How does everyone feel about felon voting rights?

[UglyGreed]

Should they be allowed to vote after they served their time and paid for their crimes???

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yes.

[struggle4progress]

51. +

[trumad]

2. Never understood why the could not.

The crooks on Wall Street are allowed to vote.

[UglyGreed]

16. Who or what does it

hurt if they are allowed to vote, I don't see the point either.

[NobodyHere]

78. Republicans generally

Felons tend to vote Democrat.

[LiberalArkie]

26. America likes to extract as much flesh from their punishment as they can.

[katsy]

85. +1

[Scootaloo]

3. Yes, they should.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. I believe in that quaint notion of being able to have 'paid your debt to society'.

So yes, once you're out of jail, the rest of your rights should be restored to you.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

5. Yes

`

[corkhead]

6. Yes, they are citizens. Apparently it is presumed that they would vote D

so it is just another cynical way the vote is manipulated.

[meow2u3]

7. They've paid their debt to society

So why charge them the usury of permanent disenfranchisement long after they've done their time? Prison is punishment enough; we don't need to keep piling it on by imposing a life sentence of not being eligible to vote.

[femmocrat]

8. Yes.

They should be reintegrated into society.

[Go Vols]

144. lol

I am a convicted felon,did 6 days over 3 weekends.I reintegrated back into society just fine.

I don't think being a habitual traffic offender merits a felony,but the state disagreed.(I used to drag race alot).

Plus, I can vote.Some states may not allow it,but I am not in one.

[tk2kewl]

9. Absolutely

[Vinca]

10. Yes. They're still citizens.

[Eric J in MN]

11. Let them vote even while they're in prison. That's what Vermont does.

Voting is pro-social behavior. Felons should be encouraged to engage in pro-social behavior.

Making them feel disconnected makes them more likely to re-offend.

[UglyGreed]

14. This is a very important point

I agree 100%

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

23. Maine also lets felons vote from prison via absentee ballot.

I guess it is only Maine and Vermont that currently allow voting from prison. I agree they should be allowed too since they are still citizens. A lot of them have families and they should be allowed to vote for what they think is in the best interests of their family. Most of them will eventually get out of jail, so they should be allowed to vote in their own best interests for when they do get out of jail.

[MadrasT]

44. +1

[immoderate]

67. This is the correct approach!

People have the right to vote!

--imm

[JeffHead]

101. If they are counted as constituents, they should be allowed to vote.

As state lawmakers struggle to re-gerrymander … er, I mean, redraw … Florida’s congressional districts, let’s consider the vital contribution that Florida’s prisoners play in this process.

The 100,000 voting-ineligible convicts locked up in Florida’s 56 state prisons are valuable pawns in this political game of voter chess.

That’s because the U.S. Census counts inmates as residents of their prisons, not of the communities where they lived when they were convicted. In Florida, this skews the demographics of some rural prison counties in North Florida, counties that on paper have minority populations that are sizable, but with so many of its counted adults excluded from the electoral process, and not really part of the community.
*snip*


http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/8704629-Non-voting-Fla-prisoners-count-in-redrawing-congressional-maps/

[treestar]

126. Exactly.

People commit crimes because they are not respecting society's rules, putting themselves apart from it.

[City Lights]

128. Great point! nt

[femmedem]

12. Yes. Many felons are people who are being failed by the current system.

Their voices are important. Necessary.

[catrose]

13. Yes

[redwitch]

15. yes. nt

[PatrickforO]

17. Yes. Disenfranchisement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

If you have a sentence and serve that sentence, then you should be even with the house. I even believe the 'sex offender list' is blatantly unconstitutional though I have mixed feelings about that. It's just that I've known several married couples on this list because he had sex with she when she was underage and he had just turned 18. Her parents didn't like him and so turned him in so he could be convicted of statutory rape. But then time goes by and the couple, who LOVES each other gets married and starts a family. The only problem is that he is on this goddamned list that keeps him pretty much from being employable in any real sense.

And then, of course, you have the person convicted of indecent exposure because someone caught him peeing outside. OMG! And now he's on this goddamned list that keeps him pretty much from being employable in any real sense.

This is the problem with the list. Judges have NO discretion about who goes on it or not. And they should. Sure, I want to be able to look up pedophiles because there's no cure for pedophilia - we have plenty of war and domestic spying money but no money to institutionalize these turds, so here they are on the street, in our neighborhoods. But how do you differentiate? Is an 18 year old boy who loves his 17 year old high school sweetheart and intends to marry her a pedophile because she was 17? I have a REAL hard time thinking that. Same thing with a guy peeing who is seen by other people inadvertently, including possibly young people. Is THAT pedophilia? I think not.

Whereas you get a 45 year old guy who is molesting a prepubescent - THAT is without any doubt whatsoever a pedophile.
And then you have the convicted rapist. Like guys who date rape and guys who slip the girl a mickey so she passes out and then rapes her. Or guys that jump out of alleys. They need to be on some kind of list because they are probably gonna do it again.

But again, the judge should have discretion here. It shouldn't automatically be decreed that someone is on this list, because the list, in effect, punishes the person for the rest of their lives, and not just for the duration of their sentence.

[annabanana]

34. What YOU said..

There is no such thing as "once size fits all" justice.

[Rex]

18. They did their time, so why are they still being punished?

Sounds a lot like class warfare.

[bemildred]

19. Yes. nt

[uppityperson]

20. Of course. Even in prison they should.

[JonathanRackham]

21. Yes

Once time is served, back to society. I'd even say paroles and probaton would be fine. Behind hard walls, no.

[mcar]

22. Yes

[Warpy]

24. Oh, sure, once the debt to society is repaid, they should have all their rights restored.

Stripping voting rights for a lifetime never made any sense at all to me.

Perhaps we could make one exception: people convicted of election fraud. The Republicans are protecting them for now. That won't last forever.

[ryan_cats]

25. What

What about Jared, should he be allowed to vote once he's paid for his crime?

[UglyGreed]

32. Does his

vote endanger more children??? I don't understand.

[Boomer]

38. Yes

Are you singling out one person in the entire country or asking whether convicted sex offenders should be allowed to vote?

Either way my answer is yes. Just as I think any convicted Wall Street execs should be allowed to vote. Oh wait, we don't have any of those. Funny how that works....

[MADem]

39. If he's placed on "lifetime parole?" No.

Some people are likely re-offenders. They have to stay "in" the system, even if they are in a parole status.

[Reter]

98. How about never letting him out?

He may not even make it out.

[RedCappedBandit]

120. Outliers should not drive policy. nt

[arcane1]

27. No. They should be allowed to vote while serving their time too n/t

[Mike Nelson]

28. YES...

...and you get a fresh start. Don't punish people for life when they did not get a life sentience...

[Boomer]

29. Yes

[annabanana]

30. a debt paid is a debt paid

Of course they should be able to vote.

[tularetom]

31. I wonder how Ms Clintron feels about this question?

If we are serious about the whole "paid their debt to society" thing, we should restore not only their voting rights but their right to own firearms.

Otherwise its pretty much one strike and you're out.

[UglyGreed]

36. I know I'm against the

death penalty.

[MADem]

42. DO you wonder? REALLY? Here, let me google that for you!!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-wants-to-allow-felons-to-vote-that-could-mean-a-lot-in-a-state-like-florida/

While in Iowa on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton mentioned a policy reform that could affect the results of presidential races: Allowing ex-felons to vote.

Clinton is not the first 2016 candidate to raise this issue, nor is it the first time that she's done so. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has repeatedly advocated for restoring voting rights for felons convicted of certain crimes. At several points while she was in the Senate, including shortly after she announced her 2008 candidacy, Clinton introduced the Count Every Vote Act, which would have restored those rights to anyone not currently incarcerated or not on parole or probation for a felony. We're still early in the 2016 campaign, so it's hard to know if that's still the boundary that Clinton sets.

As it stands, people who are convicted of felonies but are on parole can or cannot vote depending on where they live, since rules on felon voting differ by state. The Sentencing Project has a handy primer on the differences. In 12 states, those convicted of a felony cannot vote even after having repaid their debt to society -- sometimes for certain periods of time, sometimes only for certain felonies. (In two states, Maine and Vermont, there are no restrictions on the voting rights of felons, even if incarcerated.) In total, some 5.8 million people are barred from voting in the United States because of their criminal past, according to the Sentencing Project's data.

University of Florida associate political science professor Michael McDonald tries to tally how many ex-felons are disenfranchised by state at his site United States Election Project. His methodology matches government data on people under correctional control with the Sentencing Project's outline of each state's laws. Moreover, McDonald collects data on voter turnout in elections by matching ballots cast with the size of the voting eligible population.

Assuming that Clinton's advocacy in 2016 matches what she's called for in the past -- namely, restoring voting rights to those permanently disenfranchised -- McDonald's data doesn't help us. He explains why: "Time-series statistics on recidivism, deaths and migration of felons are largely unavailable." In other words, the government tracks people who are in prison or on parole, but once they're free, it's hard to determine where they are or if they're even still alive. In other words, we can't know how the Count Every Vote Act would change an election.....

[tularetom]

48. We'll see

"We're still early in the 2016 campaign, so it's hard to know if that's still the boundary that Clinton sets"

.

Even the author of this piece feels obliged to add some weasel words to his account of her past support for the restoration of voting rights.

Once she has the nomination in her pocket and feels the need to appeal to "hard working white Americans" like she did in 2008, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see her backslide on that.

Sorry, I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. She's a long time, though not particularly proficient, liar.

[MADem]

50. Yeah, she wrote that legislation because she was insincere.

smh.

Didn't get the answer you expected so you just have to end on a 'dis' note!



So unsubtle and petulant!

[tularetom]

55. Sticks and stones

Once again, we'll see. I fully expect her to revert to type.

[bigwillq]

33. Yes (nt)

[MADem]

35. Served their time, discharged from any parole supervision, and free and clear of any legal

encumbrances? Sure--if they've paid their debt to society, they've PAID their debt to society.

If they are still on parole, though? No. Once they're free of that? Why not?

[UglyGreed]

41. Who does it hurt

if they are in jail or on parole? Being in jail I imagine is pretty harsh in it's own right.

[MADem]

47. There should be consequences to criminal conduct. We take away 'rights' from people who

commit crimes, with a goal of causing them to consider how much not having those 'rights' sucks.

In jail, you don't have your liberty, and you certainly don't have much happiness to pursue--you can make the best of it, maybe work on some courses, get a high school equivalency if you don't have one, start in on college, even, but it is appropriate that you should be ostracized from the voting process because your pisspoor judgment put you behind those bars in the first place.

That said, once you are free and clear of the justice system, you have been restored in the eyes of the court and your fellow citizens to full status as a productive member of society, I think you should be permitted to go on and register.

It is a right, taken away as a consequence of shitty behavior in society, that should be restored once a person gets back on track. Some states do this, some do not--it should be an across-the-board thing.

Actions have consequences. If there are no consequences to committing crimes, what is the motivation to change one's conduct or attitude? Not being trusted to use one's judgment to select elected officials is an appropriate punishment for people who don't know how to behave in society.

[MADem]

53. It HELPS criminals understand that when they fuck up, they lose valuable things.

Like their liberty. Like their ability to freely associate. Like their ability to pick up the remote and watch any program they can pay for on cable tv. Like their ability to vote.

These things should be regarded as precious, valuable, desired. And the loss of them should be felt, in order to guide future behavior.

The taking away is one thing, and the 'getting back' is another. I think that when they are no longer under the umbrella of the criminal justice system, they should be restored to full rights. And this should be a Big Deal for them, a concrete expression that they've rejoined society.

[UglyGreed]

71. Well these laws

I believe were first used to disenfranchise people, freed black slaves. It was not to punish them per say more like getting rid of their power to help better their lives. Punishment is the jail time they serve, taking away their voting rights is trampling their rights as human beings.

[MADem]

96. I disagree. You abuse society, you don't deserve the benefits of it. Like freedom and voting.

Pay your debt, and you get all that back.

Makes it more valuable, when it's taken away, and later restored.

[UglyGreed]

129. How do you

feel about the death penalty???

[MADem]

134. Not a fan. I can understand how, in some cases, people have an urge for vengeance,

and want retribution, and want to keep it in reserve for that especially heinous crime that they feel deserves no other sentence, but I'm in Mike Dukakis territory on that issue. I can accept that I am out of step with many in this regard.

[UglyGreed]

135. Thanks for the

reply.

[annabanana]

37. gonna rec. . . .n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Absolutely.

[Rebkeh]

43. If a felon is a citizen of voting age,

s/he should have the right to vote. Debt to society is irrelevant to citizenship anyway. Civic duties don't end because you get arrested, I'll never understand why this isn't obvious.

[MADem]

49. It doesn't end if you're arrested. It ends when you are convicted of a felony, and in some states

is restored when you clear the system.

[Rebkeh]

60. Still though,

it shouldn't end at all. At the very least, it should be restored immediately following fulfillment - in all 50 states.

You don't stop being a citizen, do you? This means civic duties still stand, therefore, the right to vote should still stand. I can see some exceptions for jury duty, depending on the trial case, but the vote? No.

[MADem]

62. I disagree. It's a right. We abrogate rights when people commit crimes (liberty being the biggie).

Take it away when they are bad, give it back when they've paid their debt. Make them realize that actions have consequences. I think returning voting rights AFTER the debt is paid will make people feel like they've "rejoined" society, that their slate is wiped clean.

I do think it should be the same law from sea to shining sea--not a state-by-state patchwork. The problem there is that "states rights" come into play; most people do not realize that FEDERAL elections are conducted by the states.

It's why we end up with shit like "hanging chads."

[GeorgeGist]

136. You want prisoners on your jury?

Civic duties are civic duties.

[Rebkeh]

143. Depends on the trial

Would I want a convicted and actually guilty rapist on a jury deciding on a rape case? No.

Some other crime, such as a white collar crime? Why not?

I believe in rehabilitation not punishment so there's that too. Criminal injustice is a multi-layered and complex problem, but the bottom line is that as a society we create circumstances where criminal activity is a natural outcome. Furthermore, the system doesn't work. If I had more faith in it, I may view it differently.

Prisoners are people. Actual human beings, many of them regular people like everybody else. And they deserve to vote for legislation that affects them, their families and their children at home.

[drray23]

45. absolutely

Felon or not, they are still citizens. I do not think one should strip somebody of their rights just because they were convicted. The prison time is supposed to be the punition. Similarly, I do not think one should have people on probation for years after they are released. This sets them up for failure and they return to the jail for the most ridiculous reasons (like being late 5 mins to see your probation officer ).

[GeorgeGist]

137. Like the right to be free?

I do not think one should strip somebody of their rights just because they were convicted.

[Liberal_in_LA]

46. Yes

[petronius]

52. I think people should be able to vote while incarcerated, let alone after

I really don't see a reason to deny or suspend voting rights for any citizen...

[loyalsister]

59. I agree

Civic participation is bound to make people feel more connected and hopefully less inclined to do harm.

[GeorgeGist]

138. Then why incarcerate them?

[951-Riverside]

56. I'm against punishing people after they have served their sentence

Being labeled as a felon is a life sentence, not only can you not vote but you usually can't get good paying jobs, you can't serve in the Military, its hard to obtain a passport and many countries like the UK and Canada will deny you entry even if you do.

We need to end this barbaric practice.

[CharlotteVale]

57. Yes. They should never have had their rights taken away in the first place.

[LiberalElite]

58. Yes. nt

[hifiguy]

61. Of course. They're citizens.

Never made a bit of sense to me that they can't vote.

[alphafemale]

63. Posting a question to DU is NOT going to change that.

You could start a petition to get that changed in your state.

But that might involve something like work and negative feedback.

[Chan790]

64. I believe the suspension of voting rights should be lifelong nationwide.

I realize that puts me into the minority. I don't think they should be restored after release...and I don't think the state/federal government should capable of restoring them without a pardon.

Once convicted...gone forever. That's how I believe it should be.

[Iggo]

108. Thank jeebus it's a minority, too.

:phew:

[Chan790]

115. Yes, I conceded that upfront.

I might be jaded a bit but 20 years of interaction with incarcerated people as an anti-DP activist has seated in me a deep conviction that anybody who manages to get caught and convicted of a crime (excepting those falsely convicted and later cleared) is demonstrably too evil or stupid for me want them having any say in the governance of their community, let alone their state or nation, ever again.

[GeorgeGist]

139. Why not include their right to be free?

[Chan790]

148. They are free.

...but conviction and incarceration voids other rights for life such as RKBA (as the child of a felon who tried to kill me and went to prison for something else, this makes me immensely happy he's not allowed to own a gun. Since he's a gun-nut white supremacist with a violent hate-crime conviction, this should make everybody else happy too.) and nobody other than the NRA (and not even their own membership takes them seriously on that) really argues that we need a movement to restore RKBA to convicted felons.

Being released from prison doesn't and shouldn't carry the restoration of all pre-incarceration rights. I don't want convicted felons voting, their decision-making faculties are suspect.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Yes.

[madokie]

66. Yes of course

I'm all for second chances, even thirds if need be

[MerryBlooms]

68. All US citizens should have the right to vote. Period.

[beevul]

69. Intertwine gun rights to voting...

Intertwine gun rights to voting, and the answers will change drastically.

[UglyGreed]

74. I was not going to

go there.

[beevul]

75. Rights are rights.

I just find it interesting how the answers would change, is all.

[UglyGreed]

76. I know what you are

saying but since we are in primary season I thought I would not muddy the waters by adding gun rights.

[beevul]

80. I can understand that.

Primary season is bad enough as it is.

I wont set foot in GD: P, no sir, no way, no how.

[UglyGreed]

84. I'm recovering

right now, I'm glutton for punishment.

[Marrah_G]

70. yes

Especially since our justice system is so unjust and so unequal

[valerief]

72. Yes. nt

[SusanCalvin]

73. Of course. nt

[Hoyt]

77. Yes. They are a member of society.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. I don't see why not

[TIME TO PANIC]

81. Yes

[Pathwalker]

82. Yes.

n/t

[cyberswede]

83. Absolutely. nt

[peacebird]

86. Yes.

[Half-Century Man]

87. Why do they lose the right to vote even while incarceated?

They maintain residency.
Their identity is confirmed.
Even if they represent a voting block of 2 million plus, can you imagine they could vote in a pro-crime candidate?


I have never heard a good reason to disenfranchise these people. I see one huge reason to ensure their rights.
The vast majority of people who get criminal records are members of minorities. One of the leading reasons for the continuance of the War on Drugs is the systematic disenfranchisement of minorities.
I can't really get on board with that.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

88. Yes

Infinite punishment for finite transgressions is bullshit.

[BootinUp]

89. Of Course. nt

[MH1]

90. Yes, unless their crime was voter fraud or related to election fraud.

The only felons who should not regain the right to vote after completing their sentence, is those whose crimes involved undermining the election process.

Excluding the election-related category -

I think even felons on parole or otherwise not incarcerated should also have the right to vote.

The only reason incarcerated felons shouldn't have the "right" to vote is the expense to the taxpayer. I'm not firm on that though. If the consensus was to, for example, allow felons in prison to cast absentee ballots, I wouldn't fight it. But it's not something I would fight for, either.

[JimDandy]

91. They should be allowed to vote even while imprisoned. n/t

[Gothmog]

92. Felon disenfranchisement is a holdover from the Jim Crow days

[Igel]

93. They should be allowed to vote after they've served their time and are done with their punishment.

And in most states either this is the case (for at least a wide variety of crimes) or can be the case with a fairly routine petition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States

The OP is a question, and not an assertion. Nonetheless, it presumes something like "Felons are generally not allowed to vote after they have served their time and paid for their crimes." This is a strawman.

A large number of ex-cons are prohibited from voting across the country, however. In some cases it's because the state restricts voting rights for their particular crimes, but in more cases it's because they haven't bothered to petition for restoration of the right.

This kind of question just reinforces the belief that ex-felons are simply not permitted to vote and have no recourse. The proper course of action, barring having the rights automatically restored, would be to let them know they can petition for the franchise.

Actually, I rather suspect that this has the same effect as all the voter-ID blather had in Texas. More people didn't bother to vote because they assumed they lacked proper ID (when they had the necessary ID) than couldn't vote for lack of proper ID. All the discussion about how so many people in this class or that group were going to be disenfranchised discouraged them. At the same time, we accuse (R) of suppressing voter turnout. The accusations did more harm, in all likelihood, than the actual voter suppression.

We constantly say felons can't vote, so those marginally attached to society or the electoral process simply assume it's a waste of time to try. Even if they could.

[hay rick]

94. Yes. nt

[Generic Brad]

95. Yes. They are still citizens.

If they served their time, there is no valid reason to strip them of additional rights.

[Todays_Illusion]

97. I am for it, Main and Vermont allow you to vote while in jail. Here is a link to a page with each

state's felon voting laws.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

[we can do it]

99. Yes.

[malcolmboeing]

100. Gun ownership?

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't mind convicted felons choosing our leaders. I do have a problem with convicted felons possessing guns.

[ColesCountyDem]

146. Doesn't the type of felony matter?

There's an enormous difference between writing rubber checks and sticking up a bank with a gun, after all.

[NBachers]

102. Yes. I'm one. I live in California. I vote.

[Greybnk48]

103. Of course. They've "paid their debt to society"

as the saying goes, and their rights should be no different than yours or mine. I never understood why they were not permitted to vote in the first place.

[one_voice]

104. Yes. Once they're done..

parole/probation they're voting privileges should be reinstated.

If you are a member of society you should be able to vote.--by that I mean not incarcerated/institutionalized for mental disease (criminally insane etc)--

[burrowowl]

105. YES!!!

[StrayKat]

106. Yes.

I think that not letting ex-cons vote is a form of voter suppression since our system disproportionately punishes minorities. I also think felons need the chance to re-integrate into society and that after felons have completed jail or prison, parole, and/or probation, they should automatically be allowed to vote again (except in cases where convicted of voter fraud).

[gvstn]

107. Yes, that is the whole idea behing paying your sentence.

Once done, you get to go about your business, including voting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Yes, that is a remnant of Jim Crow

the only absolute exception I can think off, are child molesters and only if they are ordered for a lifetime parole.

[akbacchus_BC]

110. I always thought that people who are in prison could vote!

Reading this thread, I realise that it would be difficult and costly to set up voting systems in prisons for prisoners to vote. However, voting is a civic right for every citizen and once they are released and even on parole, they should be allowed to vote. How can a country strip a large group of people of their civic rights? That's what I do not understand. I may be misguided in my opinion.

[Hepburn]

111. Paid your debt, voting rights should be restored.

I say this for non-violent felonies re gun ownership as well.

The purpose should be rehabilitation and not a lifetime of punishment.

JMHO

[davidpdx]

112. Yes, they should be allowed to vote after they are released from prison or jail

Whether they should be allowed to vote in prison or jail I'm on the fence.

[TipTok]

113. It shouldn't be an automatic...

However it should be an option for a judge to impose a lifelong ban as part of the punishment handed down at sentencing...

[Eric J in MN]

118. If a person is convicted of possessing an amount of marijuana

...which is a felony, the judge should be able to say, "You can never vote again for the rest of your life"?

[TipTok]

147. An example of where it likely wouldn't be appropriate...

As opposed to the more violent side of the spectrum...

[Eric J in MN]

149. I think that prisons should be used to punish

...violent people, and voting rights should have nothing to do with punishment.

[fredamae]

133. Under what exceptions would you deny VR? n/t

[flor-de-jasmim]

114. Yes, without hesitation. Eom

[hobbit709]

116. Yes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. Restore one right, restore them ALL.

They paid their debt, or they didn't. If they did, restore ALL their rights.

[RedCappedBandit]

119. They've paid their dues and we should not strip them of their right to vote. nt

[Marengo]

121. I believe all rights should be restored, including 2A...

and all offender registries should be abolished.

[bluedigger]

122. Yes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Sure, why not? /NT

[me b zola]

124. Yes

[treestar]

125. Yes. If out they should be full members of society again

I don't know why people think it's good to continue to punish them and have them on the outside, so to speak. That only encourages recidivism.

[merrily]

127. Yes. They are allowed to live next door to me and you. Why not to vote?

Are they a danger to a voting machine?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

If you've paid the penalty, you've paid the penalty.

[Bonx]

130. Yep.

[cascadiance]

131. Felony voter disenfranchisement is an incentive for our prison industrial complex growing!...

... and to continue to have so many non-violent "crimes like shop lifting, drug possession, etc. to be classified as felonies, to aid powers that be to fill prisons and grow the private prison industry here that has world dominance in terms of both raw numbers and percentages of prison population being the highest here.

Perhaps we need to work out whether they should be allowed to vote in some cases, but the way we have rights to vote curtailed especially at the state level, helps encourage many efforts of voter disenfranchisement through excessive amounts of "felons" in our society to keep them from voting. Marijuana legislation is partly to help us enable marijuana as a medical treatment, etc. but also to be a starting rallying cry to stop the prison industrial complex screwing us over as voters too.

[fredamae]

132. Absolutely

There is meaning for most of us in the term "Paid his/her debt to society". Roll with it...we can't have it both ways.

[riderinthestorm]

140. Yes nt

[tabasco]

141. Of course they should be allowed to vote.

A permanent ban on civil rights because of a criminal conviction is UNCONSCIONABLE.

Of course, in many states it's a fact of life.

[TeddyR]

142. Maybe

I certainly oppose letting someone sitting in prison vote. You are in prison for a reason -- perhaps drug dealing, perhaps murder, rape, child molestation, who knows. So no, that individual shouldn't get to have a say in who leads a local community, state or the country. Once the sentence is up and the person is free? Maybe. Are we going to give those people the right to keep and bear arms? I mean, if they can vote they should be able to exercise other rights, correct?

[BainsBane]

145. Yes.

In MN they can vote when they have done their time, including parole--what's called "off paper." I think we have it right.

I wouldn't mind if they could vote while serving time, but that is politically unfeasible.

[Eric J in MN]

150. MN Law

In MN, voting rights are restored to felons after they complete parole-and-probation.

Earlier this year, the Democratic MN Senate passed a budget bill with a section allowing felons to vote as soon as they get out of prison.

However, the Republican MN House got that section of the budget bill removed before passage.

[wain]

151. Yes, and restore their right to own a gun

After all, they have paid their debt to society. Same logic.