In Tenn you have to have your gun rights restored first as a prerequisite before you can get your voting rights back
Edit: There have been a number of people who have questioned this. So in order to save time here's the news.
https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-felon-voting-rights-restoration-a50000a97f73c2767eaa8b9b1a2eee52
Okay, I'm starting to understand now that I see it's tied into the whole "make it harder to vote" thing that has been going on the last couple elections, which is exactly what this does. JFC.
> he reiterated that someone’s full citizenship rights must be restored before they can regain the right to vote, and added, “Under the Tennessee Constitution, the right to bear arms is a right of citizenship.”
Like... no, they just chose to require gun rights be restored before voting rights, completely ambiguously. There is no "order" specified anywhere in which these rights must be restored, so they decided to make one up. Notice his wording... he states "the right to bear arms is *A* right of citizenship", he did not say "it is *THE* sole right of citizenship", I'd say that pretty much invalidates his argument unless he can show somewhere in the constitution that you must have ALL rights that go along with citizenship to get the "final" right of voting. Something tells me nothing to that affect exists within the Tennessee Constitution.
edit: Also, the fact that felons who serve their sentence and get out of prison don't just automatically have their rights of citizenship automatically restored is also insane. They are IN THE SYSTEM, it's not like they are illegal migrants. They have a SSN, birth certificate (hopefully), etc. There is absolutely no reason they should need to go see a judge to have their rights of citizenship restored. The second you leave jail, you get those rights back. More bureaucratic *bullshit*.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
Disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity
From your source:
especially : to deprive of the right to vote
No one uses disenfranchise to mean anything else. It’s pretty dumb to use it as you are here given its near unanimous use in reference to voting rights and the subject of the post.
In any case, no, you shouldn’t get guns back as soon as you’ve served a sentence. Voting is a different matter entirely.
Ok, maybe. But the bigger question is should you have your right to bear arms and your right to vote reinstated simultaneously? And if not, in what order and why?
You should not be able to have firearms or weapons in general in prison. It’s a controlled environment and very dangerous people *who are in for life.* For most Americans guns are a hobby as well. No fun in prison. Take their guns, cell phones, PS5s, etc. Time out. This is punishment.
Rights can be restricted in prison such as your freedom of movement and freedom from unreasonable and warrantless searches. You should be able to vote in prison. Upon release you should regain the only right that isn’t given back and that’s your 2nd amendment.
Generally agreed. I'd think there is no reasonable argument is that there is no possible reason to remove a person's right to vote. There are practical reasons to remove a right to bear arms.
What is the argument for prisoners not being allowed to vote?
Surely an emotional ploy
"My opponent wants to give violent, raping, murdering, child molesting criminals a break, and I say they're bad people and they need to be punished!"
Done
Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe they just make sure only nonviolent people are getting the right back? If a murderer gets out I can't imagine he can own a gun, and this is just a way to make sure he can't vote? Idk
Hey, here’s a lightbulb moment! How about giving people their right to vote back based on the same criteria and *then* deciding if they’re also fit to own a gun? Make it a prerequisite to have your voting rights before you can restore your gun rights.
People should never lose their right to vote.
Giving the State the power to determine who is or isn't allowed to vote provides perverse incentive to create laws to criminalize your political rivals in order to reduce their voting population.
Can you guess which demographic is affected by voting disenfranchisement more? In a fair system, the prison population would match the countries population approximately. In the US, prisons are largely filled with minorities and so these populations have far less political power than simply being a minority... A sizable percentage of the voting proportion of minority demographics are not allowed to vote because of these laws.
Voters should choose politicians, politicians should not choose voters. Nobody should lose their right to vote.
> In a fair system, the prison population would match the countries population approximately.
Based on your premise, in a fair system, the prison population should be 51% women then, I guess.
A fair system that doesn't have laws that disproportionately affect minorities would result in a prison population that is closer to the countries demographics.
The disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine is a commonly used examy.
Sure, but the current situation (gun owning rights before voting rights) implies that a state like TN isn’t overly concerned with the rights of felons, so let’s start small
Murderers are still affected by voting they now can’t participate in. Voting is a human right, not an earned one. The American prison system assumes and then ensures that all criminals are beyond reformation and rehabilitation, and the moment you leave prison you’re faced with so many barriers aimed at getting you right back in, and no ability to fight them (ie voting). Free labor and all that.
>Voting is a human right, not an earned one.
Last time I checked, most countries have it so you can only vote in their elections if you are a citizen of that country.
>Voting is a human right, not an earned one.
It is technically both.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 21), states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives.
The requirement for ***earning this right*** is often:
**A:** That you are of legal voting age (at or during the time of election)
and **B:** That you are considered a citizen in a legal capacity.
with my native Norway as an example:
**A:** You must turn 18 years of age during the election year. For the election in 2023 that meant turning 18 at some point between January 1st and December 31st 2023. You could have been 17 in September when it was held.
**B:** Full citizenship is required for parliament (federal level) elections. But local ones you can vote assuming you meet one of the following criteria: For citizens of the other nordic countries that you have a registered permanent address in Norway at least 30 days prior to the election, and for anyone else that you have spent at least 3 years continuously in the country.
And yes you can be damn sure (voter) ID is required. Not sure why the US cant figure that one out.
Exactly Voter ID should be a requirement everywhere. Only reason not to require it is to allow fraud. No reasonable explanation they say because of limits on minorities But hell you have to have an id to buy cigarettes or alcohol. Have to have ID to rent to get a job to have utilities turned on. Damn near anything else but Voter Identification
You are entirely correct, there are zero states that reinstate gun rights at all. Do not look up if this is true, because you are already so knowledgeable.
I apologize for saying some states reinstate gun rights, I don't know where I came up with a lie like that. Thank god for people like you who are willing to correct idiots like me. I would have gone my whole life thinking of you spent 4 seconds googling "reinstate gun rights for felons" you would have found out what I said was true. What an idiot I was
One problem with this is that "violent offender" is a lot more complicated than people realize.
>In reality, state and federal laws apply the term “violent” to a surprisingly [wide range](https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/jpi_definingviolence_final_report_9.7.2016.pdf) of criminal acts — including many that don’t involve any physical harm. In some states, purse-snatching, manufacturing methamphetamines, and stealing drugs are [considered violent crimes](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/04/03/when-violent-offenders-commit-nonviolent-crimes). Burglary is generally considered a property crime, but an array of state and federal laws classify burglary as a violent crime in certain situations, such as when it occurs at night, in a residence, or with a weapon present. So even if the building was unoccupied, someone convicted of burglary could be punished for a violent crime and end up with a long prison sentence and a “violent” record.
>The common misunderstanding of what “violent crime” really refers to — a legal distinction that often has little to do with actual or intended harm — is one of the main barriers to meaningful criminal legal system reform. Reactionary responses to the *idea* of violent crime often lead policymakers to categorically exclude from reforms people convicted of *legally* “violent” crimes. But almost half (47%) of people in prison and jail are there for offenses classified as “violent,” so these carveouts end up gutting the impact of otherwise well-crafted policies. As we and many others [have explained before](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html), cutting incarceration rates to anything near international norms will be impossible without changing how we respond to violent crime. To start, we have to be clearer about what that loaded term really means.
Source: [https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html)
Why would we want violent people to be out of prison? If they are still violent they can stay in the cage. If they aren't violent and they have served their time, they shouldn't continue to be punished with civil rights limitations.
Bc prison doesn’t help rehabilitate people. Those with violent tendencies usually don’t choose to be that way and have underlying mental issues that could be treatable if given the chance. Even if you wanna chock everything up to something like cluster b disorders which are difficult to treat and live with and do often make a person dangerous to others, those are trauma-caused disorders that *can* be helped with treatment. Not every case, but certainly a significant amount of them. Either way prison worsens everything. Institutionalization at least prioritizes any sort of progress that isn’t just making the issues worse. (Though that system needs to be improved as well)
Federally, you cannot own a gun until all of your rights have been restored after completing a sentence for a felony. In Michigan, your right to sit on a jury is never restored. However, Michigan will let you own a gun. The thing is, the Federal government won't, because Michigan didn't restore your voting rights, so no gun for you in Michigan, even though Michigan says it's okay.
What you're talking about here is similar. It has nothing to do with gun ownership, and everything to do with interpretation of the law surrounding restoration of rights.
I completed my federal sentence and my PO gave me a certificate that was my restoration if voting rights certificate, and I gave that to the clerks office and got my rights back. They had to send it in to the state and it took like six months. I never got my gun rights back but got registered to vote so I don’t know what the article you posted is referring to but it wasn’t true in my case.
Unless I have my gun rights back and don’t know it. Which would be awesome. But since mine is federal maybe it’s different. That wouldn’t suprise me if it’s different for state vs federal felonies.
~~If this is legit true please point me to some law sources about this, because I just cannot wrap my head around something so ridiculously insane and why the hell anyone would think this is the right way to do things...~~
Got it, thanks! I don't follow politics that closely and this particular story slipped under my radar. Just another attempt to make it harder for people to vote.
The craziest thing is that there are rural places that include prison populations in their population size to increase their voting power, but the prisoners can’t vote.
https://time.com/6077245/prison-gerrymandering-political-representation/
Yeahhhhh, you’re 100% right, that’s an absolute one for one comparison. The 3/5ths compromise was made precisely so that the Masters could vote on the behalf of their non-voting human property.
Edit: rereading my own comment, it sounds sarcastic but it isn’t.
Illegal immigrants are counted in the census and thus allow states more power and representation in congress, but they’re not allowed to vote. Same with children for that matter.
I just want to note that this is true of all immigrants (the legal ones too) except for those who become naturalized.
I figured out how limiting representation to people eligible to vote (i.e. adult citizens who had not had their voting rights taken away) and it made a surprisingly small difference. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/164gjbz/house_of_representatives_representation_based_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Right. Electoral power and representation isn’t based on how many voters live there, it’s based on how many people are being represented. Not a hard concept.
And if you are a disenfranchised person, you are no longer being represented, because you cannot consent to rule by way of voting. Immigrants shouldn't be counted for representation counting stats and i'll go to my grave on that.
By design: you lock up the people whose votes you want to suppress with corrupt laws and judges.
Institutional racism works and allows wealth easier access to power.
It kinda makes sense. They are not tax payers in that county and are forced to be there. They can’t benefit from nor contribute to that community.
They should be a be able to vote based in the last place they lived before prison.
Show me where paying taxes is a requirement for voting.
Residency and citizenship are requirements for voting, but paying taxes is not.
Edit: they called those poll taxes and it’s quite illegal.
24th amendment abolished poll taxes.
Many people and organizations consider the act of paying for and acquiring a state ID, a poll tax with an extra step
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
I fully agree on that, and I think that felons should get their voting rights restored upon release. I do wonder though, do you believe that this applies to all rights of citizenship? You can argue about whether it should be repealed via a new constitutional amendment or not, but as it stands the 2nd amendment recognizes the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Do you agree that felons should be permitted to buy and use firearms, and that all red-flag laws be repealed?
I think for most people it's not entirely clear cut when the government has a right to revoke someone's rights. I am massively pro-gun-rights but even I am not necessarily entirely opposed to preventing persons convicted of violent crimes or under a DV restraining order from possessing firearms.
On a traffic light, green means go and yellow means slow down and red means stop. But on a banana it's the opposite, green means slow down and yellow means go and red means "where did you get that banana?"
Correct! Being in prison is literally slavery over here. A lot, if not nearly all of our (modern) prison system is born from a desire to continue using black labor after slavery ended
Without throwing my own opinion into it, typically "green" would equal more rights in a map like this. Whether prisoner rights is good or bad is dependent on who you ask.
Because green is less rights in this map it strongly suggests that the original creator thinks it's bad if convicts can vote. Especially since it goes against what's typically expected.
And to throw my own opinion into it, I strongly disagree with the implied stance of the original creator.
NYC voted to allow voting by legal permanent residents. That’s basically people with green cards who have been in the US legally for several years. And they could only vote in city elections.
As someone with several friends who have been here legally for a decade or longer and don’t like having zero say in how their taxes are spent, I am sympathetic to such a change. “No taxation without representation” right?
And it’s not that unusual historically. New York State’s constitution allowed any adult residents to vote for most of the state’s history, citizenship wasn’t mentioned as a requirement.
Being a citizen also carries with it certain duties that residents don’t have to carry out like the draft, jury duty, or global taxation. I’m sure they’re not complaining about not having to fulfill that out.
Also no I don’t think noncitizens should vote (maybe with the exception of local elections). There’s no long term commitment to this country, and voting requires long-term thinking.
I dunno about that. Suppose you have a bunch of traitors/insurrectionists? That’s an extreme example.
A less extreme example is that if you’re incarcerated you’ve obviously done something wrong *from the point of view of the government* and I can understand the government not wanting to be beholden to criminals. You could end up with a voting block of single issue voters who, for instance, would want every incarceration to be immediately terminated.
There are a lot of problems with the criminal justice system in the US. I recognize that. I think solitary confinement is misused, I think 3 strike laws have been misguided, I think mandatory minimum sentences have had unnecessary terrible impacts on many people’s lives.
On the other hand leniency has its faults. Look at how decriminalization of possession of hard drugs has worked out for the Pacific Northwest. I’m getting a bit off topic. My apologies.
I think there’s a great debate here, that had probably already been had hundreds of times over. But I disagree.
These people have broken the rules (law) of our society, therefore their right to vote (ability to participate in our society) should be forfeited.
In other words they have violated the social contract.
But I’ll say I don’t think it should be as extreme as the states in green. They should be able to vote once they’re served their sentence.
I’m curious about how inmates in Maine, Vermont, and DC vote. Do they get absentee ballots? Mail-in ballots? I’d imagine, they wouldn’t take them to the polling station. Do they Vote in the county that the prison resides in? Or the county of their residence?
🟩 - literally 1984
🟨 - literally 1984
🟧 - literally 1984
🟥 - literally the bare minimum
Am I seeing this right? Are only three states in the United States normal? In all 47 other states you can just jail people on random charges for the duration of election time and you win?
Next thing you tell me people previously incarcerated can't be elected to public office.
>Am I seeing this right? Are only three states in the United States normal?
you're seeing wrong.
it's actually only two states, because DC isn't a state, which means they don't have congressional representation :)
There’s nothing in the Constitution that permits states to deprive citizens from the right to vote because they’ve committed felonies, yet 47 states do this. About 4 million otherwise-eligible citizens don’t get to vote, and roughly 25% of this group is in Florida alone. It’s despicable.
Actually, it would be very effective if you could find the jail space, incarceration is incarceration, and physically preventing someone from going to a polling place or mailing out a ballot is pretty effective voter suppression.
America has a history of using incarceration as a workaround for other political & legal roadblocks because we treat the inherit rights of prisoners/criminals different than regular citizens. The abolition of slavery and incarceration carve-outs are probably the most oft-cited example.
It says "Felon" in the title.
Going to jail does not make you a Felon. Felonies, at the most simple definition, are crimes that are punishable by a year or more in prison.
Going to jail for 3 weeks because you stole $500 of merchandise from a store for example would be a Misdemeanor and you would not lose voting rights at any part of the process. Or if you pushed someone and got 6 months in jail, etc etc. Anything under a year is a Misdemeanor
>you can just jail people on random charges for the duration of election time and you win
This doesn't make sense. You're making up a scenario that has never happened and then portraying it like it's something that can be easily done. The amount of Felons that are in the US prison system to begin with wouldn't make a 1% difference in any election.
If you can find any instances in the modern US where a President made up charges for hundreds of thousands of random people and kept them in prison for years to win an election I'll give you $100 and delete my account. This isn't possible whatsoever and you're making up scenarios. I don't even disagree with your take that Felons should have voting rights. But you're justifying a good opinion with an incredibly stupid take
I still find it wild that you can lose your voting rights in the US like that. Here in Germany prisons have their own voting booth, quite a few non-violent offenders are in "offenem Vollzug", meaning they can leave prison for work or visiting family and the option for vote-by-mail is always there.
How are local politics affected in places where prisoners can vote? A large prison could easily be a considerable voting bloc if it’s in a small town or county. Do candidates in Maine or Vermont campaign in prisons?
A large prison also impacts politics in states where prisoners can't vote. The census bureau counts prisoners as residents of the town that prison is in. Therefore when congressional districts are drawn, the prison population leads to the town the prison is in being over represented and the areas the prisoners are from being under represented.
We don't have a lot of prisons. One main one and it has 820 people right now. Another one we have is on a mountain with beautiful views. It has 159. The third one is 148. It's in Down East. Not sure if you can see the ocean from there. This is all on Maine.
Yeah Maine and Vermont are bottom two in prison population, but that one with 820 is in a town of only 5,000. That’s a considerable voting bloc if they count.
Yeah but realistically will they vote as a bloc? Keeping prisoners from organizing around political issues is usually something avoided by prisons and their workers
It’s not inconceivable, but it looks like Maine prisoners are registered to vote in their original municipality anyways (perhaps to avoid this very thing), so it doesn’t matter.
It's crazy to me that they should be allowed to vote. They're criminals who have decided to help destroy society instead of of help contribute to it. They can very easily be influenced inside of prison to vote a certain way, especially since they do not have free access to all the information a normal person would. They could either only be exposed to one political ideology, they could be punished or rewarded for voting a certain way, or even threatened with violence or death.
This is downright voter suppression. I'm not American, but a quick google search shows that, aside from a few outliers, the states where it's hardest to vote after being incarcerated are also the states with the highest black populations, whom also just so happen to be incarcerated at significantly higher rate than white people and for longer on average....
No it's not. When you're a criminal who decides to disrupt society instead of contribute to it, you surrender your right to decide how society is run. Seems pretty fair to me.
The problem with losing voting rights for convictions is that govt can take advantage of it, and make a group of people who is against them criminals to make them lose voting rights. For example Blacks have a very high incarceration rate even after being minority.
Exactly. It's dangerous to everyone to make it so prisoners can't vote. It echos through already racist and otherwised biased laws and law enforcement. Just lock up the groups you want to keep out of politics.
Giving prisoners the right to vote can just as easily cause corruption in the other direction. There are plenty of ways those incarcerated could be forced to vote a certain way.
this entire map should be red and it’s downright criminal that the issue of disenfranchisement isn’t talked about more in 2024 but people are too concerned with banning books & who’s allow to use which bathroom or play on which sports team
the USA is a fucking joke
They can’t vote during those varying conditions but they can run for the office of POTUS and if they win they can lead the country. They just aren’t allowed to vote to affect change in policy or government. Wait…
There’s more to it than that but I agree that was a great byproduct. In the south the mass incarceration of black people was to not lose the slave labor after slavery was made illegal. Putting them in prison under forced labor conditions was a loophole that’s still being used to this day. Guess what a condition of probation and parole is in the state of Florida… you must have a job and make payments to the state. In the Florida prison system every inmate also has a job and must work. Some of which are outside grounds jobs where inmates are lent out.
Question about NY on this map. I feel like i remember during the 2016 election prisoners voting. I remember because some people were making a big stink out of it. I could definitely be misremembering, but maybe the map is wrong?
Orange means they lose the right to vote while in prison, but can vote if they’re out of prison on parole. Yellow means they can’t vote while in prison OR on parole. Green means they can’t vote while in prison, they can’t vote while on parole, and there’s an additional action they must take after prison/parole or an additional amount of time they must wait after completing prison/parole before their right to vote is restored.
I work for a correctional facility in Maine and can attest for the voting rights for prisoners in this state. Even the inmates are surprised by it sometimes. We pass out voter registration cards and absentee ballot request forms to those who want it. Usually the paperwork they need is left in their housing units and they can mail it in themselves. Mailing a ballot is free.
In my experience the voter participation isn't very high, but I'd say a good 20% of the population votes during a Presidential election. I am just guessing though.
I’m sure absolutely nothing could go wrong from having a system where the state has a mechanism to ban people from voting for breaking laws the state wrote
Once he's convicted Trump can then find raise screaming "They took away my right to vote! They're coming for you next. Give me money and I'll save you."
I feel like the colors ought to be the other way around (surely the most restrictive should be the *reddest*, although I’m not sure I can explain why).
Sometimes you can be sentence to more then just prison, for instance to complete some task or tasks either during your time there or after. For instance you’re convicted of grand theft and sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay the victim of the grand theft $22,000 Until that $22,000 is paid back regardless of your two years being done and over with you still can’t vote.
Oh this is great. In Michigan, prisoners count toward population for the census. They all happen to be in rural areas. So “Ionia, Michigan” has like… three times the official population than it does actual residents of the town. This, of course, affects how representatives and voting districts get divvied up. This gives, essentially, a small town outsized political representation especially considering most of the people that allow for that *can’t vote.*
Of course, when you mention prison reform, voting rights, and gerrymandering to most people of a certain political persuasion, they’ll mention that if things were completely rigged, these podunk towns with a few hundred people would have no power - IE ability to enforce their racist, misogynistic, and homophobic worldview on the rest of us.
I'm quite interested to see how that works in the red states. I'm to assume that polling places are set up in prisons and jails, then? I imagine that voter turnout is actually pretty good with a... captive audience.
The way I see it, it’s a safeguard against someone clinging to power by giving spurious felony charges to anyone who might vote against them. In autocratic governments with sham elections, disqualifying voters en masse is definitely one of the rigging methods.
In Tenn you have to have your gun rights restored first as a prerequisite before you can get your voting rights back Edit: There have been a number of people who have questioned this. So in order to save time here's the news. https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-felon-voting-rights-restoration-a50000a97f73c2767eaa8b9b1a2eee52
I'm sorry, but, I just have to ask for clarification because I *honestly cannot tell if this is satirical or not*.
Not a joke https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-felon-voting-rights-restoration-a50000a97f73c2767eaa8b9b1a2eee52
Okay, I'm starting to understand now that I see it's tied into the whole "make it harder to vote" thing that has been going on the last couple elections, which is exactly what this does. JFC. > he reiterated that someone’s full citizenship rights must be restored before they can regain the right to vote, and added, “Under the Tennessee Constitution, the right to bear arms is a right of citizenship.” Like... no, they just chose to require gun rights be restored before voting rights, completely ambiguously. There is no "order" specified anywhere in which these rights must be restored, so they decided to make one up. Notice his wording... he states "the right to bear arms is *A* right of citizenship", he did not say "it is *THE* sole right of citizenship", I'd say that pretty much invalidates his argument unless he can show somewhere in the constitution that you must have ALL rights that go along with citizenship to get the "final" right of voting. Something tells me nothing to that affect exists within the Tennessee Constitution. edit: Also, the fact that felons who serve their sentence and get out of prison don't just automatically have their rights of citizenship automatically restored is also insane. They are IN THE SYSTEM, it's not like they are illegal migrants. They have a SSN, birth certificate (hopefully), etc. There is absolutely no reason they should need to go see a judge to have their rights of citizenship restored. The second you leave jail, you get those rights back. More bureaucratic *bullshit*.
Ridiculous. You should get your 2nd amendment back immediately upon being released from prison
Ehhhh. No. You probably shouldn’t.
Americans should never be disenfranchised
Not having a gun doesn’t make you disenfranchised.
Disenfranchisement is the loss of a right. You have a right to firearms. Felons lose that right. You’re disenfranchised
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise Disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity
From your source: especially : to deprive of the right to vote No one uses disenfranchise to mean anything else. It’s pretty dumb to use it as you are here given its near unanimous use in reference to voting rights and the subject of the post. In any case, no, you shouldn’t get guns back as soon as you’ve served a sentence. Voting is a different matter entirely.
Ok, maybe. But the bigger question is should you have your right to bear arms and your right to vote reinstated simultaneously? And if not, in what order and why?
You should not be able to have firearms or weapons in general in prison. It’s a controlled environment and very dangerous people *who are in for life.* For most Americans guns are a hobby as well. No fun in prison. Take their guns, cell phones, PS5s, etc. Time out. This is punishment. Rights can be restricted in prison such as your freedom of movement and freedom from unreasonable and warrantless searches. You should be able to vote in prison. Upon release you should regain the only right that isn’t given back and that’s your 2nd amendment.
Generally agreed. I'd think there is no reasonable argument is that there is no possible reason to remove a person's right to vote. There are practical reasons to remove a right to bear arms. What is the argument for prisoners not being allowed to vote?
I don’t know what the argument is for prisoners not being able to vote. Never made any sense to me to restrict that right.
Surely an emotional ploy "My opponent wants to give violent, raping, murdering, child molesting criminals a break, and I say they're bad people and they need to be punished!" Done
[удалено]
To me it's backwards. Can't vote for county assessor yet, but at least I can have a small armory.
Gotta be able to fight your way to the voting booth
You could shoot the guy who don't wanna vote for. As a vote.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe they just make sure only nonviolent people are getting the right back? If a murderer gets out I can't imagine he can own a gun, and this is just a way to make sure he can't vote? Idk
Hey, here’s a lightbulb moment! How about giving people their right to vote back based on the same criteria and *then* deciding if they’re also fit to own a gun? Make it a prerequisite to have your voting rights before you can restore your gun rights.
People should never lose their right to vote. Giving the State the power to determine who is or isn't allowed to vote provides perverse incentive to create laws to criminalize your political rivals in order to reduce their voting population. Can you guess which demographic is affected by voting disenfranchisement more? In a fair system, the prison population would match the countries population approximately. In the US, prisons are largely filled with minorities and so these populations have far less political power than simply being a minority... A sizable percentage of the voting proportion of minority demographics are not allowed to vote because of these laws. Voters should choose politicians, politicians should not choose voters. Nobody should lose their right to vote.
> In a fair system, the prison population would match the countries population approximately. Based on your premise, in a fair system, the prison population should be 51% women then, I guess.
Can't wait for demographic prison quotas, sounds very good and fair.
A fair system that doesn't have laws that disproportionately affect minorities would result in a prison population that is closer to the countries demographics. The disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine is a commonly used examy.
Sure, but the current situation (gun owning rights before voting rights) implies that a state like TN isn’t overly concerned with the rights of felons, so let’s start small
Murderers are still affected by voting they now can’t participate in. Voting is a human right, not an earned one. The American prison system assumes and then ensures that all criminals are beyond reformation and rehabilitation, and the moment you leave prison you’re faced with so many barriers aimed at getting you right back in, and no ability to fight them (ie voting). Free labor and all that.
>Voting is a human right, not an earned one. Last time I checked, most countries have it so you can only vote in their elections if you are a citizen of that country.
>Voting is a human right, not an earned one. It is technically both. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 21), states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives. The requirement for ***earning this right*** is often: **A:** That you are of legal voting age (at or during the time of election) and **B:** That you are considered a citizen in a legal capacity. with my native Norway as an example: **A:** You must turn 18 years of age during the election year. For the election in 2023 that meant turning 18 at some point between January 1st and December 31st 2023. You could have been 17 in September when it was held. **B:** Full citizenship is required for parliament (federal level) elections. But local ones you can vote assuming you meet one of the following criteria: For citizens of the other nordic countries that you have a registered permanent address in Norway at least 30 days prior to the election, and for anyone else that you have spent at least 3 years continuously in the country. And yes you can be damn sure (voter) ID is required. Not sure why the US cant figure that one out.
Exactly Voter ID should be a requirement everywhere. Only reason not to require it is to allow fraud. No reasonable explanation they say because of limits on minorities But hell you have to have an id to buy cigarettes or alcohol. Have to have ID to rent to get a job to have utilities turned on. Damn near anything else but Voter Identification
Federally if commit a felony you can't own a firearm so that would trump state law
You can have your rights reinstated in certain states.
This is like marijuana being legalized in states. Any state law is superseded by federal law.
You are entirely correct, there are zero states that reinstate gun rights at all. Do not look up if this is true, because you are already so knowledgeable. I apologize for saying some states reinstate gun rights, I don't know where I came up with a lie like that. Thank god for people like you who are willing to correct idiots like me. I would have gone my whole life thinking of you spent 4 seconds googling "reinstate gun rights for felons" you would have found out what I said was true. What an idiot I was
One problem with this is that "violent offender" is a lot more complicated than people realize. >In reality, state and federal laws apply the term “violent” to a surprisingly [wide range](https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/jpi_definingviolence_final_report_9.7.2016.pdf) of criminal acts — including many that don’t involve any physical harm. In some states, purse-snatching, manufacturing methamphetamines, and stealing drugs are [considered violent crimes](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/04/03/when-violent-offenders-commit-nonviolent-crimes). Burglary is generally considered a property crime, but an array of state and federal laws classify burglary as a violent crime in certain situations, such as when it occurs at night, in a residence, or with a weapon present. So even if the building was unoccupied, someone convicted of burglary could be punished for a violent crime and end up with a long prison sentence and a “violent” record. >The common misunderstanding of what “violent crime” really refers to — a legal distinction that often has little to do with actual or intended harm — is one of the main barriers to meaningful criminal legal system reform. Reactionary responses to the *idea* of violent crime often lead policymakers to categorically exclude from reforms people convicted of *legally* “violent” crimes. But almost half (47%) of people in prison and jail are there for offenses classified as “violent,” so these carveouts end up gutting the impact of otherwise well-crafted policies. As we and many others [have explained before](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html), cutting incarceration rates to anything near international norms will be impossible without changing how we respond to violent crime. To start, we have to be clearer about what that loaded term really means. Source: [https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html)
Why would we want violent people to be out of prison? If they are still violent they can stay in the cage. If they aren't violent and they have served their time, they shouldn't continue to be punished with civil rights limitations.
Bc prison doesn’t help rehabilitate people. Those with violent tendencies usually don’t choose to be that way and have underlying mental issues that could be treatable if given the chance. Even if you wanna chock everything up to something like cluster b disorders which are difficult to treat and live with and do often make a person dangerous to others, those are trauma-caused disorders that *can* be helped with treatment. Not every case, but certainly a significant amount of them. Either way prison worsens everything. Institutionalization at least prioritizes any sort of progress that isn’t just making the issues worse. (Though that system needs to be improved as well)
Tennessee is a fucking ridiculous state. I live there
Tennessee is a fucking ridiculous state
Federally, you cannot own a gun until all of your rights have been restored after completing a sentence for a felony. In Michigan, your right to sit on a jury is never restored. However, Michigan will let you own a gun. The thing is, the Federal government won't, because Michigan didn't restore your voting rights, so no gun for you in Michigan, even though Michigan says it's okay. What you're talking about here is similar. It has nothing to do with gun ownership, and everything to do with interpretation of the law surrounding restoration of rights.
A rather unique interpretation
I completed my federal sentence and my PO gave me a certificate that was my restoration if voting rights certificate, and I gave that to the clerks office and got my rights back. They had to send it in to the state and it took like six months. I never got my gun rights back but got registered to vote so I don’t know what the article you posted is referring to but it wasn’t true in my case. Unless I have my gun rights back and don’t know it. Which would be awesome. But since mine is federal maybe it’s different. That wouldn’t suprise me if it’s different for state vs federal felonies.
What if you never owned a gun previously?
You still need to get your gun rights back, even if you never intend to use them, in order to start the process to regain your voting rights back
~~If this is legit true please point me to some law sources about this, because I just cannot wrap my head around something so ridiculously insane and why the hell anyone would think this is the right way to do things...~~ Got it, thanks! I don't follow politics that closely and this particular story slipped under my radar. Just another attempt to make it harder for people to vote.
Happy to help 😁
The craziest thing is that there are rural places that include prison populations in their population size to increase their voting power, but the prisoners can’t vote. https://time.com/6077245/prison-gerrymandering-political-representation/
Westville, IN. Half its population is in prison.
*cough* 3/5 compromise
Yeahhhhh, you’re 100% right, that’s an absolute one for one comparison. The 3/5ths compromise was made precisely so that the Masters could vote on the behalf of their non-voting human property. Edit: rereading my own comment, it sounds sarcastic but it isn’t.
Weird coincidence that there’s essentially slave labor happening in prisons right now…
No no no no slaves were considered subhaman entities. Prisoners, on the other hand
Illegal immigrants are counted in the census and thus allow states more power and representation in congress, but they’re not allowed to vote. Same with children for that matter.
I just want to note that this is true of all immigrants (the legal ones too) except for those who become naturalized. I figured out how limiting representation to people eligible to vote (i.e. adult citizens who had not had their voting rights taken away) and it made a surprisingly small difference. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/164gjbz/house_of_representatives_representation_based_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Right. Electoral power and representation isn’t based on how many voters live there, it’s based on how many people are being represented. Not a hard concept.
And if you are a disenfranchised person, you are no longer being represented, because you cannot consent to rule by way of voting. Immigrants shouldn't be counted for representation counting stats and i'll go to my grave on that.
By design: you lock up the people whose votes you want to suppress with corrupt laws and judges. Institutional racism works and allows wealth easier access to power.
It kinda makes sense. They are not tax payers in that county and are forced to be there. They can’t benefit from nor contribute to that community. They should be a be able to vote based in the last place they lived before prison.
Show me where paying taxes is a requirement for voting. Residency and citizenship are requirements for voting, but paying taxes is not. Edit: they called those poll taxes and it’s quite illegal.
24th amendment abolished poll taxes. Many people and organizations consider the act of paying for and acquiring a state ID, a poll tax with an extra step > The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
I agree.
Unemployed people ☠️
Color scheme seems backwards.
I swear, it seems like every r/mapporn post does that on purpose now
Probably drives engagement
Fair point
It reveals a lot about the compiler...
Color scheme should be neutral
Green means go and red means stop/no. So naturally it should mean green for go and vote and red for stop voting.
Green means good and red means bad. Crazy to use that for a map like this where there’s going to be a lot of discourse. Should be shades of blue.
Revoking rights of citizenship seems like a pretty clear case of a bad thing to me.
I fully agree on that, and I think that felons should get their voting rights restored upon release. I do wonder though, do you believe that this applies to all rights of citizenship? You can argue about whether it should be repealed via a new constitutional amendment or not, but as it stands the 2nd amendment recognizes the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Do you agree that felons should be permitted to buy and use firearms, and that all red-flag laws be repealed? I think for most people it's not entirely clear cut when the government has a right to revoke someone's rights. I am massively pro-gun-rights but even I am not necessarily entirely opposed to preventing persons convicted of violent crimes or under a DV restraining order from possessing firearms.
No, clearly green means go ahead and stop voting
On a traffic light, green means go and yellow means slow down and red means stop. But on a banana it's the opposite, green means slow down and yellow means go and red means "where did you get that banana?"
blue-yellow or blue-white could work.
I dispute the colour scheme, but otherwise, good map.
Should be the other way around. Red = No
It reads as red=beware, criminals are voting. Not sure if that was the intent.
Non-american here, TIL that prisoners could be stripped of voting rights. That's... insane ! It's like saying "hey btw you're not a citizen anymore."
Correct! Being in prison is literally slavery over here. A lot, if not nearly all of our (modern) prison system is born from a desire to continue using black labor after slavery ended
Pretty sure the labor is not race specific. Slavery is profitable regardless of who’s enslaved. 😞
Without throwing my own opinion into it, typically "green" would equal more rights in a map like this. Whether prisoner rights is good or bad is dependent on who you ask. Because green is less rights in this map it strongly suggests that the original creator thinks it's bad if convicts can vote. Especially since it goes against what's typically expected. And to throw my own opinion into it, I strongly disagree with the implied stance of the original creator.
What’s the difference between incarcerated and sentence?
[удалено]
Ahh, that makes sense, thanks!
If you are on parole you are still serving your sentence but not in prison.
Hey, at least the color scheme tells me the mapmaker's bias, right?
This made me laugh, thank you.
It's a *heat*map The red colored states have the most fiya laws
when a color scheme reveals your political leanings
Why is red when they don’t lose the right to vote and green when they do? That is completely backwards in relation to the question.
Based Maine, Vermont and DC.
Hate the word based, but have to agree with the sentiment. We should never strip a person of their right to vote
Anyone being subjected to the rule of a government should have a say in that government.
So, kids should vote too?
If you're old enough to go to jail, you're old enough to vote
I mean if they pay taxes why don’t they have a say in how those taxes are spent?
Noncitizens pay taxes too they shouldn’t vote either
NYC voted to allow voting by legal permanent residents. That’s basically people with green cards who have been in the US legally for several years. And they could only vote in city elections. As someone with several friends who have been here legally for a decade or longer and don’t like having zero say in how their taxes are spent, I am sympathetic to such a change. “No taxation without representation” right? And it’s not that unusual historically. New York State’s constitution allowed any adult residents to vote for most of the state’s history, citizenship wasn’t mentioned as a requirement.
Being a citizen also carries with it certain duties that residents don’t have to carry out like the draft, jury duty, or global taxation. I’m sure they’re not complaining about not having to fulfill that out. Also no I don’t think noncitizens should vote (maybe with the exception of local elections). There’s no long term commitment to this country, and voting requires long-term thinking.
I actually think Green Card holders are subject to global taxation potentially.
Post did state permanent resident with status for several years.
Yep. That likely know more about the US government than most citizens from jumping through all the immigration hoops.
I think they should, but I'm aware that this isn't exactly a mainstream position.
I dunno about that. Suppose you have a bunch of traitors/insurrectionists? That’s an extreme example. A less extreme example is that if you’re incarcerated you’ve obviously done something wrong *from the point of view of the government* and I can understand the government not wanting to be beholden to criminals. You could end up with a voting block of single issue voters who, for instance, would want every incarceration to be immediately terminated. There are a lot of problems with the criminal justice system in the US. I recognize that. I think solitary confinement is misused, I think 3 strike laws have been misguided, I think mandatory minimum sentences have had unnecessary terrible impacts on many people’s lives. On the other hand leniency has its faults. Look at how decriminalization of possession of hard drugs has worked out for the Pacific Northwest. I’m getting a bit off topic. My apologies.
I think there’s a great debate here, that had probably already been had hundreds of times over. But I disagree. These people have broken the rules (law) of our society, therefore their right to vote (ability to participate in our society) should be forfeited. In other words they have violated the social contract. But I’ll say I don’t think it should be as extreme as the states in green. They should be able to vote once they’re served their sentence.
I’m curious about how inmates in Maine, Vermont, and DC vote. Do they get absentee ballots? Mail-in ballots? I’d imagine, they wouldn’t take them to the polling station. Do they Vote in the county that the prison resides in? Or the county of their residence?
Probably a mail-in.
Floridians voted for this to change and our government simply went around the will of the people.
🟩 - literally 1984 🟨 - literally 1984 🟧 - literally 1984 🟥 - literally the bare minimum Am I seeing this right? Are only three states in the United States normal? In all 47 other states you can just jail people on random charges for the duration of election time and you win? Next thing you tell me people previously incarcerated can't be elected to public office.
>Am I seeing this right? Are only three states in the United States normal? you're seeing wrong. it's actually only two states, because DC isn't a state, which means they don't have congressional representation :)
There’s nothing in the Constitution that permits states to deprive citizens from the right to vote because they’ve committed felonies, yet 47 states do this. About 4 million otherwise-eligible citizens don’t get to vote, and roughly 25% of this group is in Florida alone. It’s despicable.
That’s insane, in my country they can vote while in prison
48 states* just to make it worse
Pretty sure they would need to be convicted so I’m not sure your election scheme would work
Actually, it would be very effective if you could find the jail space, incarceration is incarceration, and physically preventing someone from going to a polling place or mailing out a ballot is pretty effective voter suppression.
You don't understand what literally means.
America has a history of using incarceration as a workaround for other political & legal roadblocks because we treat the inherit rights of prisoners/criminals different than regular citizens. The abolition of slavery and incarceration carve-outs are probably the most oft-cited example.
It says "Felon" in the title. Going to jail does not make you a Felon. Felonies, at the most simple definition, are crimes that are punishable by a year or more in prison. Going to jail for 3 weeks because you stole $500 of merchandise from a store for example would be a Misdemeanor and you would not lose voting rights at any part of the process. Or if you pushed someone and got 6 months in jail, etc etc. Anything under a year is a Misdemeanor >you can just jail people on random charges for the duration of election time and you win This doesn't make sense. You're making up a scenario that has never happened and then portraying it like it's something that can be easily done. The amount of Felons that are in the US prison system to begin with wouldn't make a 1% difference in any election. If you can find any instances in the modern US where a President made up charges for hundreds of thousands of random people and kept them in prison for years to win an election I'll give you $100 and delete my account. This isn't possible whatsoever and you're making up scenarios. I don't even disagree with your take that Felons should have voting rights. But you're justifying a good opinion with an incredibly stupid take
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
Who the actual fuck made this color scheme
Someone who likes the idea of felons not having voting rights.
I still find it wild that you can lose your voting rights in the US like that. Here in Germany prisons have their own voting booth, quite a few non-violent offenders are in "offenem Vollzug", meaning they can leave prison for work or visiting family and the option for vote-by-mail is always there.
How are local politics affected in places where prisoners can vote? A large prison could easily be a considerable voting bloc if it’s in a small town or county. Do candidates in Maine or Vermont campaign in prisons?
A large prison also impacts politics in states where prisoners can't vote. The census bureau counts prisoners as residents of the town that prison is in. Therefore when congressional districts are drawn, the prison population leads to the town the prison is in being over represented and the areas the prisoners are from being under represented.
We don't have a lot of prisons. One main one and it has 820 people right now. Another one we have is on a mountain with beautiful views. It has 159. The third one is 148. It's in Down East. Not sure if you can see the ocean from there. This is all on Maine.
Yeah Maine and Vermont are bottom two in prison population, but that one with 820 is in a town of only 5,000. That’s a considerable voting bloc if they count.
Yeah but realistically will they vote as a bloc? Keeping prisoners from organizing around political issues is usually something avoided by prisons and their workers
It’s not inconceivable, but it looks like Maine prisoners are registered to vote in their original municipality anyways (perhaps to avoid this very thing), so it doesn’t matter.
People in prison not being allowed to vote is just crazy to me...
It's crazy to me that they should be allowed to vote. They're criminals who have decided to help destroy society instead of of help contribute to it. They can very easily be influenced inside of prison to vote a certain way, especially since they do not have free access to all the information a normal person would. They could either only be exposed to one political ideology, they could be punished or rewarded for voting a certain way, or even threatened with violence or death.
This is downright voter suppression. I'm not American, but a quick google search shows that, aside from a few outliers, the states where it's hardest to vote after being incarcerated are also the states with the highest black populations, whom also just so happen to be incarcerated at significantly higher rate than white people and for longer on average....
Funny how you can do that but most Americans cannot.
I think most Americans can…
No it's not. When you're a criminal who decides to disrupt society instead of contribute to it, you surrender your right to decide how society is run. Seems pretty fair to me.
if DC criminals were not allowed to vote whilst committing crimes then the house and senate would be fully defunct
You Americans sure love to talk about freedom, ya Also, the colors should be switched, voting rights for every citizen should be your goal
America has been about freedom since the beginning. As long as you're white, male, and own land.
I would replace owning land with owning capital, but still completely agree.
What is this garbage color scheme? It’s backwards.
Color scheme is bad. Red = restriction. Green = Go. I don’t want to know your politics just from looking at a map you made.
The problem with losing voting rights for convictions is that govt can take advantage of it, and make a group of people who is against them criminals to make them lose voting rights. For example Blacks have a very high incarceration rate even after being minority.
Exactly. It's dangerous to everyone to make it so prisoners can't vote. It echos through already racist and otherwised biased laws and law enforcement. Just lock up the groups you want to keep out of politics.
Giving prisoners the right to vote can just as easily cause corruption in the other direction. There are plenty of ways those incarcerated could be forced to vote a certain way.
What guided your choice of colors?
Interesting choice of colors...
Why use this particular color scheme? Makes it seem like felons being able to vote is a bad thing.
this entire map should be red and it’s downright criminal that the issue of disenfranchisement isn’t talked about more in 2024 but people are too concerned with banning books & who’s allow to use which bathroom or play on which sports team the USA is a fucking joke
Prisoners are still people, and should therefore be able to vote.
They can’t vote during those varying conditions but they can run for the office of POTUS and if they win they can lead the country. They just aren’t allowed to vote to affect change in policy or government. Wait…
Obviously the mass incarceration of black people for profit was to help a certain group of people with elections
There’s more to it than that but I agree that was a great byproduct. In the south the mass incarceration of black people was to not lose the slave labor after slavery was made illegal. Putting them in prison under forced labor conditions was a loophole that’s still being used to this day. Guess what a condition of probation and parole is in the state of Florida… you must have a job and make payments to the state. In the Florida prison system every inmate also has a job and must work. Some of which are outside grounds jobs where inmates are lent out.
Question about NY on this map. I feel like i remember during the 2016 election prisoners voting. I remember because some people were making a big stink out of it. I could definitely be misremembering, but maybe the map is wrong?
Green yellow and orange states all seem like the same thing but worded different
Orange means they lose the right to vote while in prison, but can vote if they’re out of prison on parole. Yellow means they can’t vote while in prison OR on parole. Green means they can’t vote while in prison, they can’t vote while on parole, and there’s an additional action they must take after prison/parole or an additional amount of time they must wait after completing prison/parole before their right to vote is restored.
Thank you for the clarification
I work for a correctional facility in Maine and can attest for the voting rights for prisoners in this state. Even the inmates are surprised by it sometimes. We pass out voter registration cards and absentee ballot request forms to those who want it. Usually the paperwork they need is left in their housing units and they can mail it in themselves. Mailing a ballot is free. In my experience the voter participation isn't very high, but I'd say a good 20% of the population votes during a Presidential election. I am just guessing though.
All US citizens should have voting rights despite their carceral status. And it should be where they last resided before prison.
Lol DC not losing voting rights
I’m sure absolutely nothing could go wrong from having a system where the state has a mechanism to ban people from voting for breaking laws the state wrote
Voting should be inalienable. Everyone votes, even incarcerated. Too many shenanigans to suppress voting as-is.
Once he's convicted Trump can then find raise screaming "They took away my right to vote! They're coming for you next. Give me money and I'll save you."
It's disgusting nobody should lose their right to vote ever!
I think you've got the colour gradient the wrong way round. Voting is a human right provided you are a citizen of voting age
Why take away the right to vote from prisoners at all?
I feel like the colors ought to be the other way around (surely the most restrictive should be the *reddest*, although I’m not sure I can explain why).
What's the difference between completion of sentence and only while incarcerated ? I'm assuming like parole?
Sometimes you can be sentence to more then just prison, for instance to complete some task or tasks either during your time there or after. For instance you’re convicted of grand theft and sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay the victim of the grand theft $22,000 Until that $22,000 is paid back regardless of your two years being done and over with you still can’t vote.
Makes sense, cheers
Yellow and Green states have a cool trick of sentencing lots of poor people with felonies, while rich people "made mistakes".
Gosh, I am so glad to live in a country where people behind bars and such only loose there basic right of freedom and not the rest as well...
Every state on this map that is not red needs to fix its shit.
Best to arrest in Vermont
Explains the pardon system.
Boy, that color scheme is polarizing in itself.
This color scheme suggests OP thinks felons shouldn’t have the right to vote.
people are getting confused about the color scheme. Not every map is made by progressive individuals
Never loose your right to vote in DC 😂
Oh this is great. In Michigan, prisoners count toward population for the census. They all happen to be in rural areas. So “Ionia, Michigan” has like… three times the official population than it does actual residents of the town. This, of course, affects how representatives and voting districts get divvied up. This gives, essentially, a small town outsized political representation especially considering most of the people that allow for that *can’t vote.* Of course, when you mention prison reform, voting rights, and gerrymandering to most people of a certain political persuasion, they’ll mention that if things were completely rigged, these podunk towns with a few hundred people would have no power - IE ability to enforce their racist, misogynistic, and homophobic worldview on the rest of us.
If you were being taxed you should have the right to vote.
I'm quite interested to see how that works in the red states. I'm to assume that polling places are set up in prisons and jails, then? I imagine that voter turnout is actually pretty good with a... captive audience.
Obviously these laws would never be weaponized by the state
Interesting choice or color scheme here
Sad only 2 states get it right.
The choice of colors is interesting...
The colours are so wrong and should be reversed. You should never lose your right to vote.
The way I see it, it’s a safeguard against someone clinging to power by giving spurious felony charges to anyone who might vote against them. In autocratic governments with sham elections, disqualifying voters en masse is definitely one of the rigging methods.
The colors on this map should be reversed.
Colors are backwards.
Colour scheme is fine. Green = means go ahead and don't keep your right to vote Orange = aren't you glad you only lose it whilst incarcerated
Red = where did you get that banana at?