Because committing crimes, including felonies, shouldn’t prevent you from being involved in politics, because you’re still impacted by politics.
Trump, on the other hand, is an extreme case, because his felonies including trying to stop the transfer of power and do a coup to install himself permanently in power. To me, those are more solid reasons to say he shouldn’t be able to vote again, way moreso than just being “a felon.”
EDIT: Just want to say, I think others are correct, he should still be allowed to vote, but he should be disallowed from running for office. That’s a more clear and reasonable way to look at it, I think. Thanks folks.
If felons should be allowed to vote, I don’t think it’s worth carving out an exemption for one particular felon. His vote is a drop in the bucket anyway.
What’s more important is that this felon should not be allowed to run for office.
It’s not an exemption for one person if you say that a felony related to undermining an election stops you from being able to vote. I think that’s fair enough.
His vote is a drop in the bucket anyway
We are all just drops in the bucket on this blessed day.
If the people want a felon, give them a felon.
That truly is the crux of the issue.
It’s almost like there should be a law against somebody like him running for office. Oh wait, there already is, and it’s been on the books for 150 years to keep Confederate traitors from holding office. 14th amendment, section 3.
It’s fucking insane that he’s even on ballots after what he did.
I fully support his being eligible to vote, regardless of past convictions, even if they were for treasonous, seditious behavior.
He should not be eligible to run for office.
Convicted felons should be eligible to vote, whether in prison or not, because as you said, anyone still affected by politics should have a voice. This also includes children, undocumented immigrants, and resident aliens. Anyone living here is impacted by the choices of our representatives and should therefore be able to vote for those representatives. Physical presence should be the only requirement.
The problem is: if he for some reason is elected, he could then invent reasons why other people should not be able to vote or be elected. Or just claim that there are reasons
Fuck no he shouldnt be allowed to vote nor run for president. This is how we get hitler 2.
So anyone who’s been found guilty of a crime shouldn’t be allowed to vote even though once they’re out of prison they still pay taxes? Taxation without representation? You don’t think they might be interested in voting for people that would have made it so they might not have committed a crime in the first place or that might push for rehabilitation instead of pure punishment or that might be against private prisons?
Uh he tried to have a coup. Disqualified! And if you disagree, well you’re Disqualified too.
Being a felon should not bar anybody from voting, that’s intentional, and the way it should be. On the other hand, running for office after trying to overturn an election, ehhh, maybe you shouldn’t be eligible for office after that. But, hey, what do I know, I just live in this country.
Voting is a right. Being a candidate is a privilege.
I don’t even know that I’d go that far. If we start saying people who have had run ins with the law aren’t eligible for office in general, then you can just slap your political opponents with frivolous charges to prevent them from running. This is a special case of outrageous and egregious conduct by a candidate, who quite frankly has a good chance of winning thanks to the right wing media apparatus.
Oh sure, there’s always that. I failed to make the point that because of the right/privilege distinction, it should be much more difficult to remove someone’s right to vote than to remove their privilege to run as a candidate.
Because he was convicted in New York and according to Florida law the state that he was convicted ins laws apply as far as his voting rights.
The thing is, which law? I can’t find it. Florida’s website redirects to their constitution and their constitution. Doesn’t. Say. That.
It doesn’t carve out that exception, and there would need to be a law that automatically reinstated him instead of just never removing him. Because a law that doesn’t remove him, violates their constitution.
I don’t know, I was parroting the article.
I know. I’m just annoyed that no news source has backed up this claim with the actual law that supposedly exempts him.
That’s the thing I’ve read before, but does
“No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.”
mean that it excludes it when the other state doesn’t have a rule removing rights? Maybe a lawyer can explain it to me, but following the links to the actual law seems to contradict what’s on the page from how I understand it. Also what’s in the page seemed to get edited there as soon as people started asking about it.
“Until restoration of civil rights” is the important bit. Since NY hasn’t removed his civil rights he doesn’t have to “restore them”.
I think the important part is that it’s florida that’d be removing them, and the rest of it that I didn’t copy is how florida restores them. This is Florida’s constitution. If we interpreted that way, he can never get them back. Florida took them away and he cannot have them back until NY restores them, which they can’t
Yeah it’s really interesting to me that you weren’t able to find it. Because that’s not the first time I’ve read that.
And law libraries are pretty thorough.
I’ve done some digging in them myself.
deleted by creator
