Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Floridians will be able to decide if convicted felons should be given the right to vote. Organizers gathered the nearly 800,000 signatures required to put on the ballot in November this year. If the Second Chances Voting Restoration Amendment passes, about 1.5 million felons in the state could get their rights back. Those convicted of felony sexual crimes or murder will not be included in the Amendment. in this Come November, Florida voters will determine whether or not to restore voting rights to 1.5 million registered felons across the state. "Florida is one of only four states with a lifetime ban on voting," according to the group's website. "Now is the time to return the ability to vote to Floridians who have done their time and paid their debts. These are our family members, friends, and neighbors who have earned the opportunity to participate in and give back to their communities. It's simply the right thing to do."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I agree 100% with this and will vote in favor of it.

#1 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2018-01-23 07:49 PM | Reply

Felonious Floridians can petition to have their Second Amendment rights restored. So, if it doesn't disqualify you from carrying a gun, then I don't see how voting is a higher threshold.

And there's this: After that whole "Hanging Chad" thing (look it up, kids) Florida voters are advised to shoot their ballot with a minimum .38 caliber pistol so as to leave no doubts about "voter intent."

So when the felons do get to vote, having their gun rights already restored will ensure a smooth transition to democracy.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-23 10:12 PM | Reply

Part 2.

If you don't think convicted felons should be able to vote do you think they should have to pay taxes?

#3 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 01:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can't wait to see the ads the Republicans will run to try and convince Floridians that once you pay for your crime you shouldn't have your voting rights restored. Racism will be a big part of their ad campaign. I think this will be approved by the people which will piss off the Republican Party because even most of their voters will want to restore voting rights. Realize too, George Bush was awarded the Presidency because Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris used a company from Texas to review the felons list and disenfranchised anyone who even had a slightly similar name because they were trying to insure George's victory here which, in fact, they did not succeed in doing but the crooked U.S. SC gave him the presidency anyway. And thereby are responsible for the Iraq War and the worst recession since 1929. We still have the same crooked balance on the court insured by McConnell refusing to even give a hearing or a vote to Garland, instead we get a right wing tool Gorsuch who, if he had an ounce of decency, would have disqualified himself because of the treatment of Garland.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-24 07:18 AM | Reply

"Felonious Floridians can petition to have their Second Amendment rights restored."

True, but who gets to decide? The Republican governor. How do you think he feels about restoring their rights?

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-24 09:15 AM | Reply

*scratching head*
How can one's right to vote be taken away? Isn't that somewhere in the Constitution?

#6 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-24 09:42 AM | Reply

"How can one's right to vote be taken away? Isn't that somewhere in the Constitution?"

Unfortunately not. The Constitution does not actually grant any of us the "right to vote."

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-24 10:00 AM | Reply

Which leads to the following

1) Most criminal law is state based. For a crime to be federal it must meet certain criteria

2) State Legislatures set the classification of crimes

3) By using demographic data legislatures can not only choose which CRIMES should be felonies for a straight law and order perspective but can choose which PEOPLE they want charged with felonies.

4) By elevating the severity of crimes committed by one demographic group and/or lowering the severity of similar crimes committed by another demographic group and even by changing sentencing lengths they can directly affect the pool of eligible voters

Example: In Wisconsin once you complete your sentence your voting rights are restored. Crack and Meth tend to be more prevalent in African American Communities. Heroin and Powder Cocaine are more prevalent in the white flight suburbs. Crack and Meth carry longer sentences than heroin and powder cocaine. As a result while conviction rates are similar in both communities, since one group spends longer prison terms, more of them are disenfranchised.

It works like this: Year 1: 100 group A get sentenced to 3 years 100 Group B get sentenced to 5 Years. Year 2: 100 group A get sentenced to 3 years 100 Group B get sentenced to 5 Years. Nobody gets out. Year 3: 100 group A get sentenced to 3 years 100 Group B get sentenced to 5 Years. Nobody gets out. Year 4: 100 group A get sentenced to 3 years 100 Group B get sentenced to 5 Years. 100 group A get out. 300 Group A are in Prison 400 Group B. Year 5+: 100 group A get sentenced to 3 years 100 Group B get sentenced to 5 Years.100 Group A get out. 300 Group A are in Prison 500 group B are in Prison.

Net effects:
1) Less eligible voters from Group B
2) Higher prison population from Group B

#8 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not sure why Liberals are going the slow route to get what they want. Yes, we all know you don't want anyone to be penalized at all for committing crimes. You want jails to shut down and everyone to live in your fantasy world where everyone does everything right if they are given complete freedom, and nobody will ever do anything wrong if there isn't a government telling them what is right and wrong as deemed by voted officials. Why not just do what has always been done. Put together petitions and draft legislation to remove all laws in our country. Just keep pushing it over and over again until society is desensitized to it, thus increasing the percentage of people who will vote for it. Over a long enough time span, you will finally get what you want. It will be a long enough time span for everyone else who lives in reality to leave (which is what you want anyways, right?)

#9 | Posted by humtake at 2018-01-24 11:38 AM | Reply

Not sure why Liberals are going the slow route to get what they want. Yes, we all know you don't want anyone to be penalized at all for committing crimes. You want jails to shut down and everyone to live in your fantasy world where everyone does everything right if they are given complete freedom, and nobody will ever do anything wrong if there isn't a government telling them what is right and wrong as deemed by voted officials. Why not just do what has always been done. Put together petitions and draft legislation to remove all laws in our country. Just keep pushing it over and over again until society is desensitized to it, thus increasing the percentage of people who will vote for it. Over a long enough time span, you will finally get what you want. It will be a long enough time span for everyone else who lives in reality to leave (which is what you want anyways, right?)
#9 | Posted by humtake

OMG, this post had so much straw it gave me hayfever!

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-24 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

HUMTAKE is the dumbest person posting on this site today. We've had a few other idiots similar but most have lost their posting priveleges by now, is Humtake a new name for one of the previous idiots?

#11 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-24 11:49 AM | Reply

So Humtake answer the question

Do you think felons who have lost their voting rights should have to pay taxes?

#12 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 11:53 AM | Reply

according to Humtake voting right restoration AFTER SERVING THEIR SENTENCE is the same as no punishment

#13 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-24 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9 I've read you post 5 times and don't understand it. If a person has done their time set forth by the courts and or a jury of their peers and it released and is a free person why would we not, with a few exception, restore their rights to vote? They will either become productive members of society making money and paying taxes or they won't and will re-offend. If they are productive members of society of course they should have voting rights restored and if they re-offend they lost the right to vote, again.

#14 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2018-01-24 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"If a person has done their time set forth by the courts and or a jury of their peers and it released and is a free person why would we not, with a few exception, restore their rights to vote? They will either become productive members of society making money and paying taxes or they won't and will re-offend. If they are productive members of society of course they should have voting rights restored and if they re-offend they lost the right to vote, again." - #14 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2018-01-24 12:33 PM

A most Newsworthy post by itself.

Doubly Newsworthy considering the person who posted it.

Kudos, Gracie.

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-24 12:37 PM | Reply

Gracie, that was the Conservative, not "conservative" position. Thumbs up. I kind of miss the Conservative Republicans, like Buckley, and even Goldwater, though I didn't agree with them much. A lot of their positions would be considered "liberal" by today's GOP, though.

#16 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-24 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9 I've read you post 5 times and don't understand it. If a person has done their time set forth by the courts and or a jury of their peers and it released and is a free person why would we not, with a few exception, restore their rights to vote? They will either become productive members of society making money and paying taxes or they won't and will re-offend. If they are productive members of society of course they should have voting rights restored and if they re-offend they lost the right to vote, again.

#14 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

I agree. But the Republican Party will never let this happen because the status quo is a great way to disenfranchise minority voters (read Dem voters).

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-24 12:59 PM | Reply

I will never bet money on Florida voter making the right decision.

I could maybe understand Reelecting Rubio or Wasserman-Schultz; but reelecting both of them? Sheer stupidity.

#18 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-24 01:59 PM | Reply

I second Hans, Gracie. Excellent post.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-24 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you don't restore the rights of former criminals, isn't that kind of like a life sentence in and of itself? Especially if it's a minor crime?

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-24 07:28 PM | Reply

If you don't restore the rights of former criminals, isn't that kind of like a life sentence in and of itself? Especially if it's a minor crime?

#20 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-24 07:28 PM | REPLY |

I today's America every crime carries a life sentence for 3 reasons

1) voting rights are not restored in all cases when sentence is complete
2) Some crimes carry lifetime registration components
3) gun rights are often not restored
4) That check box on employment applications "have you ever..."

As a republican Mad I don't understand why you would be surprised by any of this. It is your party that has put all these things in place and/or opposed removing them.

For example the Wisconsin Republicans recently removed a provision that said employers could only use your criminal record against you if it was directly related to your job duties.

Democratic run states, counties and cities have been joining the Ban-the-Box movement but unfortuately most of the resulting laws only apply to government jobs. Private employers still have the box

#21 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-25 03:16 PM | Reply

If someone serves their time for a crime and is free, but denied the right to vote, isn't the proportion used to determine the electors decreased because of the denial of the right? The Constitution states the proportion is decreased unless the male inhabitant is denied due to rebellion or other crime. So, if the criminal offense is served, it would seem they State that person is denied the right to vote is not counted when considering their electoral count.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

#22 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-01-25 04:44 PM | Reply

Not electors, but representatives. Imagine a State with too many people denied the right vote, but not in jail and have served, decreased their representatives.

#23 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-01-25 04:46 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort