this I'm sure I would find a lot of common ground with y'all. But that's different from what y'all are talking about, which is a blanket restoration of voting rights to the most despicable people in the country: thieves, rapists, child molesters, murderers. I ask again, and earnestly: why should we, as a society, care what those people think about anything? Why should we surrendur to them the power to shape our society to their liking?
Brian,
You write, "But that's different from what y'all are talking about, which is a blanket restoration of voting rights to the most despicable people in the country: thieves, rapists, child molesters, murderers. I ask again, and earnestly: why should we, as a society, care what those people think about anything?"
We shouldn't care what those people think- those are offenses that are likely to give life in prison, in which case, those people would not be given the franchise if I was in charge. The real issue here are people who are guilty of drug felonies, which creates fastest-growing amount of felons in the US. I've always thought drug addiction is a medical problem, and it shouldn't be treated the same as violent felonies.
The real issue is that if we let the government start selectively denying the right to vote to people who are no longer in prison or on probation or parole, a very slippery slope is created.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rapists? Murderers? Child molesters? Nah.
Take a look at this:
"According to "Losing the Vote," a report issued last fall by The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch, 3.9 million U.S. citizens are unable to vote in federal or state elections because of felon disenfranchisement. This figure includes 1.4 million who have completed their sentences.
One particularly troubling aspect of these laws is their impact on black men, who are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at disproportionately high rates. Nationally, 13% of black men cannot vote because of these laws. In 10 states, 20% or more have lost this right of citizenship"
and
"We are long past the time when it was acceptable concern to claim that convicted felons might use their vote to elect candidates soft on crime. This was once one of the most frequently iterated defenses of felon disenfranchisement laws; but the Supreme Court made clear in Carrington v. Rash, that "fencing out from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is Constitutionally impermissible.""
from Cruel and all too usual
Also:
"The blacks barred from the polls for life in Florida are barred [by convictions for which they have fully served their sentences] because of a policy originally designed to undermine African American political power. More about the law's history in a moment. First, a few current realities are noteworthy. We tend to think that "ex-felons" are bad people, who left their rights at the crime scene. But most of those disenfranchised are not violent criminals. This ban mainly disenfranchises people whom criminal justice authorities have chosen to go after. Authorities focus on particular kinds of crimes in particular neighborhoods through, for example, the "war on drugs," which targets drug offenders in inner cities more often than on college campuses and in corporate corridors. Denying the right to vote to those caught up in the criminal justice system helps ensure that lawmakers are never held accountable for that system's discriminatory effects."
from Locking Out The Vote
In a nutshell, felon disenfranchisement hurts (and, cynically, was probably meant to hurt) black populations in the inner cities. In the words of angryminsoo, That's racist!
So, what I'm getting here is a 'yes' on turning the conversation to 'crimes that oughtn't be felonies', right? That's fair. Maybe we can have that conversation some time.
Now, one bolded stament at a time.
"3.9 million U.S. citizens are unable to vote ... includ[ing] 1.4 million who have completed their sentences."
That's a lot. The number of felons affected by these laws, though, is not really relevant to the discussion of whether the laws are just.
"Nationally, 13% of black men cannot vote because of these laws. In 10 states, 20% or more have lost this right of citizenship"
Sucks for them. Of course, the reason for this is located one sentence earlier: for a variety of reasons, black men commit a disproportionate number of felonies in this country. Consequently a disproportionate number of black men are in prison, too. Are we to let them go so that the prison popoulation will more closely reflect national demographics?
"fencing out from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is Constitutionally impermissible."
I agree. But we're not doing that, are we? We're fencing them out because they've done bad things that they knew would land them in a heap of trouble. 50 Cent may love our current President, but I still don't want his violent ass in a voting booth.
"because of a policy originally designed to undermine African American political power"
And the evidence for this is...what exactly? Furthermore, of what relevance is the original intent of the laws? Either they're a good idea, or a bad one. Whether they were thought up by racists dickheads or a bunch of vestal virgins is really not important.
"But most of those disenfranchised are not violent criminals."
So we're back to talking about whether drug crimes ought to be felonies. Fair enough, but that's not the conversation you started.
"targets drug offenders in inner cities more often than on college campuses and in corporate corridors"
You'll get little defense of the anti-drug crusaders from me. But again, this isn't really what we were talking about. Unless you think police forces get to thinking 'Nevermind that college hippie with the weed, he'll be a good conservative one day; let's go downtown and disenfranchise us a filthy liberal crack dealer.' Seems unlikely to me.
"That's racist!"
Will, do yourself a favor and can that 'racist' shit. I support these laws, and I assure you that I'm not a racist. Sure, these laws disproportionately effect black people. But they don't have to; they are, in fact, entirely colorblind. The cold, uncomfortable truth is that black people suffer more criminal punishments because they commit more criminal acts. To argue that criminal punishments are inherently 'racist' is to argue that something about black peoples' race makes them incapable of not being felons. That is an argument I reject.
Brian - quick question - if you also question the legitimacy of drug felonies, why allow disenfranchisement of these felons along with the groups you despise a little more (sentences completed or otherwise)?
seems to me that you're arguing that the felon-no-vote laws make sense in a society that does not incarcerate nonviolent (ie drug) offenders... not the society we live in. maybe you'd prefer the disenfranchisement applies only to certain crimes?
(you might not mean nonviolent, since you do include thieves on your list of despicables, but let's say you just mean drug offenses, or other 'victimless' crimes)
until then, your support of these laws extends to jailed glaucoma patients, too...
Dave, I've freely acknowledged that I "prefer the disenfranchisement applies only to certain crimes". In particular, the really bad ones that are (and indisputably ought to be) felonies: robbery, rape, murder, etc. I've also agreed that some crimes (eg, some drug crimes) that are now felonies oughtn't be.
So, what's the problem? We're talking about how the law ought to be changed to affect justice. By taking on this question, we necessarily aren't talking about 'the society we live in' but rather what we'd do to build the society we'd like to live in. And for my money, the right change is to make those crimes that shouldn't be felonies not be felonies. What's unclear and/or contradictory about that?
By the by, you're killing me with that "glaucoma patient" line. There is no need for smoked marijuana to treat ANY medical condition. And please do not try to sell me any advocacy-group bullshit on this, 'cause I ain't buying it.
Damn, what a touchy subject!
I think it's safe to say that we've all reached a consensus on the following: disenfranchisement for felons should be limited to those who commit severely bad felonies, and not those who commit minor drug felonies.
Regarding attacks on black political power, I do think that is a legitimate argument, as Jeb Bush has notoriously created felon lists that disenfranchise not only the felons it supposed to apply to, but also non-felons who had the same names, and this technique was only used in mostly black areas. I do not think tactics of this sort stem from racism, but rather only instincts for political survival. However it is still a problem.
Regarding medical marijuana, I'm sorry Brian, but it does work. A member of my close family had cancer recently, and marijuana helped her overcome the effects of the chemotherapy. She had never smoked weed before or since. This issue hits very close to home, so please don't trivialize it.
For the record, I don't think Brian is racist, and I don't think we're really a "liberal" blog either. I've always considered myself a Clintonesque demorcratic centrist, and I've tried to style the blog likewise. How many liberals out there are calling for corporate tax cuts, smaller government, free trade, keeping the troops in Iraq, and a good olf-fashioned dose of france-bashing?
Cross-posting what's going down over at Brian's place to get it back full circle...
Just to close things off...
I'm sorry to hear about your kin, Rich, and I hope she's doing well. I meant no disrespect and certainly do not mean to trivialize the issue. I'll note in passing that I didn't say that marijuana doesn't work, and that if you'll follow my link what you'll find is a very serious discussion of a viable, nonpsychoactive cannabinoid formulation that would have given your family member the effects she wanted without the ones she didn't. But that's a discussion for another time.
"If we accept that voting is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy, then the right to vote is a fundamental right."
Sure, I am all for giving the right to vote back to felons if you are all for giving the the right to own guns back (which I am for.)
Both are fundamental rights and should be returned eventually.
just when i though this whole can of worms had been closed...
If ex-felons are free and they haven't been convicted of any voilent crimes, or voilent crimes involving guns, then them owning guns is fine with me. But if they have served time for a gun felony, then I think the risk to public safety is too great to allow them to legally own guns again. As with everything, I think a balnacing test between the interests is needed, and in this case, the risk to innocent lives outwighs any second-amendment concerns. Additionally, the second amendment only applies to the federal government, as the intent behind the creation of the second amendment was to preserve the freedom of the states, not individuals directly. The Supreme Court has held numerous times that states are free to regulate gun ownership, and only the federal government is subject to the limitations of the second amendment.
And I am not being hypocritical on this, because I believe if a felon has been convicted of an election-law crime, he should not be given the right to vote back even after his sentence is done.
did you know that 74 percent of all felons would vote democratic?
that's probably because felons come from disproportionately poor backgrounds, and poor people vote disproportionately Democratic
"The Conservatives have already announced that, 'if convicted rapists and murderers are given the vote, it will bring the law into disrepute.' Sadly, this type of cheap and nasty rhetoric undermines rational debate. It's easy to be niggardly with the rights of those we believe to be undeserving, but much nobler to rise above our emotions and remember the dignity and humanity of all people. We have so much more to gain in the long run."
A vote for human rights, The Guardian 2/6/06
Oh, for crying out loud. Murderers and rapists don't have any fucking dignity; they threw it away when they decided to do them so rapin' and murderin'. If you don't see that you've very seriously lost your way.
Democracy's Ghosts: How 5 Million Americans Have Lost the Right to Vote
Film and Panel Discussion
Tues, February 21, 2006 | 6:00 - 8:00pm
**Please note change in location--Event will take place at Demos**
Join Demos, ACLU, Right to Vote and Brennan Center for Justice for a screening and panel discussion on Democracy's Ghosts: How 5 Million Americans Have Lost the Right to Vote. Produced by ACLU and Off Ramp Films, Democracy's Ghosts gets inside the minds of people who have lost the right to vote, showing how it affects their lives, the communities they live in, and ultimately, our society. After seeing the film, you will never again question whether you're too busy to go to the polling booth. And you'll want to act to make sure everyone can vote.
The panel discussion will include people directly affected by felon disfranchisement that were participants in the film, as well as local and national experts, including:
* Glenn Martin, Co-Director of the Legal Action Center's National H.I.R.E. Network, a national clearinghouse for information and an advocate for policy change on issues related to the employment of people with criminal records
* Andres Idarraga, participant in Democracy's Ghosts in a segment called "Barred from the Ballot Box"
* Alec Ewald, political scientist at Union College, author of Demos report Punishing at the Polls and has also published work on the international dimensions of felony disfranchisement
* Jessie Allen, Acting Assistant Professor of Law at New York University School of Law
* Laleh Ispahani, Voting Rights Fellow at ACLU will moderate
Light refreshments will be served.
Register online or call 212.633.1405 x533
Demos
Post a Comment
<< Home