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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -11 year ago

    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.

    • Five
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • @CoffeeJunkie
      link
      English
      -51 year ago

      Rapists, pedophiles? Thieves, especially thieves of great scale/scope?

      • @Potatos_are_not_friends
        link
        English
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • @CoffeeJunkie
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          I am very aware of that, and the law needs to be reformed to reflect reality. We know those aren’t pedophiles. I’m not addressing the outliers. What about the real pedophiles, the real rapists? I don’t respect their judgment or voice. Why should we allow them to vote?

          • FreeFacts
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            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”.

            • @CoffeeJunkie
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              Fair enough, but I also want to point out a bit of a false equivalence. Rape & abortion. While there is plenty of debate about abortion, its legality & justification, there is no such debate that I’m aware of about rape. Except maybe among, you know, rapists. 😂 There is no pro-rape coalition; virtually everyone is in agreement: rape is a terrible act & is never justified.

              • FreeFacts
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                While there is plenty of debate about abortion, its legality & justification, there is no such debate that I’m aware of about rape.

                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.

      • @w2tpmf
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        Rapists, pedophiles? Thieves, especially thieves of great scale/scope?

        That describes the people making the laws and holding the offices getting voted on. 🤷‍♂️

      • @Alexstarfire
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        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.

        • @CoffeeJunkie
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          I agree, probably hardly enough to make any real difference. I guess I just like the idea of formally, politely, legally telling truly despicable human beings that nobody cares what they think & they should go fuck themselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯