‘My voice matters’: Felons vote at polls for first time after voting rights restored
The monumental day comes despite two legal challenges that attempted to undercut it. Last Thursday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a legal challenge by Mille Lacs County District Court Judge Matthew Quinn against Restore the Vote. Quinn had barred at least six defendants from voting as part of their sentences and argued the voting law was unconstitutional.
In an order, Chief Judge Susan Segal wrote that Quinn had no authority to declare the law unconstitutional. And Segal said Quinn’s actions were “unauthorized by law.”
Another lawsuit by conservative voter’s group Minnesota Voters Alliance is pending in Anoka County before District Court Judge Thomas Lehmann. A first hearing was held on Oct. 30, but Lehmann has not issued a ruling on the case yet.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/11/07/my-voice-matters-felons-vote-at-polls-for-first-time-after-voting-rights-restoredOpen linkView original on midwest.social
26 replies
The only reason to deny felons a vote is political malfeasance.
Even inmates should generally be able to and encouraged to vote. Civic participation, social buy in, rehabilitation, nothing bad can come of that, these are supposed to be the point.
The fact that these people are subject to our laws is the same reason they should never lose their voice in it, because then you're just subject to the system's whims. The thing that makes their incarceration just in theory to begin with is that they are part of it rather than simply an unwilling kidnapping by power.
To me its disgusting how punitive we are towards our largest prison population on earth. We as a people seem to revel in what we take away from them, even things that might encourage them to be part of society again. We set people who make mistakes, usually because of desperate circumstances to begin with, up to fail in perpetuity, and seem to discourage any effort to rejoin society in good faith.
During the height of Apartheid, South African prisons had voting booths. Let that sink in. Angela Davis gives a really good lecture on the subject - basically George Bush Jr. would never have been elected if incarcerated people were permitted to vote, and we would be living in a very different world.
When I was a kid it was called "taxation without representation." People not allowed to vote should be off the hook for taxes too.
I'm cool with letting felons vote. That is, unless they were found guilty of murder/manslaughter. If you remove another person's vote part of the punishment should be losing your own political voice.
Manslaughter? What about companies that manufacture a faulty product that results in premature death? Does their board lose the right to vote? Can the corporation be barred from lobbying congress?
What about Phillip Morris, manufacturer of cigarettes? Does everyone who works there lose the right to vote?
Slaves had no voting rights, and removing the voting rights of people convicted of a crime was invented under Jim Crow, and was used to disenfranchise black people from political power in the antebellum south. It is still used for that purpose throughout the United States to this day.
Permitting any crime to remove a person's right to vote will result in black and indigenous people of color being targeted for and wrongfully convicted of that crime.
But whatabout
Listen fella, I made a pretty concise explanation of my take of it. You can do the same without trying to make me feel like shit because of the racist history of America? Thanks.
They committed a crime and they served their time. That's what jail is for.
You know you can be labeled a pedo if you drunkenly peed in a bush near a daycare? Or if you're a dumb teen sending nude photos to another dumb teen?
There are people who don't respect the judgement or voice of people who have abortions, or provide them. The former probably ask about the latter "why should we allow them to vote" too. That just emphasizes the fact that personal feelings are not good enough reason to limit a right. The right to vote should be the basis. As a right it needs no justification, on the contrary, any limitations to it are the ones that need to be justified. And justified better than "I don't respect this and that".
There actually is, but it is not on the same level. It's on the definition level, as in what constitutes as rape. And believe me, there are lots of people who will be in agreement that rape is a terrible act, but will also defend a rapist because the legal definition of rape doesn't match what they perceive as rape.
Please tell me how you decide this, oh grand arbiter of crimes?
That describes the people making the laws and holding the offices getting voted on. 🤷♂️
Seems pretty easy to generalize that if you are beholden to the government then you get a say in the government. Otherwise, unjust laws just remove opposition from the voting pool.
I don't disagree that there are people who should not be able to vote based on what they've done but I think the amount of people that applies to is too small to make any real difference. And the amount of people who should be able to vote but have been wrongly disqualified from voting is higher.
Yes, let criminals vote. What could possibly go wrong?
Wait 'til you hear about criminals who are allowed & encouraged to run for office!
99% of politicians are criminals
BoTH siDEs aRe THe sAMe
Good question. What do you think could possibly go wrong?
Criminals don't care about what's best for their community or their society, they are selfish and only care about themselves and they will vote accordingly.
In California for example, they've essentially de-criminalized theft and stopped prosecuting it and now retail theft has gone way up. I'm not sure if felons can vote in California or if that could even be attributed to such legislation being passed, but it is definitely something criminals would support and I fear that kind of situation spreading.
I'm sure the decriminalized theft in California. But how has theft gone up if it's legal now? It's no longer a crime, right? Right?
The amount of businesses reporting theft has gone up.
But thieft is legal. What are they reporting?
What point are you trying to make? The amount of people taking things without paying for them has gone up. Call it what you want
You're claiming theft is legal in California. I'm asking you for details on that claim.
Thieft is in fact 100% illegal in the state of California. If you steal $950 and over it becomes a felony charge. You don't just "call it what you want", that's not how law works. But I'd love to hear your reasoning on how that makes stealing legal.
Such backwards thinking. "Once a criminal, always a criminal"? Think harder, numbnuts.