• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

'Felons should get vote, Fed judges, Ruling raises racial issues' WashingtonTimes.com

Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/court-felons-should-get-vote/?feat=home_headlines

OLYMPIA, Wash. | Incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that state law did not violate the act, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.
The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."
The issues the ruling raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington state, said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., group promoting sentencing reform.
"They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state," he said.
A spokeswoman said state Attorney General Rob McKenna is weighing the state's next step.
The lawsuit was filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan of Bellevue. He was serving a three-year sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla for a series of felony-theft convictions when he sued the state in 1996.
Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs.
The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities.
That was a violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.
The state contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities.
Last year, lawmakers passed a law that allows convicted felons to reregister to vote once they're no longer on parole or probation. Previously, felons who were no longer in Washington state custody but owed court-ordered fines and restitution were not allowed to vote.
Oregon automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.
Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow those behind bars to cast ballots.
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

I agree the right to vote should be returned upon completion of your sentence, however I am still on the fence regarding inmates.

Even if the sentencing disparity is true, this ruling does not affect any reconciliation of those disparities. Therefor I don't see how that is a relevant argument. This is like fudging the books to make it look like you aren't going into bankruptcy.

If the Voting Rights Act is violated by this disparity, than the court should have ordered the disparities be corrected. This is the proper course of action. Allowing inmates to vote just fudges the numbers, it doesn't fix the problem.

Inmates are Indentured Persons. These are persons who enter and exit servitude by their own actions. They have VOLUNTARILY forfeited their rights.
Although Indentured Persons are not Slaves because of the voluntary nature of their servitude, they are NOT FREE MEN.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
74
Location
, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected
This isn't about allowing felons to vote. It's about making sure that the white vote in Washington is diluted, or that white votes are nullified by non-white votes.

Many here fail to see where the battle lines are actually drawn and thus waste their energy on matters that will reap no reward.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected
[/size]

If that is the intention, then it goes without saying, that is just plain wrong and even sensible law-abiding minority voters should agree. However, the fact that anyone has suggested it means the world is full of stupid on every level.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

There is one race, the Human race!!!! The color of our skin, hair, eyes, etc, is all cosmetic.

This really isn't an issue about "race" either, although this is the excuse they are using. Governor Gregoire has talked about letting felons vote too. Hmmm wonder why, which way do folks in these situations, white or brown vote?

I do feel though that after the debt to society has been paid, rights should be restored.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Here is what is interesting - if "civil rights" lost as a result of state "felony" convictions (which trigger loss of federal gun rights), are restored, so are federal gun rights even if the state continues to bar the felon her gun rights under state law (majority appellate court rule).This implies that whena state restores gun rights, federal gun rights remain lost unless the core 'civil rights" are restored too by the convicting state.

Civil rights for this purpose are defined by courts as meaning 3 things: the right to vote, the right to run for office, and the right to sit on a jury (thoug a minority of courts look to "the whole of state law" to see if state gun rights are restored in the convicting state).

I use the word "felony" in quotation marks because the federal gun disabling langauge does not deploy the word felony in its text, though common usuage and court cases do - a person loses her federal gun rights when, except for some specified white collar crimes, she is convicted of any offense where she could have been sentenced for more than one year (except for state offenses explicitly classified as a "misdemeanor"state law, in which case the misdemeanor is still disabling as a matter of federal law

So tell us Washington residents - do persons convicted in Washington state lose their right to sit on a jury and run for office when they are convicted of "felonies"? if so, are they "restored" by law after serving time? if so, its arguable that the 9th Cr. just retored a whole passle of peoples' gun rights under federal law!
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Mike wrote:
Here is what is interesting - if "civil rights" lost as a result of state "felony" convictions (which trigger loss of federal gun rights), are restored, so are federal gun rights even if the state continues to bar the felon her gun rights under state law (majority appellate court rule).This implies that whena state restores gun rights, federal gun rights remain lost unless the core 'civil rights" are restored too by the convicting state.

Civil rights for this purpose are defined by courts as meaning 3 things: the right to vote, the right to run for office, and the right to sit on a jury (thoug a minority of courts look to "the whole of state law" to see if state gun rights are restored in the convicting state).

I use the word "felony" in quotation marks because the federal gun disabling langauge does not deploy the word felony in its text, though common usuage and court cases do - a person loses her federal gun rights when, except for some specified white collar crimes, she is convicted of any offense where she could have been sentenced for more than one year (except for state offenses explicitly classified as a "misdemeanor"state law, in which case the misdemeanor is still disabling as a matter of federal law

So tell us Washington residents - do persons convicted in Washington state lose their right to sit on a jury and run for office when they are convicted of "felonies"? if so, are they "restored" by law after serving time? if so, its arguable that the 9th Cr. just retored a whole passle of peoples' gun rights under federal law!

In Virginia, restoration of rights takes an affirmative action by the governor.

There is a push for Governor Kaine to restore the voting rights of all non-violent felons who have done their time before he leaves office in a few days.

Worth a call to the gov . . . .
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
In Virginia, restoration of rights takes an affirmative action by the governor.

There is a push for Governor Kaine to restore the voting rights of all non-violent felons who have done their time before he leaves office in a few days.

Worth a call to the gov . . . .
And Kaine's web site says he does not normally ever restore state gun rights - but there is another avenue vie circuit court petition.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Mike wrote:
So tell us Washington residents - do persons convicted in Washington state lose their right to sit on a jury and run for office when they are convicted of "felonies"? if so, are they "restored" by law after serving time? if so, its arguable that the 9th Cr. just retored a whole passle of peoples' gun rights under federal law!

This is a good question and one Rossi was talking about on a morning show when he was running for governor. I am not sure what Washington's stance is on the other things you mentioned some other senior members more versed in the law would be more qualified to answer your question.

I have someone close to me who is watching this unfold because he can't have weapons for things done as a juvenile.
 

Elkad

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
115
Location
Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
I agree the right to vote should be returned upon completion of your sentence, however I am still on the fence regarding inmates.

I agree. As long as your ENTIRE sentence is completed, including Parole/Probation, and payment of any fines or restitution owed. A Parolee is still technically not done with his sentence, he's just being allowed to serve the remainder from outside the bars.
 
Top