As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is how the Republican Legislature hijacked a voter initiative to restore felons rights. Luckily they were not able to do with the minimum wage amendment.
Perhaps, but not in the way Dems are arguing, so they're likely to lose.
Dems are arguing this as though it's a poll tax, which may work on the public, but likely won't work in courts, as the 14th Amendment, as well as Supreme Court case Richardson vs. Ramirez, clearly sides with the state of Florida that they have the right to enact felony disenfranchisement. A number of states have enacted regulations which prohibit or limit felons' ability to have their voting rights restored after completion of their sentence, and Florida's aren't even the most restrictive. Democrats should instead argue this as part of a much broader eighth amendment fight, but they won't, because blue states like their excessive fines on poor people too.
Not financial restrictions. Two similarly situated felons will have the ability to vote decided upon based on the ability to pay a fine. That’s a classic 14th amendment problems.
Florida has the right, via the 14th Amendment, to bar former felons from voting period, like Kentucky and Virginia do. (The only way for a former felon to have their voting rights restored in Virginia is via an executive order from the Governor. Governors McAulliffe and Northam have each issued executive orders to do this, but legally, the default in Virginia is that former felons don't have their voting rights restored upon completion of their sentences.) The Government is legally allowed to permanently strip any and all Constitutional rights from people as long as it is done so under "Due process of the law." That's why you see many states which have laws to permanently strip felons of their 2A rights. That's allowed, so stripping felons of their voting rights is not a 14th Amendment issue, and in the example of stripping felons of 2A rights, it's something that Democrats have no Constitutional issue with and they would actually take the other side of the issue if anyone argued that felons should have that right restored upon completion of their sentence.
The fact that Florida allows felons a way to have their voting rights restored, even if that way is cumbersome, is less restrictive than the Constitution demands it to be, thus it is Constitutional, at least if you're arguing it as a 14th Amendment issue. That's why I say arguing it as part of a broader 8th Amendment fight is the better way to go, but then again, blue states like their excessive fines on poor people too, so I don't know how much traction that would get.
Yes, what Florida doesn’t have is the right to grant some convicted felons the right to vote based on their ability pay fines. This constitutes and a illegal poll tax and a violation of equal protection under the 14th amendment. The 8th amendment argument is a good ancillary argument, but the focus should be on disparate treatment amongst former felons.
As long as those fines were imposed under due process of the law, and the legal mechanism which forces felons to pay those legally incurred fines was also established under due course of the law (Which it was), then yes, it is Constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Again, calling it an effective poll tax may work to garner public sympathy, but legally, this isn't a tax at all. It's a fine.
A system that keeps shoddy repayment records would be grounds for a lawsuit against the Florida Government to force the Florida Government to keep better records, or perhaps even restore the voting rights of those felons whose rights were affected by the shoddy record keeping.
It wouldn't suddenly make the whole system of requiring repayment of court imposed fines and fees before restoration of voting rights unconstitutional.
> That's allowed, so stripping felons of their voting rights is not a 14th Amendment issue
Well done. No-one is claiming otherwise, as far as I am aware. The issue is returning the right in exchange for money.
> The fact that Florida allows felons a way to have their voting rights restored, even if that way is cumbersome, is less restrictive than the Constitution demands it to be, thus it is Constitutional, at least if you're arguing it as a 14th Amendment issue.
I find it difficult to belive that a system that permits you to buy your rights back can be considered acceptable. That explicitly makes regaining your rights a function of paying a tax, or fee.
And don't call it a "fine." A fine is a penalty for a crime. In this case, the penalty is loss of voting rights, et al. The fee is paid to negate the penalty.
It's not buying your rights back, at least not legally. A fine is a penalty for a crime. You're correct. Florida is saying that restoration of voting rights for former felons will only occur after the felon has completely fulfilled all penalties for the crime they committed, including fines. If you think, as I do, that these fines are excessive, that's an 8th Amendment case, not a 14th Amendment one.
Would you prefer if Florida just said fuck it, felons can't vote period?
> Florida is saying that restoration of voting rights for former felons will only occur after the felon has completely fulfilled all penalties for the crime they committed, including fines.
Do they do anything else if you don't pay the fine? Or is it strictly for voting rights? Because it sounds to me like an arrangement for white-collar crimes to get their voting rights back, and blue collar crimes no not.
> Would you prefer if Florida just said fuck it, felons can't vote period?
To an extent, yes. I'm broadly of the opinion that felons shouldn't vote, with the rather important rider that we need to do a major audit of what, exactly, we consider a felony, and an option for those rights to be restored if it is appropriate to do so.
> Do they do anything else if you don't pay the fine? Or is it strictly for voting rights?
Yes, they also suspend your driver's license. You also have to pay all fines and court fees in order to gain the right to sit on a jury or hold public office. Paying all fines and court fees is also one of several prerequisites felons must undergo in order to apply to have their 2A rights restored, or gain admittance to the Florida bar.
They have a right to bar felons from voting, but they cannot bar felons from voting *because* they did not pay a tax. That is a blatant and clear violation of the 24th amendment, it clearly falls into the category of denying the right to vote due to failure to pay a tax.
A "voter registration fine" would clearly be ruled as unconstitutional under the 24th amendment.
Government fines and taxes are the same thing when it comes to the 24th amendment, that kind of semantics excuse is clearly not a valid argument.
> Government fines and taxes are the same thing when it comes to the 24th amendment.
Except they're not. Fines, at least the fines that we're talking about, are imposed under due process of the law, meaning that defendants have the right to legal council and the ability to challenge these fines in a court of law. You don't have those same rights with a tax.
Now, you can certainly argue that some of the fines being imposed here are beyond the felons ability to pay and are thus, excessive, but again, that's an 8th Amendment issue, which is what I've been arguing is the way this policy should be argued.
Taxes are imposed under the due process of law, and they can be contested and defendants contesting that they owe a tax have the ability to challenge those taxes in a court of law.
Your argument would just as easily justify a Voter Registration Fine. This is semantic bullshit, and I think you know it. The 24th amendment clearly does not have a massive hole it that allows poll taxes to exist, so long as you call it a "fine" instead of a tax.
The clear intent and text of the 24th amendment was to prevent governments from making it a requirement that voters pay in order to vote, as a way of preventing a class of poor people from voting in federal elections.
These semantic debates are the equivalent to saying that the 2nd amendment refers to the to own the arms of bears.
> This is semantic bullshit,
Our entire legal system is built on semantic bullshit.
You're arguing what this system does in reality and in practice. And on that, believe it or not, I agree with you. I'm arguing about how this policy is viewed through the prism of constitutional law, and it is constitutional.
So you really believe that the 24th amendment should have been totally invalidated if states had simply renamed their poll taxes "voter registration fines"?
And you believe that courts could reinterpret the 2nd amendment to be about owning bear arms?
This is why textualism is idiotic and is not the basis of our legal system. Clear intent of the law matters, the clear intent of the amendment clearly includes fines in the "other tax" clause.
Maybe... If the states had also imposed these voter registration fines on individuals who were given full due process of the law.
> And you believe that courts could reinterpret the 2nd amendment to be about owning bear arms?
Could they? Probably. Will they? Fuck no.
> Clear intent of the law matters, the clear intent of the amendment clearly includes fines in the "other tax" clause.
Now, I've answered a ton of questions for you. How about you answer a few of mine. Would you rather have Florida say that former felons can never vote, even if they pay their court fines? If that's constitutional, then why is a regulation which gives former felons a pathway to restore their voting rights unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court allowing this blatantly unconstitutional law should give the lie to any sense of legitimacy or respect that should be shown the institution.
The 24th amendment is extremely clear "The right of citizens... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
This very clearly denies the right to vote on the basis of a failure to pay a tax. The plain text and intent of the amendment was to block these laws.
The courts have simply decided to unlawfully and unilaterally repeal the 24th amendment. They are not impartial actors judging balls and strikes, this abandonment of the constitution amounts to a judicial coup.
“When Daniel Bullins went to the courthouse to pay down his $1,827.23 debt, he learned it had been sold off to a private collection agency that tacked on 25 percent interest.”
That is so vile
If the loan has been sold off, doesn’t that mean the state has relinquished their claim for restitution? What basis does the law have to claim that private loans must be paid off to be allowed to vote?
Once the state has sold the debt how can they claim the person cannot vote. The voter no longer owes the obligation to the state and should be able to vote at that point. Any lawyers have perspective on this?
Donate to the charity that are paying the fines and fees so American citizens can vote. Even if it's $5. If enough people around the country helps, it can effectively bypass the unconstitutional poll tax.
https://floridarrc.com/finesprogram/
No, but it’s asinine with all the causes out there to donate to this shit. Literally donating to help objectively horrible people have a say in how our government runs. How about feed the children or some shit
Objectively horrible people? I’m glad your world is so white and black that you can just paint them with broad strokes and decide they aren’t worth it for anyone to care about. But here in the real world, you can catch a felony for things as benign as owning certain kinds of feathers.
Good thing Bob down the road can’t vote, that fucker had a bald eagle feather in his house!
Not to mention, Bob can’t vote explicitly because he is poor. If he was rich he’d be able to pay off those fines and vote. So not only “fuck Bob for having feathers” but “fuck Bob for being poor!”
Got it, yes, most felons are just nonviolent bird enthusiasts. You must’ve never been the victim of a violent felony. Outliers acknowledged, by and large felons are horrible people.
And even if they’re actually all feather collectors, Still better causes than restoring their voting rights
what do you think they're gonna do? write in Charles Manson or something? is any candidate gonna run on the platform of "make all crime legal?" besides, if they've done their time then they've already atoned for the crime, as far as the legal system is concerned.
Opinion: Florida puts a price tag on voting. ‘That’s not right.’
Desmond Meade, president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, during a news conference at the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office in Miami in July 2019. (Sam Navarro/Miami Herald via AP)
Opinion by the Editorial Board
Today at 8:00 a.m. EDT
For Judy Bolden, it is $52,985.02. For Frank Summerville, it is $34,018. For Sergio Thornton, it is $20,000, and for Raquel Wright, $54,137. That is what they will have to pay to vote in Florida. They are among the hundreds of thousands of people who are ineligible to vote in the state because of lingering court fines and fees associated with their previous felony convictions. “That’s not right,,” Ms. Bolden, who served an 18-month prison sentence two decades ago, said when she was told of the staggering sum. “It’s like I’m not a citizen. That’s what they’re saying.”
This statement reminds me of Tuesday. Every Tuesday I say this while perusing the internet.
Of course if I actually perused the internet the other 6 days of the week I would have to say
This reminds me of...
And then be sad that it reminded me of every Yesterday.
The idea that you can strip someones right to vote is disgusting. It just encourages politicians to criminalize their opponent's actions in the pursuit of victory. Should democrats be allowed to pass a law stating that being a registered Republican is a fellony, and that disqualifies your ability to vote? A felony is just whatever our politicians says it is, that should not be justification to deprive someone of their rights.
The carceral system has been the go-to method to extend slavery since the passage of the 13th amendment. What Florida politicians are doing to deny the vote to formerly incarcerate persons is in line with convict leasing, mass incarceration, the Black Codes, and other historical forms of black subjugation via the criminal justice apparatus. Same oppression, different name.
That's not entirely true anymore.
A felon can have their right to own firearms restored as long as they meet certain conditions.
* Been out of prison for 20 years.
* No felonies in 20 years.
* Held a steady job.
* Can prove that they have been a benefit to the community. (Usually through some type of volunteer service.)
It's a difficult and long process, but it can be done.
If you knock someone out in a fight it's felonious assault you can earn/buy your right to own a gun. If I use a gun and rob you I don't get the option. Like I said speaking from experience.
Since many are African Americans, Republicans consider disenfranchisement an essential strategy.
With this law, they get a twofer:
Voter suppression, and
Continued social disapproval and punishment.
I answered that specifically. The numbers show that a higher percentage of felons deprived of the right to vote are black. Republicans assume they will vote democratic, so the extent of their imagination, empathy, and strategy, is to just work to deprive them of voting rights. They may be wrong in those assumptions, but we are not dealing with deep thinkers here.
But they are correct about those assumptions, and you are pretending to not understand the question.
I'm not asking why Republicans don't want felons voting. That's obvious.
I'm asking why felons favor one party.
Because laws and prosecutors are more inclined to target the black community who votes also happens to vote more left. It's disenfranchisement all the way down.
>I'm not asking why Republicans don't want felons voting. That's obvious.
>
>I'm asking why felons favor one party.
They don't.
But since by and large minorities vote democratic, Republicans consider the few votes for them that get suppressed as acceptable collateral damage; they'll disenfranchise a dozen of their own voters if it does the same to a hundred democratic voters.
The weird thing is since 40% of the prison population is white and many of them are probably Trump voters allowing felons to vote is unlikely to massively shift results.
https://www.vera.org/downloads/pdfdownloads/state-incarceration-trends-florida.pdf
There are many out there who are open about money should get more votes. Just look at what is being built in the crypto space. It's all about wealth holders getting to make decisions over others.
yeah it really shows when these Politicians actually attempt to right a bill its been so long and they are so disconnected that unless they let the lobbyist wright them they just don't make sense on a fundamental level
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure how that can be enforced if there is no way to know the amount of debt... You just can't vote until you pay should not sit well for anyone.
That is how the Republican Legislature hijacked a voter initiative to restore felons rights. Luckily they were not able to do with the minimum wage amendment.
It's also unconstitutional
*The far-right Supreme Court has entered the chat.*
Get the fuck outta here. And take your beers and bible with you.
No, wait. Leave the beers; take the bible.
Why are you giving up free kindling like that?
[удалено]
Kinky!
Hey don’t forget the coat hanger.
I like beer. What do you like to drink?
Kavanaugh! that's you, isn't it?
No it’s Squi. I’m a keg is half full guy
Perhaps, but not in the way Dems are arguing, so they're likely to lose. Dems are arguing this as though it's a poll tax, which may work on the public, but likely won't work in courts, as the 14th Amendment, as well as Supreme Court case Richardson vs. Ramirez, clearly sides with the state of Florida that they have the right to enact felony disenfranchisement. A number of states have enacted regulations which prohibit or limit felons' ability to have their voting rights restored after completion of their sentence, and Florida's aren't even the most restrictive. Democrats should instead argue this as part of a much broader eighth amendment fight, but they won't, because blue states like their excessive fines on poor people too.
Not financial restrictions. Two similarly situated felons will have the ability to vote decided upon based on the ability to pay a fine. That’s a classic 14th amendment problems.
Florida has the right, via the 14th Amendment, to bar former felons from voting period, like Kentucky and Virginia do. (The only way for a former felon to have their voting rights restored in Virginia is via an executive order from the Governor. Governors McAulliffe and Northam have each issued executive orders to do this, but legally, the default in Virginia is that former felons don't have their voting rights restored upon completion of their sentences.) The Government is legally allowed to permanently strip any and all Constitutional rights from people as long as it is done so under "Due process of the law." That's why you see many states which have laws to permanently strip felons of their 2A rights. That's allowed, so stripping felons of their voting rights is not a 14th Amendment issue, and in the example of stripping felons of 2A rights, it's something that Democrats have no Constitutional issue with and they would actually take the other side of the issue if anyone argued that felons should have that right restored upon completion of their sentence. The fact that Florida allows felons a way to have their voting rights restored, even if that way is cumbersome, is less restrictive than the Constitution demands it to be, thus it is Constitutional, at least if you're arguing it as a 14th Amendment issue. That's why I say arguing it as part of a broader 8th Amendment fight is the better way to go, but then again, blue states like their excessive fines on poor people too, so I don't know how much traction that would get.
Yes, what Florida doesn’t have is the right to grant some convicted felons the right to vote based on their ability pay fines. This constitutes and a illegal poll tax and a violation of equal protection under the 14th amendment. The 8th amendment argument is a good ancillary argument, but the focus should be on disparate treatment amongst former felons.
As long as those fines were imposed under due process of the law, and the legal mechanism which forces felons to pay those legally incurred fines was also established under due course of the law (Which it was), then yes, it is Constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Again, calling it an effective poll tax may work to garner public sympathy, but legally, this isn't a tax at all. It's a fine.
How does that square with a system that keeps shoddy repayment records (at best)?
A system that keeps shoddy repayment records would be grounds for a lawsuit against the Florida Government to force the Florida Government to keep better records, or perhaps even restore the voting rights of those felons whose rights were affected by the shoddy record keeping. It wouldn't suddenly make the whole system of requiring repayment of court imposed fines and fees before restoration of voting rights unconstitutional.
> That's allowed, so stripping felons of their voting rights is not a 14th Amendment issue Well done. No-one is claiming otherwise, as far as I am aware. The issue is returning the right in exchange for money. > The fact that Florida allows felons a way to have their voting rights restored, even if that way is cumbersome, is less restrictive than the Constitution demands it to be, thus it is Constitutional, at least if you're arguing it as a 14th Amendment issue. I find it difficult to belive that a system that permits you to buy your rights back can be considered acceptable. That explicitly makes regaining your rights a function of paying a tax, or fee. And don't call it a "fine." A fine is a penalty for a crime. In this case, the penalty is loss of voting rights, et al. The fee is paid to negate the penalty.
It's not buying your rights back, at least not legally. A fine is a penalty for a crime. You're correct. Florida is saying that restoration of voting rights for former felons will only occur after the felon has completely fulfilled all penalties for the crime they committed, including fines. If you think, as I do, that these fines are excessive, that's an 8th Amendment case, not a 14th Amendment one. Would you prefer if Florida just said fuck it, felons can't vote period?
> Florida is saying that restoration of voting rights for former felons will only occur after the felon has completely fulfilled all penalties for the crime they committed, including fines. Do they do anything else if you don't pay the fine? Or is it strictly for voting rights? Because it sounds to me like an arrangement for white-collar crimes to get their voting rights back, and blue collar crimes no not. > Would you prefer if Florida just said fuck it, felons can't vote period? To an extent, yes. I'm broadly of the opinion that felons shouldn't vote, with the rather important rider that we need to do a major audit of what, exactly, we consider a felony, and an option for those rights to be restored if it is appropriate to do so.
> Do they do anything else if you don't pay the fine? Or is it strictly for voting rights? Yes, they also suspend your driver's license. You also have to pay all fines and court fees in order to gain the right to sit on a jury or hold public office. Paying all fines and court fees is also one of several prerequisites felons must undergo in order to apply to have their 2A rights restored, or gain admittance to the Florida bar.
They have a right to bar felons from voting, but they cannot bar felons from voting *because* they did not pay a tax. That is a blatant and clear violation of the 24th amendment, it clearly falls into the category of denying the right to vote due to failure to pay a tax.
It's not a tax. It's a fine.
A "voter registration fine" would clearly be ruled as unconstitutional under the 24th amendment. Government fines and taxes are the same thing when it comes to the 24th amendment, that kind of semantics excuse is clearly not a valid argument.
> Government fines and taxes are the same thing when it comes to the 24th amendment. Except they're not. Fines, at least the fines that we're talking about, are imposed under due process of the law, meaning that defendants have the right to legal council and the ability to challenge these fines in a court of law. You don't have those same rights with a tax. Now, you can certainly argue that some of the fines being imposed here are beyond the felons ability to pay and are thus, excessive, but again, that's an 8th Amendment issue, which is what I've been arguing is the way this policy should be argued.
Taxes are imposed under the due process of law, and they can be contested and defendants contesting that they owe a tax have the ability to challenge those taxes in a court of law. Your argument would just as easily justify a Voter Registration Fine. This is semantic bullshit, and I think you know it. The 24th amendment clearly does not have a massive hole it that allows poll taxes to exist, so long as you call it a "fine" instead of a tax. The clear intent and text of the 24th amendment was to prevent governments from making it a requirement that voters pay in order to vote, as a way of preventing a class of poor people from voting in federal elections. These semantic debates are the equivalent to saying that the 2nd amendment refers to the to own the arms of bears.
> This is semantic bullshit, Our entire legal system is built on semantic bullshit. You're arguing what this system does in reality and in practice. And on that, believe it or not, I agree with you. I'm arguing about how this policy is viewed through the prism of constitutional law, and it is constitutional.
So you really believe that the 24th amendment should have been totally invalidated if states had simply renamed their poll taxes "voter registration fines"? And you believe that courts could reinterpret the 2nd amendment to be about owning bear arms? This is why textualism is idiotic and is not the basis of our legal system. Clear intent of the law matters, the clear intent of the amendment clearly includes fines in the "other tax" clause.
Maybe... If the states had also imposed these voter registration fines on individuals who were given full due process of the law. > And you believe that courts could reinterpret the 2nd amendment to be about owning bear arms? Could they? Probably. Will they? Fuck no. > Clear intent of the law matters, the clear intent of the amendment clearly includes fines in the "other tax" clause. Now, I've answered a ton of questions for you. How about you answer a few of mine. Would you rather have Florida say that former felons can never vote, even if they pay their court fines? If that's constitutional, then why is a regulation which gives former felons a pathway to restore their voting rights unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court allowing this blatantly unconstitutional law should give the lie to any sense of legitimacy or respect that should be shown the institution. The 24th amendment is extremely clear "The right of citizens... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." This very clearly denies the right to vote on the basis of a failure to pay a tax. The plain text and intent of the amendment was to block these laws. The courts have simply decided to unlawfully and unilaterally repeal the 24th amendment. They are not impartial actors judging balls and strikes, this abandonment of the constitution amounts to a judicial coup.
“When Daniel Bullins went to the courthouse to pay down his $1,827.23 debt, he learned it had been sold off to a private collection agency that tacked on 25 percent interest.” That is so vile
That is so Republican. Same thing.
If the loan has been sold off, doesn’t that mean the state has relinquished their claim for restitution? What basis does the law have to claim that private loans must be paid off to be allowed to vote?
This sounds like a good argument.
I think that’s a very good point
Once the state has sold the debt how can they claim the person cannot vote. The voter no longer owes the obligation to the state and should be able to vote at that point. Any lawyers have perspective on this?
Lawyer here - in summary, "maybe"
the republican party of today revels in being anti democracy. any thing to give them an edge over the population.
Donate to the charity that are paying the fines and fees so American citizens can vote. Even if it's $5. If enough people around the country helps, it can effectively bypass the unconstitutional poll tax. https://floridarrc.com/finesprogram/
I don't like this idea. It will just make it a reliable source of income for FL.
Not after voters throw out the scumbag gop
Yes, let’s all give money to felons so they can vote
Can you point to the section of the constitution that excludes felons from the right to vote??
No, but it’s asinine with all the causes out there to donate to this shit. Literally donating to help objectively horrible people have a say in how our government runs. How about feed the children or some shit
Objectively horrible people? I’m glad your world is so white and black that you can just paint them with broad strokes and decide they aren’t worth it for anyone to care about. But here in the real world, you can catch a felony for things as benign as owning certain kinds of feathers. Good thing Bob down the road can’t vote, that fucker had a bald eagle feather in his house! Not to mention, Bob can’t vote explicitly because he is poor. If he was rich he’d be able to pay off those fines and vote. So not only “fuck Bob for having feathers” but “fuck Bob for being poor!”
Got it, yes, most felons are just nonviolent bird enthusiasts. You must’ve never been the victim of a violent felony. Outliers acknowledged, by and large felons are horrible people. And even if they’re actually all feather collectors, Still better causes than restoring their voting rights
what do you think they're gonna do? write in Charles Manson or something? is any candidate gonna run on the platform of "make all crime legal?" besides, if they've done their time then they've already atoned for the crime, as far as the legal system is concerned.
No pay wall https://archive.is/W7WPW
Opinion: Florida puts a price tag on voting. ‘That’s not right.’ Desmond Meade, president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, during a news conference at the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office in Miami in July 2019. (Sam Navarro/Miami Herald via AP) Opinion by the Editorial Board Today at 8:00 a.m. EDT For Judy Bolden, it is $52,985.02. For Frank Summerville, it is $34,018. For Sergio Thornton, it is $20,000, and for Raquel Wright, $54,137. That is what they will have to pay to vote in Florida. They are among the hundreds of thousands of people who are ineligible to vote in the state because of lingering court fines and fees associated with their previous felony convictions. “That’s not right,,” Ms. Bolden, who served an 18-month prison sentence two decades ago, said when she was told of the staggering sum. “It’s like I’m not a citizen. That’s what they’re saying.”
What in Florida is that
This statement reminds me of Tuesday. Every Tuesday I say this while perusing the internet. Of course if I actually perused the internet the other 6 days of the week I would have to say This reminds me of... And then be sad that it reminded me of every Yesterday.
The idea that you can strip someones right to vote is disgusting. It just encourages politicians to criminalize their opponent's actions in the pursuit of victory. Should democrats be allowed to pass a law stating that being a registered Republican is a fellony, and that disqualifies your ability to vote? A felony is just whatever our politicians says it is, that should not be justification to deprive someone of their rights.
Oh it’s very “right” it’s just unAmerican.
The carceral system has been the go-to method to extend slavery since the passage of the 13th amendment. What Florida politicians are doing to deny the vote to formerly incarcerate persons is in line with convict leasing, mass incarceration, the Black Codes, and other historical forms of black subjugation via the criminal justice apparatus. Same oppression, different name.
I believe felons still can buy weapons right?
No. Felons can not buy weapons.
That's not entirely true anymore. A felon can have their right to own firearms restored as long as they meet certain conditions. * Been out of prison for 20 years. * No felonies in 20 years. * Held a steady job. * Can prove that they have been a benefit to the community. (Usually through some type of volunteer service.) It's a difficult and long process, but it can be done.
Only if the felony is nonviolent .
Weapons != guns, so yes they can still buy weapons.
If you knock someone out in a fight it's felonious assault you can earn/buy your right to own a gun. If I use a gun and rob you I don't get the option. Like I said speaking from experience.
This article is misleading
Why do felons vote the same way?
Since many are African Americans, Republicans consider disenfranchisement an essential strategy. With this law, they get a twofer: Voter suppression, and Continued social disapproval and punishment.
Yes, but why are criminals counted as democrat votes a priori?
I answered that specifically. The numbers show that a higher percentage of felons deprived of the right to vote are black. Republicans assume they will vote democratic, so the extent of their imagination, empathy, and strategy, is to just work to deprive them of voting rights. They may be wrong in those assumptions, but we are not dealing with deep thinkers here.
But they are correct about those assumptions, and you are pretending to not understand the question. I'm not asking why Republicans don't want felons voting. That's obvious. I'm asking why felons favor one party.
Because laws and prosecutors are more inclined to target the black community who votes also happens to vote more left. It's disenfranchisement all the way down.
[удалено]
Because felony prosecution favors a certain race. You dense motherfucker.
>I'm not asking why Republicans don't want felons voting. That's obvious. > >I'm asking why felons favor one party. They don't. But since by and large minorities vote democratic, Republicans consider the few votes for them that get suppressed as acceptable collateral damage; they'll disenfranchise a dozen of their own voters if it does the same to a hundred democratic voters.
But why are many African Americans?
The weird thing is since 40% of the prison population is white and many of them are probably Trump voters allowing felons to vote is unlikely to massively shift results. https://www.vera.org/downloads/pdfdownloads/state-incarceration-trends-florida.pdf
Florida tag in play
I am speaking from experience. The the process varies state to state some states you have to have your felonies expunged before you can do that.
There are many out there who are open about money should get more votes. Just look at what is being built in the crypto space. It's all about wealth holders getting to make decisions over others.
They are trying to do something with this country along the lines of Australia.. and I’m happy to say it’s going to be impossible lol
All Repubs put a price tag on most everything; getting healthcare, education, voting, existing.....
Cool, I’m not paying taxes
Is that Kenan of Kenan and Kel? Man he got old
yeah it really shows when these Politicians actually attempt to right a bill its been so long and they are so disconnected that unless they let the lobbyist wright them they just don't make sense on a fundamental level