- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Nineteen federal appellate judges are scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on whether Mississippi can continue to permanently strip voting rights from people convicted of certain felonies, including nonviolent crimes for which they have served a complete sentence.
The outcome of the case will likely determine whether tens of thousands of people win back the right to vote. An immediate decision is not expected.
Criminal justice advocates won a major victory last August when a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban violates the Constitution’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment. But the full 17-member circuit court vacated that ruling weeks later and scheduled Tuesday’s hearing.
Attorneys for the state argue that the voting ban is a “nonpunitive voting regulation” and that, even if it did constitute punishment, it isn’t cruel and unusual.
You must log in or register to comment.
ALL citizens should have a voice. And ALL voices should be equal.
Ah yes the good ol “Voicing disagreement to our inhumane behavior is illegal” and “If you do illegal things we take away your voting rights” combo.
Olibigatory Sherman.
All adult citizens should get to vote every election.
If we have so many citizens in prison that their voting block swings an election or pushes through a referendum, then it most definitely means we have too many people unjustly held in prison.
If you’ve served your complete sentence for a non-violent crime, you should get your voting rights back, unless said crime was related to voting. Likewise, if you are convicted of a violent crime involving a firearm, you should forfeit your second amendment rights for life.
I’d be interested in hearing a compelling reason why anyone should have their voting rights revoked for any reason what so ever.
If you’re a citizen of a country, you should always get a say, no matter what you’ve done.
Doing otherwise just opens the doors for something like making weed illegal so you can throw hippies in prison on felony charges.
I don’t agree with this stance, but I believe the idea is that people who vote should be those who have a vested interest in the preservation of social order and the governments that ensure it.
Prisoners are kept imprisoned by the government, which means on the whole you’d expect their priorities to trend towards the dissolution of governmental social order.
You’ve also got voter jurisdiction conflicts. Should prisoners have a say in local elections where the prison is housed or should it be their last known residence before they were incarcerated? If the prison population is significant compared to the population of a remote town where the prison may be housed, do we say they don’t get a say in local elections after all?
I’d say before any of these problems can be easily answered, it requires a huge overhaul of the justice system and the way we handle imprisonment as a whole.
Prisoners, who are entirely at the mercy of the state, have more vested interest than anyone else in ensuring that their needs are heard.
Voting for the government to dissolve will never be on the ballot, and even if it was, I’d argue that if a government is keeping enough prisoners that they could vote to dissolve it, that government is the most extreme police state in history and it definitely needs to be dissolved.
I would argue committing voter fraud or election fraud is grounds for stripping away one’s voting rights. The person has proven they do not value other people’s voting rights by trying to subvert otherwise fair elections and should therefore forfeit their own voting rights. That’s really the only reason voting rights should ever be stripped though.
There won’t ever be enough people convicted of election-related fraud to matter, so all you’d be doing by taking away their right to vote is to reinforce the idea that the right to vote can be taken away.
Just because the number of offenders is negligible doesn’t mean they should continue to exercise that right after they’ve abused that same right to the detriment of others.
This will end at the Supreme Court.
Easy guess how they’ll rule lol
