Virginia Convicted Felons allowed to vote.

[Destino]

I'm 100% in support of it. The only time the government should strip citizens of their rights is when a clear and demonstrable threat exists. Voting is not threatening and these people have completed paying their debt to society.

[Gamebreaker]

I have always found the denying of former convicts their right to vote to be very un-American and shady as hell. Considering how biased sentencing and prosecution has been in this country since the '90's(actually even further but I don't feel like going down that rabbit hole), further denying someone who is said to be now no different than any other citizen their rights just seems like a scheme to prevent certain demographics from upsetting local and federal elections. 

 

Imagine a Sheriff or DA of a small county in a Southern state, he's made a career of railroading a certain demographic and they know it. He's better off making sure the people he screwed over don't have the opportunity to vote his corrupt ass out of office. 

[The Mayor of Fed Ex Field]

People behind in their child support, is typically because they don't have a job.

Sometimes they go to jail for not paying it, and ironically while in jail, not only are they accruing more late child support, they don't have the ability to work, earn money and pay for it.

You not hiring someone, no matter how qualified they are to work for you, wherever that may be, not only is foolish, but also just down right in humane.

Not all people behind in their child support are bad people, or bad workers.

Sometimes people have issues in their life, that they can't control, and people like you, are in a position to help someone, but choose the opposite.

If it was up to me, people like you shouldn't have the right to vote.

[GhostofSparta]

This is starting to remind me of an episode of Fresh Prince. Uncle Phil was going to send some guy back to jail because he violated his parole by not getting a job. The convict's lawyer explained that nobody would hire him, because he was a convict. Uncle Phil basically called BS, so Will (who was with him in court that day, because sitcom) tell Uncle Phil to hire him. Phil's natural response is basically "Are you nuts? I'm not gonna hire that man, he's a convicted felon."

 

People, at least most of the ones I know, have jobs because they need money and jobs pay. If you won't hire somebody who owes child support, would you hire somebody who owes credit card or student loan debts? What if somebody owes the IRS back taxes or fines? Would you hire somebody who only wants to work for you because the money you pay him will be used to buy stuff, the selfish ****?

 

 

 

As for the original topic: When you're released from prison, you're either paid your debt or you haven't. If you haven't, then what the hell are you doing out of prison? If you have, then you should be allowed to live your life basically as it was before. I can clearly understand not wanting to give murderers their guns back, or not wanting child molesters to be teachers, or whatever. Not all restrictions are deal-breakers. But mostly it's like if some kid couldn't get into community college because he cheated on a 6th grade math test.

[TimmySmith]

If they have paid their debt, and are past parole, probation etc, I don't have an issue with it.  

 

I have a bigger issue with those accepting government assistance. That creates a conflict.

[GoSkins0721]

A buddy of mine I grew up with had a serious drug problem when we were young. He never got popped for anything drug related but he did get popped for writing bad checks. So, he had felony charges that put him in jail - 12-18 months. He gets clean, pays his fine, does his community service and proceeds to have a pretty successful life as an adult. More importantly, no further drug or illegal activities since he got out of jail.

 

To this day, every time he goes on an interview "Ever been convicted of a felony?" question makes him break out in a heavy sweat. And it was over 30 years ago. He's in the type of industry where people change jobs every couple of years so he as to relive it often.

 

And he can't vote. Seems like a heavy price to pay for the crime he committed. 

[Burgold]

I don't always think it is as simple as you paid your debt and your slate is clean. For example, I have no real problems with people convicted of sexually abusing children being put on a list post their release. We don't know if they've reformed or the danger to society has been eliminated. I believe in second chances and if they served the term society judged them I'm okay with them working, living, and being part of the community, but I also think it's okay for the greater community to be aware of the past activity.

 

In terms of the vote, I think restoration is good in some cases and maybe not others. Idealistically, I want a felon to feel a part of society and a role in it. I vote because I think it's a duty and a responsibility as much as to try to get the person I prefer elected. A permanent loss of a right is a pretty profound and aggressive thing. It might be reasonable, bu you have to ask yourself does the punishment fit the crime? Are all felons equal and are the crimes they are arrested for the same? Do they deserve no chance to become a full citizen again?

[Zguy28]

Voting is not threatening

Unless you're voting for the folks I don't like.

[Burgold]

Unless you're voting for the folks I don't like.

It'd be funny if you didn't mean it (kickcan smiley) 

[Zguy28]

It'd be funny if you didn't mean it (kickcan smiley) 

I know right? Its so true.

[skinsmarydu]

Unless you're voting for the folks I don't like.

Now you're sounding like twa...you're brothers, right?

[Bang]

I don't have a problem with it.. If the debt is paid, the debt is paid. One term is served and probation requirements are met, then there should be a path to reinstatement. In fact it could be used as a rehabilitative carrot of sorts. A true return to freedom means you get to vote.

It would become very sticky to start making exceptions,, like, if a person was convicted of this, then no, but that, then yes.

It's one vote from one person. It's a basic right as a citizen and since they are still citizens, then they should get their vote.

 

And I tend to agree on the child support thing. There are very few reasons I would accept for not taking care of your kids. I think it's a big character indicator.

 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

I will say if I interview a guy that's in arrears on child support I will never ever hire. I don't care the situation, if you fail pay child support for whatever reason your not working for me.

What if they can't get a job to pay child support? Not sure industry you're in, but that's very real, even for the ones that are trying to do right.

[skinsmarydu]

It's one vote from one person. It's a basic right as a citizen and since they are still citizens, then they should get their vote.

 

And I tend to agree on the child support thing. There are very few reasons I would accept for not taking care of your kids. I think it's a big character indicator.

 

~Bang

1) Abolish the EC. Then it's "one vote from one person".

2) They can't get anywhere if they're starting from nowhere.

I was in jail with a girl who hadn't paid her child support to her ex who was in the $200,000 income level. She was a minimum wage bank cashier.

Even to this day, I hope she's OK. (We were both metalheads, she had listened to Richie Sambora's first solo album on the morning she was locked up.)

Hail to the Ballad of Youth.

[grego]

I have always found the denying of former convicts their right to vote to be very un-American and shady as hell. Considering how biased sentencing and prosecution has been in this country since the '90's(actually even further but I don't feel

I could write a book about the things I've seen.

Might have to PM burgold.....

[Zguy28]

Now you're sounding like twa...you're brothers, right?

It was sarcasm. I fully agree with restoring their rights, even if it was only done for political advantage in Virginia.

[Kilmer17]

Of course there should be a system for felons to have all of their rights restored.  All of them.

 

And VA has one. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Of course there should be a system for felons to have all of their rights restored.  All of them.

 

And VA has one.

Id love to see some links/articles regarding the efficacy of the system you hold in such high regard. I assume you have some good ones at the ready, since your every post on this subject seems to reference the comprehensive excellence of said system.

[Kilmer17]

Id love to see some links/articles regarding the efficacy of the system you hold in such high regard. I assume you have some good ones at the ready, since your every post on this subject seems to reference the comprehensive excellence of said system.

Im sure they are out there for people to find. 

 

But if you are claiming that the system wasn't efficient, or that people were denied reinstatement then I'd love to see the proof of that.

 

Just because I think felons should have a system to have their rights reinstated, doesn't mean that I think it should be an easy process.

 

Before McCaulliffe's exec action, Bob MacDonald made huge changes to VAs system to restore rights.  For a non violent offender, they needed to apply (online, via phone or in person) to the State Board of Elections.  The process took a few days.  But it happened on an individual case by case basis.  That way the State could verify the authenticity of the application.  McCaulliffe expanded the types of crimes classified as non violent.  Why is that system a bad one?  The answer?  Because McCauliffe found a way to pad 200k votes to his friends election total in November.  It's really that simple.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Im sure they are out there for people to find. 

 

But if you are claiming that the system wasn't efficient, or that people were denied reinstatement then I'd love to see the proof of that.

 

Just because I think felons should have a system to have their rights reinstated, doesn't mean that I think it should be an easy process.

 

Before McCaulliffe's exec action, Bob MacDonald made huge changes to VAs system to restore rights.  For a non violent offender, they needed to apply (online, via phone or in person) to the State Board of Elections.  The process took a few days.  But it happened on an individual case by case basis.  That way the State could verify the authenticity of the application.  McCaulliffe expanded the types of crimes classified as non violent.  Why is that system a bad one?  The answer?  Because McCauliffe found a way to pad 200k votes to his friends election total in November.  It's really that simple.

I'm not making any claims. You, however, are making a bunch of them.

1) The process is efficient and effective.

2) The process takes a few days.

3). All those with restored voting rights will vote Dem.

Back some of this up, for Pete's sake.

[Destino]

Of course there should be a system for felons to have all of their rights restored. All of them.

And VA has one.

They should get their voting rights automatically restored, unless the government can prove there is a urgent need for their disenfranchisement. Don't most states automatically restore rights with VA being one of the strictest that forces each person to petition individually? That's a useless beauracracy that shouldn't exist and a waste of time and resources that adds nothing.

[DogofWar1]

I get the feeling that the previous system worked decently...if you could afford help with navigating it.  I highly doubt whatever system was in place could handle 200,000 people by election day without being nothing more than a rubber stamp.  And if it's a rubber stamp already, why not just improve the efficiency by making it automatic.  It would probably save tax dollars to make it automatic rather than have a whole department of people pushing papers around for a while with each application until it gets stamped "yes" by the governor.

 

And as was pointed out by Predicto in the other thread, this was something McAuliffe ran on.  It shouldn't surprise people, nor should it be viewed purely as some 2016 ploy.  McDonnell did similar things.  VA's trendline has been towards automatic recovery of rights for some time.

 

There is one simple question that needs to be asked here though.

 

Is it right to restore voting rights to convicts who have served their debt to society?

 

If one's answer is no, then fine, attack McAuliffe, but one should also attack McDonnell, since the trendline has been for restoration of rights for some time, and I think then the burden falls on the person opposed to enfranchisement as to why they are opposed.

 

If the answer is yes, then one should have NO problem, whatsoever, with this action.

[Rocky21]

Before McDonnell restored voting rights to non-violent convicted felons there was a 2 year waiting period and an application process to the Governor that had to be initiated by the individual.

[twa]

 

 

There is one simple question that needs to be asked here though.

 

 

 

Is it legal is immaterial?....or too simple