by hilzoy
Wow: the ugliness is coming thick and fast. Via Kevin Drum, a story in the NY Sun:
“A little-known Republican group that claims to have swayed the 2004 presidential election with provocative radio advertising aimed at black and Hispanic audiences is spending nearly $1 million this year to boost the GOP’s chances of holding on to a majority in Congress.
The group, America’s Pac, began running ads last month in more than two dozen congressional districts.The campaign discusses issues ranging from warrantless wiretapping to school choice, but the most inflammatory spots pertain to abortion.
“Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies,” a female announcer in one of the ads says, as rain, thunder, and a crying infant are heard in the background. “The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual’s right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote.Why don’t they want our lives?”
Another ad features a dialogue between two men.
“If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,’ you’ll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked,” one of the men says.
“That’s too cold. I don’t snuff my own seed,” the other replies.
“Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican,” the first man says.
Another spot attempts to link Democrats to a white supremacist who served as a Republican in the Louisiana Legislature, David Duke.The ad makes reference to Duke’s trip to Syria last year, where he spoke at an anti-war rally.
“I can understand why a Ku Klux Klan cracker like David Duke makes nice with the terrorists,”a male voice in the ad says. “What I want to know is why so many of the Democrat politicians I helped elect are on the same side of the Iraq war as David Duke.”
In one of the communities where the ads are running, South Bend, Ind., some blacks were outraged.”
Outraged? Gosh: I can’t imagine why. I mean, don’t all blacks talk about ‘little mistakes with their hos’? And aren’t they dumb enough not to remember that David Duke is a Republican, or to wonder which paragon of concern for the African-American community is behind this?
“America’s Pac is the brainchild of a Kansas-based Republican consultant, Richard Nadler.He said Sunday that he is no longer affiliated with the group.
“Mr. Nadler is the genius.We basically follow his game plan,” the group’s new chief, Thomas Donelson of Marion, Iowa, said. In 2000, Mr. Nadler came under fire for a school choice-related ad in which parents said their son’s violenceridden public school “was a bit more diversity than he could handle.” Mr. Bush’s campaign denounced the ad as “inappropriate,” and the Republican National Committee called it “racist or race-baiting in intent.””
How on earth could they possibly take offense? What could possibly be wrong with this?
Google Michael Boos, the guy who runs the PAC, for some tantalizing tidbits.
Or you could just go here, and Google everything he’s ever been involved in.
Or you could just go here, and Google everything he’s ever been involved in.
Mr. Boos’ hobbies include hunting, fishing, golf and destroying democracy.
Does he get an RNC bonus for being named “Boos”?
“Boos” means “Angry” in Dutch;
maybe he has a grudge……
Funny, the only prominent figure whom I recall even coming close to advocating the abortion of black babies was … Bill Bennett?
He’s a Democrat, right?
Damn, they will spend millions on ads complaining that Dems _let_ you abort your kids, bot zero on ads saying “hey, don’t abort your kids – we’ll adopt them!”
If the Rs loved black babies so much, you would think more would adopt them.
(ps – I’m not talking about All Rs. I have Republican relatives that have adopted several children from the foster system, not limiting the choice to white.)
I can’t believe you haven’t caught this in Ohio yet. We’ll just list this one under “Vote Republician because you have no other choices”
The latest news from the state’s governor’s race is that the Republican nominee, Kenneth Blackwell, who is also the Ohio secretary of state, could rule that his opponent is ineligible to run because of a technicality. We’d like to think that his office would not ultimately do that, or that if it did, such a ruling would not be allowed to stand. But the mere fact that an elected official and political candidate has the authority to toss his opponent out of a race is further evidence of a serious flaw in our democracy.
What the hell is wrong with Ohio?
Fledermaus, it’s not just Ohio — though that situation is more extreme than usual. Remember Florida in 2000. It’s insane to have people involved in campaigns, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, disqualifying voters or candidates.
I do wonder what Blackwell would have to lose from giving it a shot at this point. He’s way behind, and surely his supporters, by the very fact of supporting him, have shown that they’re fine with corruption of the electoral process.
Well, the fact that the whole reason the decision has gotten kicked up to Blackwell is that it has been deadlocked at the lower levels. This is why you make sure that the people you put in these positions are ideologically pure, for just such a situation like this.
“Funny, the only prominent figure whom I recall even coming close to advocating the abortion of black babies was … Bill Bennett?”
If by “close” you mean “used the idea of killing black babies as the absurdam clause in a reductio”, i.e. nearly as far away as possible.
i.e. nearly as far away as possible.
And yet still light-years closer than his competitors…
Does he get an RNC bonus for being named “Boos”?
I still get a kick out of the name of the former head of the RNC: Rich Bond.
What the hell is wrong with Ohio?
As an Ohioan, I resemble that remark. It’s just the latest chapter in a long history of power corrupting, absolute power corrupting absolutely.
And yet still light-years closer than his competitors…
Right-o. Would the Repubs have had any trouble making an attack ad out of that, if it had been, say, Gary Hart or Mario Cuomo who said what Bennett did? Not hardly.
“the only prominent figure whom I recall even coming close to advocating the abortion of black babies was … Bill Bennett?”
Don’t know who that is, but if you go some fifty years back, it shouldn’t be too hard to find people who advocated abortion for “eugenic” reasons.
Damn, they will spend millions on ads complaining that Dems _let_ you abort your kids, bot zero on ads saying “hey, don’t abort your kids – we’ll adopt them!”
And not a cent on public policies to help women who are pregnant and can’t afford to have a child keep the child rather than have to decide between abortion and adoption (neither of them good decisions from the woman’s POV).
What the hell is wrong with Ohio?
Well, Blackwell isn’t, actually, handling this case himself. One could argue that Blackwell ought to have resigned prior to throwing his hat in the ring, but Blackwell would unavoidably be still associated with his successor, if his successor is in any way qualified to hold that office. So if you’ve somehow got a better idea, bring it on.
Note that it’s also not Blackwell who is bringing this matter to a hearing, nor is it (as far as the linked text tells us) Blackwell’s idea. It’s They.
Me, I think this is one of those things that’s a non-issue. If Blackwell’s opponent is registered somewhere that is found by some hearing or other to be other than his legal residence, he should be able to do a change of address on his voter registration. It’s not as if Strickland were attempting to perpetrate a fraud.
On the other hand, this could perhaps be used as a precedent to show that no congresscritters actually reside in their own states. Which could be useful, I imagine.
Slart, don’t you think it is telling that you had a 2-2 split along party lines, forcing them to kick it up the ladder? I admit, it doesn’t rise to the level of an Abramoff scandal or a WMD obsfucation, but rather than being an issue, it is a symptom of the depth of the problem we are faced with.
Telling of something, certainly. Not saying Blackwell’s nonpartisan (because that would be just plain silly), but that he’s about as uninvolved as it’s possible for him to get.
If you’re angling for further remove, tell me how you think that could be accomplished. If you’re pointing out that Ohio Republicans are hell-bent on winning at any cost, I’m not arguing counter to that.
it’s not fair to leave out Republican Congressional candidate Vernon Robinson, who’s accused his opponent of lots of fantastic things:
“If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.”[4]\
accused Miller of being gay because he married late and has no children. Miller had to explain that his wife was unable to conceive due to a hysterectomy she had to undergo prior to their marriage.
and much more.
By that standard, I too am gay.
Which, you know, bothers me not at all.
Or you might say that I’m outsourcing my reproductive privelege.
What Vernon Robinson would make of me, a woman who has yet to marry or reproduce, I cannot imagine. Apparently, the reality (one guy I would happily have married with whom it didn’t work out; a bunch of guys I very much liked but couldn’t really see spending the entire rest of my life with) is beyond his ken.
So if you’ve somehow got a better idea, bring it on.
Oh yes. Neutral and non-partisan nationwide electoral administration, overseen (if necessary, and for the first years it probably would be) by international electoral observers.
My point is that saying it is a ‘non-issue’ seems a bit que sera, sera to me. I’m not sure how they could do it, but I’m still not sure how we were able to get stuck in Iraq. As for ‘angling for a further remove’, I’m not sure what that means. And, not meaning to be snarky, Fledermaus’ phrase ‘what the hell is wrong with Ohio?’ doesn’t actually say anything about Blackwell. I took it as saying how can a commonsense decision like this get kicked up the ladder?
Yeah, I know I spelled it wrong. Please attribute it more to an over-eagerness with hitting “Post” than ignorance.
What Vernon Robinson would make of me, a woman who has yet to marry or reproduce, I cannot imagine.
Well, obviously part of the Covert-Gay-Democratic-Mafioso-Cabal-Staffers that has infiltrated the Republican party on the Hill in order to destroy it. The fact that you’re not actually working on the Hill as a covert Republican just proves that you are.
a bunch of guys I very much liked but couldn’t really see spending the entire rest of my life with
and the great unmatched washes of ObWi sigh…
Ok, so Jesurgislac is for a Constitutional Amendment. Two, possibly.
Absolutely. One could just as easily take issue with “que sera, sera” if one were willing to completely ignore the context in which it was said. Just as a refresher, though, context:
Ok, so Jesurgislac is for a Constitutional Amendment. Two, possibly.
By this, I meant something more like “this doesn’t qualify as a solution that would apply in this situation” than “this is a really stupid idea”. Just as a note.
Well, I think we’ve had enough snark for several lifetimes in the past month, so I’ll only say the reason why I took issue was what preceded the comment:
Well, Blackwell isn’t, actually, handling this case himself. One could argue that Blackwell ought to have resigned prior to throwing his hat in the ring, but Blackwell would unavoidably be still associated with his successor, if his successor is in any way qualified to hold that office. So if you’ve somehow got a better idea, bring it on.
Note that it’s also not Blackwell who is bringing this matter to a hearing, nor is it (as far as the linked text tells us) Blackwell’s idea. It’s They.
Me, I think this is one of those things that’s a non-issue.
Slarti: By this, I meant something more like “this doesn’t qualify as a solution that would apply in this situation” than “this is a really stupid idea”. Just as a note.
Thank you. Have a doughnut.
Paragraph breaks exist for a reason, LJ. If you take issue with “non-issue”, you’re going to have to do so by ignoring the rest of what’s in that paragraph. If you’re taking issue with what preceded it, my all means do so.
I hate it that you’re slamming me for snark, though, when I’m trying so hard to short-circuit the usual snarkglibfest that I’ve been, to a large degree, responsible for perpertuating.
he should be able to do a change of address on his voter registration.
Can’t, it’s past the voter registration deadline. How convenient! The actual legal argument is that Strickland really lives in a Columbus apartment, where he pays income taxes, and not in his original home in Columbiana County, where he’s voted for years. Thus he shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The kicker is that only those allowed to vote (“qualified electors”) are allowed to hold office.
There’s no indication that Blackwell is involved with this, but he wouldn’t be that stupid, would he? He did appoint an aide to make rulings in his place, but still has the power to make them himself.
I am betting this is a tempest in a teapot, and will blow over shortly. I have been wrong before, however.
The Republican Party set out to prove something when they recruited guys like Vernon Robinson. And they did.
Bigotry is universal. Oddly, they think maybe politically correct liberals are afraid of calling Robinson what he is, a cracker bigot.
It’s like Putney Swope meets Archie Bunker meets Bullworth meets Mike Tyson meets George Allen meets Eldridge Cleaver meets Strom Thurmond meets Tom Tancredo meets Geraldo Rivera meets thrown chair and on and on.
Robinson is a joke on everyone if you think about it.
The kicker is that only those allowed to vote (“qualified electors”) are allowed to hold office.
One might think this is unconstitutional.
perpertuating?
Ok, then. My fingers are not my own.
I can I just say that I can’t believe fafblog is sitting this election out.
Admittedly partisan take on the neutrality of Ohio’s election, and why Brown’s residency issue may be coming out.
Interesting. For that to fall into the evil-genius category, though, there’d have to be more Democrats weeded out than Republicans.
For that to fall into the evil-genius category, though, there’d have to be more Democrats weeded out than Republicans.
As the voter purge in Florida prior to the 2000 election showed, there are many ways of doing that successfully based on sound psephological data. Further, given Blackwell’s track record, there seems no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just trying to purge the rolls without thinking about whether more voters likely to go Democratic were being purged…
one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.
Sounds kind of fun, actually, if the rest of us can crash it.
And lo! the beast from out of the sea … the gay illegal alien! Karl Rove has *gotta* be trying to find one of those!
The FL2000 felon list was designed to preferentially reject Democrats because it did? Is that your argument?
Slarti, this kind of wide-eyed naivete isn’t your most charming characteristic.
All laws against felon voting preferentially reject Democratic voters, by preferentially rejecting African-American voters. That’s what they were designed to do. That’s why the majority of states with such laws are states of the former Confederacy.
This kind of comment presumes much, Nell, and doesn’t reflect well on you.
Of course they were intended to prevent felons from voting, Nell. That’s state law.
You might argue that state law was enacted to prevent Democrats from voting, preferentially. You could just as well argue that courts convict Democrats preferentially, just to disenfranchise them.
I hate it that you’re slamming me for snark
Well, I thought this was snark
One could just as easily take issue with “que sera, sera” if one were willing to completely ignore the context in which it was said. Just as a refresher, though, context:
so thanks for the refresher, it is so hard to tell the helpful comments from the snark. Also, thanks for the lesson on paragraph breaks. I thought that the ‘ante’ in ‘antecedent’ meant something, but I have you to thank for setting me straight. Goodnight.
The FL2000 felon list was designed to preferentially reject Democrats because it did?
The Florida voter purge lists were compiled to preferentially reject black voters, who overwhelmingly tend to vote Democrat, and worked very well. As Nell says, you’re at your least attractive when doing the “wide-eyed naivety” thing.
As Lance deHaven-Smith notes in The Battle for Florida, preferentially purging black voters from the rolls wasn’t even the only technique in use in Florida 2000 to avoid counting Democratic votes.
“Of course they were intended to prevent felons from voting, Nell. That’s state law.”
And of course, had the felons list been limited to people who had actually committed felonies and not those who coincidentally have the same or similar names, no one would be arguing that anything improper occurred. On the other hand, that isn’t what happened in 2000, and after all of the discussions on this topic over the last 2 years, a statement like “The FL2000 felon list was designed to preferentially reject Democrats because it did? Is that your argument?” comes across as if you are suffering from amnesia.
This little by-blow reminds me of the Washington state Republican effort to challenge voter registration. It struck me as ironic that the challenge was ten times as inaccurate as the voter rolls it was challenging….
You might argue that state law was enacted to prevent Democrats from voting, preferentially
That is exactly what I did and do argue. State laws barring felon voting are racist in intention and effect.
All efforts to defend and retain them are by Republicans. All efforts to get rid of or ameliorate them are by Democrats. These laws exist, for the most part, in the southern states.
In my own state, the origin and perpetuation of the law against felon voting is well understood. Ex-felons may only vote if they appeal to and are granted permission by the governor. The board set up to advise the governor under Republian governors considered very few cases, and approved even fewer. Mark Warner’s advisory board worked a little harder, and during his term more ex-felons regained voting rights than in the previous two terms combined. (Actually, even more than that.)
These are facts. Your contention, I take it, is that the anti-felon-voting laws are simply good government.
Steven Colbert just doesn’t see color, either.
All of our comments reflect on us. I’m comfortable with what this exchange reflects about me: fed up with a degree of I-see-nothing-partisan-here that approaches disingenuousness.
Ugh’s Law: any sufficiently long comment thread in which Slarti and Jes participate will end up rehasing FL 2000. 😉
I see you’re not up to speed on Ezzie Thomas, Jesurgislac. Remember a year ago when I mentioned Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer was removed from office? Yes, that Ezzie Thomas.
So it’s not as if there’s no there, there.
State laws barring felon voting are racist in intention and effect.
Racist? I thought we were talking about Democrats, here.
“These are facts”, though, just might get you a writing position over at RedState.
Ugh’s Law: any sufficiently long comment thread in which Slarti and Jes participate will end up rehasing FL 2000. 😉
Oh, ugh.
Okay. It’s Wednesday, but I go on leave tomorrow for ten days, so it feels as if it’s Friday. Doughnuts all round. (Virtual doughnuts, the best sort.) Yes, even for Slarti: he can have an anti-amnesiac frosted doughnut, specially baked to cure Republican memory problems. No hole. 😉
We are talking about Democrats. African-American voters go 9:1 Democratic.
(Baked? What kind of crazed objectively pro-terrorist idiot bakes doughnuts? I meant fried, of course. Really.)
“These are facts”, though, just might get you a writing position over at RedState.
I’ve never read any of the posts at RedState except those cross-posted here by Charles. Surely his posts are not the ones by comparison with which you intend to insult me.
I’ll cheerfully admit that the sentence in question is pompous; irritation often leadds to snippiness and pomposity.
Do you have anything to say about the substance rather than the style of my argument — that felon disenfranchisement is partisan in effect, and understood to be so by both parties in the states in which it is in effect?
I actually had this reference in mind.
That part I’ll agree with, but you’ve stated that it was partisan by intention, which you’ve so far not done a thing to substantiate.
I’ll assume for the time being that both parties are in agreement that the dead vote is probably a party-neutral disenfranchisement. And not a bit racist!
Oh, excuse me, that it was racist by intention. So hard to keep intention and effect straight, as they’re getting conflated right and left. So to speak.
Blackwell is now accusing Strickland, who is ahead in the polls, of being pro-pedophile and maybe gay. I guess being pro-pedophile is a whole lot worse than being neutral on pedophilia.
Blackwell’s base comes from the big-haired holy roller, megachurch, getting-folks-to-tithe-who-can-least-afford-it Elmer Gantry crowd, one of whom you can see on cable (I forget his name, Ron something; he’s white, but he preaches in a vague “we all brothas” kind of delivery.
What we have here, in Blackwell, is a demagogue in the mold of Lester Maddox, with the charm of Katherine Harris, and the go-for-the-throat radicalism of a young Bobby Seale. I believe he was a social worker in Cincinnati years ago, which is where his head once was, but as Woody Allen might observe of one of his dates, he has the body of a cockroach.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt Slart would vote for him, which is all I ask.
By the way, the corruption of Blackwell’s demagoguery is such that, if elected, I would not find it surprising if he began, in league with his religious base, a big push to get black felons to become Christian and Republican as a means to getting back on the streets and back to the polls.
They would be the muscle in whatever odd vision of the path to power Blackwell is obsessed with.
Perhaps Giblets is too busy running for office, or testing nuclear weapons, or something? Who knows his/her/their/its secret identity?
So Michael Steele will be sending Mike Tyson and Don King over to help Blackwell after he’s done with them?
Slart, I have to head into town to staff the Democratic HQ. I’ll be back late this evening to provide some history to back up my assertion that the felon disenfranchisement laws in the southern states are racist in intent. But I’m never sure how far back a person needs to go in such discussions to establish a basis for agreement. Can we agree that poll taxes and literacy tests were designed to suppress voting by blacks? They were also designed to suppress voting by poor whites, but in fact by the 1950s and 1960s were administered in such a way as to disenfranchise primarily black voters.
As to your comparing my ‘these are facts’ to the example… First, I meant the statement to apply to the paragraph immediately preceding, about the Virginia situation. But having not made that clear, I stand charged with making wild assertions unsupported by any facts. Erick’s wild assertions could easily be refuted by contrary evidence, familiar to the commenters in that thread.
The way to discredit my assertions is to provide some contrary evidence. A telling counterexample would be any instance of Republicans pushing for liberalization of felon voting restrictions, or Democrats (post-1972) pushing to retain or further tighten such restrictions.
@John Thullen: You’re thinking of Rod Parsley.
Oddly, they think maybe politically correct liberals are afraid of calling Robinson what he is, a cracker bigot.
There must be some irony or something I’m missing in this statement.
KCinDC: All ith pothible.
Were Paddy Chayevsky alive, we would have one heck of a sequel to “Network”.
More seriously, I can forsee a day in the not too far distant and demagogic future when FOX has a panel of paroled, formerly (hmmm) violent criminals of all creeds and colors, but deeply Republican hard guys, (in the contemporary sense) debating the need to get rid of the separation of church and state, taxes, and the radical gay agenda.
Hannity the (ha) moderator will turn to whatever geeky liberal professor they cherry-pick to represent the other side and ask “What do you have to say to that?”, or worse.
On the other hand, Hilzoy might show up, and using skills she picked up as a waitress in a biker bar, kick butt, rhetorically speaking.
But I can’t think who else is going to argue with them. I don’t think I’d get very far with telling Mike Tyson to shut up and read his Kant. He’d ask: “Who’d he beat?”
This won’t be Leonard Bernstein serving canapes and champagne to the Black Panthers.
This will be a melding of religious fundamentalism and thuggery to achieve national goals. I can’t remember what the word is.
This will be a melding of religious fundamentalism and thuggery to achieve national goals. I can’t remember what the word is.
New York Yankees?
Slart, while you’re waiting for Nell, there’s a Reason article that discusses the racist origins of felon disenfranchisement.
“On the other hand, Hilzoy might show up, and using skills she picked up as a waitress in a biker bar, kick butt, rhetorically speaking.”
I’d only watch if hilzoy’s butt-kicking was not rhetorically speaking. Either that or if she wore her biker bar waitress uniform 😛
on voter roll purges:
A state may legitimately disenfranchise felons.
So, a state, even one controlled by Democrats, may legitimately review its voter rolls from time to time to see if felons have illegally registered to vote, and purge the felons.
Where the racism kicks in is in the design of the review method. I believe that there is some pretty strong evidence that the Florida voter roll purge was deliberately designed to be over-inclusive, and the over-inclusiveness was more likely to target black voters. The partisanship comes in due to the fact that black voters strongly tend to vote democratic.
So, facially, voter roll purges legitimate. As applied, strong evidence of racist and partisan effect; so strong, in fact, that some argue that there had to be racist and partisan intent.
Facial vs. as-applied challenges are a huge part of American civil rights case law. It’s worth understanding the distinction.
I’m not interested in discrediting your assertions; I’m interested in you crediting them. I don’t have any stake in you being wrong.
The felon disenfranchisement clause has been in the Florida state constitution, in one form or another, since its inception. In its current form, it’s been largely unchanged since 1968. If you’re prepared to argue that the fairly seamless morphing of voter disenfranchisement for felons (with the occasional addition of perjurers, bribers, forgers, and miscellaneous other crimes) since 1838 was racially motivated, I’m all ears. The felon disenfranchisement extends back to a time before blacks were enfranchised.
Whether it should remain or not is another conversation entirely. The point is that it’s there, and it’s been there for over a century and a half.
blacks should read nonwhites, above. What nonwhite is is anyone’s guess; I suppose we could dig up the framers or the judges who had to interpret them and find out. It is getting close to Halloween, after all.
Steve:
“There must be some irony or something I’m missing in this statement.”
Not at all. Today’s Republican Party (it’s political strategyon the margin; not all of its members) unites. Everybody hates somebody, and for the moment, there is one big tent for those planks.
Peeling off black voters from the Democratic Party by appealing to their prejudices about gays, for one example, is the strategy.
If there is irony, it is the kind Strom Thurmond had in mind when he hired Armstrong Williams.
Would Democrats play this dirty? Sure, but they’ve lost their touch.
Yes, Rod Parsley and the New York Yankees.
Thank you.
The felon disenfranchisement clause has been in the Florida state constitution, in one form or another, since its inception.
As has, one way or the other, the disenfranchisement of black voters.
This article describes the process by which 1 in 300 ex-felons in Florida eventually regain the right to vote (though for some it’s easier than others):
Further (same article):
The rule of disenfranching ex-felons appears, in Florida at least, to have been racist since its inception, to be racist in its effects, and to have no known reason for keeping it on the books except that it enables the state government to disenfranchise a substantial proportion (one estimate said 1 in 3 black men) of black voters in Florida. The party that benefits by preventing black people from voting may have changed, but the disenfranchisement still exists.
Not at all. Today’s Republican Party (it’s political strategyon the margin; not all of its members) unites. Everybody hates somebody, and for the moment, there is one big tent for those planks.
Sure, but I just didn’t get your point in calling a black man a cracker.
Why don’t they just pay Mike Meyers to dress up as his fat Scotsman character from the Austin Powers movies, and yell “Vote for the GOP, or ah’ll EAT YER BABIES!”, and have done with it?
Why don’t they just pay Mike Meyers to dress up as his fat Scotsman character from the Austin Powers movies, and yell “Vote for the GOP, or ah’ll EAT YER BABIES!”, and have done with it?
IIRC, Justice Scalia once made a comment at a conference to the effect of “but it is not strange, like eating little babies.”
Steve:
“Sure, but I just didn’t get your point in calling a black a man a cracker.”
Well, if Atticus Finch was defending a gay man from a lynch mob, Boo Radley would need to protect Scout from the demagogue Vernon Robinson and the folks he’s trying to scare.
Note, though, that Florida isn’t one of those states whose felon disenfranchisement is connected with racist origins.
Really, it’s not as if I’m maintaining that there have never been any racist policies anywhere in the US, or even in Florida. Just questioning whether the assertion that the felon disenfranchisement is racially (or even partisan-ly) derived.
This completely ignores the fact that disenfranchisement of convicted criminals has been in the constitution, as I noted upthread, since well before nonwhites were enfranchised. You’re welcome to browse if you don’t believe me. If you’re just ignoring me, on the other hand, carry on.
There’s a rather more detailed compilation of the Florida constitution here, but I haven’t plowed all the way through it yet.
This completely ignores the fact that disenfranchisement of convicted criminals has been in the constitution, as I noted upthread, since well before nonwhites were enfranchised.
See note upthread which you completely ignored about the 1868 constitution.
Just questioning whether the assertion that the felon disenfranchisement is racially (or even partisan-ly) derived.
But then, you would have to completely ignore the historical background of the 1868 constitution to question that, I guess. Plus a lot of Florida history since. History is full of nasty information that answers wide-eyed naive questions with ugly answers: ignore it while you can, and have another (hole-free) doughnut.
Ah. So, given a choice between the earlier status quo (disenfranchisement of white criminals, specifically) and enfranchisement of criminals, Florida chose disenfranchisement in 1868 because it would keep those BLACK criminals from voting?
Ok, then. I suppose the 1838 constitution, the 1861 constitution and the 1865 constitution, which all (by the way) disenfranchised WHITE criminals were just planning for future disenfranchisement of blacks?
Somehow either I’m completely missing your argument, or you’re arguing something that’s not supportable. Lecturing me on my ignorance of Florida history, though, is just silly.
Much like Godwin’s Law, Ugh’s Law comes without injunctive relief.
Damn, I wish I’d had a chance to comment this morning before running off to class. As it is, I’ll just ask everyone — specifically Nell, Jes, LJ and Slarti — to take a step back from the current discussion, take a deep breath, and realize that you’re all trying to engage each other a legitimate discussion and to treat your interlocutors accordingly.
Also, Ugh: does it at least come with disjunctive relief?
If I weren’t trying to treat my interlocutors accordingly, Anarch, I’d be offering them doughnuts. Or some such.
BTW, I believe this very thread is what Moe had in mind, when he mentioned “ObWi disease”.
Also, Ugh: does it at least come with disjunctive relief?
Disjunctive? No. Conjunctive? No. Conjunction Junction? Everyday.
At least we can write in shorter sentences with more active voice. Call it subjunctive relief.
BTW, I believe this very thread is what Moe had in mind, when he mentioned “ObWi disease”.
Do you mind expanding on what you think Moe meant, I’m genuinely curious.
And do you mean the whole thread or a sub-portion thereof?
Obviously not this thread, but this kind of thread, wherein things get argued that…well, I’m going to kick it into gear again. Think of this as the just another incarnation of a dozen or more other arguments, and you’ll get the picture.
I think that Moe was rather less patient with the ad hominem than I am. I’m not saying that’s THE reason that he left, but I think it’s on the list. Anyway, probably it would be better if I’d asked Moe to explain, but too late now.
None of the above is meant to convey that I’m not part of the problem, BTW.
Slart, could you point out the part of the pre-1868 Fla constitution that disenfranchises felons? Maybe I’m misreading, but I can’t find it in your linked source.
I’m not sure how I got pulled into this, having gotten a wholly insufficient measure of beauty sleep to only awake to burning ears. I think getting into what Moe was thinking when he left is pretty much meaningless, so I’m hoping we can go back to discussion of the 1868 constitution and Florida history. This left leaning link gives an account of some of the background for the constitution, and I’d be interested in knowing what arguments and/or history Slart specifically disagrees with.
Sure, Larv. As I’ve said upthread, it’s not always just “felons”:
Something important did happen in 1868; that shall enact bit. I suppose it’d be interesting to see when such laws were first enacted, but I’m obviously less good at that than I need to be.
Well, the wording of the constitution is interesting, but as we all know, what’s behind the law is often more telling. Executive Order 9066 was, on the face of it, a security measure in WW II, but it pretty much was aimed at Japanese and Japanese Americans (and the brunt of it fell on them).
LJ, I think that article is more concerned with suffrage for convicted felons than making a decent historical argument. It’s obvious just looking at the historical documents that felon disenfranchisement has been part of the Florida constitution from its inception.
And, oh crap, I noticed that I pasted in the wrong sections for everything after 1838.
1861: Article VI, Section 9: Laws shall be made by the General Assembly to exclude from office and from suffrage those who shall have been or may hereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crime or misdemeanor; and the privilege of suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon, from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practices.
1865: same as above.
In 1868 and 1885, they simply combined the sections I quoted before with the ones I’ve put in this comment.
Slarti,
Reviewing the various constitutions from your cite at FSU suggests there was a difference over time.
The 1838 Constitution provides: “The General Assembly shall have power to exclude from every office of honor, trust or profit, within the State, and from the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime.” Article VI, Section 4 and “Laws shall be made by the General Assembly to exclude from office and from suffrage those who shall have been or may hereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crime or misdemeanor; and the privilege of suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon, from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practices.” Article VI, Section 13. Same language in 1861 Constitution as Article VI, Section 2 and Article VI, Section 9 and 1865 Constitution as Article VI, Section 2 and Article VI, Section 9.
On the other hand the 1868 Constitution expands the list of felonies which cause a loss of suffrage:
“No person under guardianship noa compos mentis, or insane, shall be qualified to vote at any election, nor shall any person convicted of felony be qualified to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights.” Article XIV, Section 2, and “The Legislature shall have power and shall enact the necessary laws to exclude from every office of honor, power, trust, or profit, civil or military, within the State, and from the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury, larceny, or of infamous crime, or who shall make or become, directly or indirectly, interested in any bet or wager, the result of which shall depend upon any election; or who shall hereafter fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge to fight, or who shall be a second to either party, or be the bearer of such challenge or acceptance; but the legal disability shall not accrue until after trial and conviction by due form of law.” Article XIV, Section 4.
The change in the first set of language in each case is that all convicted of felonies lose the right to vote while under their sentence, while the second cited language in each case is adding larceny to the list of crimes which causes one to lose the right to vote permanently.
This suggests that the list of crimes which caused one to lose the right to vote expanded beyond the list of crimes directly relating to personal honesty (bribery and perjury) to include property crimes (but as pointed out elsewhere, not murder). So yes, I think this suggests that disenfranchising those on the poorer end of society, specifically including recently freed slaves was an issue.
sorry about the lengthy cross-post, but the addition of larceny is something Slarti is not referencing.
If you stop before you get to the Elections in 2000 section, I think this WSWS article has some background to Florida’s election laws and the section about Harry T. Moore is quite interesting.
I’m not as well versed on the history of Florida as I am of Mississippi, but I do believe that the demographic change in the state has made it possible to forget the past. 1868 was perhaps the beginning of the end of the Reconstruction, with the bargain that allowed allowed Southern States to re-enter the union with their power structures basically unchanged from the antebellum period to occur beginning from that year and being finished in 1870, so any discussion of the 1868 constitution has to take that into account.
I’m not sure what the addition of larceny as a specific crime does, DTM.
I don’t see how this:
The change in the first set of language in each case is that all convicted of felonies lose the right to vote while under their sentence, while the second cited language in each case is adding larceny to the list of crimes which causes one to lose the right to vote permanently.
is supported, either.
Slarti,
“I’m not sure what the addition of larceny as a specific crime does”
It takes one out of the realm of crimes likely to affect voting directly (bribery, perjury, etc.) into a crime which has nothing to do with voting, but everything to do with being poor.
“I don’t see how this:
The change in the first set of language in each case is that all convicted of felonies lose the right to vote while under their sentence, while the second cited language in each case is adding larceny to the list of crimes which causes one to lose the right to vote permanently.
is supported, either.”
As to the first cited language, 1868 was the first time the word “felony” instead of “infamous crime”, which broadens the type of crimes. As to the second, see above.
Sure, that’s completely plausible. The state government being run by Republicans is a development that dates clear back to about a decade ago. But don’t get me wrong, I have never said that Florida has never implemented racist policies, just that this particular one wasn’t invented for purposes of racial discrimination.
Or at least that if it was, them was some schemers with foresight.
DTM, what I was asking was why you thought the loss of suffrage was temporary prior to 1868.
Slarti,
“DTM, what I was asking was why you thought the loss of suffrage was temporary prior to 1868.”
Ah. The 1868 Constitution distinguishes between any felony as grounds to be disqualified from voting “to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights” in Section 2, which I am taking to mean being released from prison, as opposed to the smaller list of “bribery, perjury, larceny, or of infamous crime” in Section 4 without the restore to civil rights language, and so I am taking to be permanent.
Totally OT: I am very happy and relieved to report that Riverbend has posted again.
But don’t get me wrong, I have never said that Florida has never implemented racist policies, just that this particular one wasn’t invented for purposes of racial discrimination.
Well, I’m a bit more willing to suggest that when all you got is a hammer, every application of it is going to require a similar use of force. As always, YMMV.
Totally OT: I am very happy and relieved to report that Riverbend has posted again.
I literally sighed with relief when I read that.
DTM:
you should not assume that “restore to civil rights” equals “released from prison”.
some states have had, and continue to have, a process whereby a felon who has completed his sentence and whatever post-confinement obligations are imposed petition the court for restoration of his franchise. The restoration to civil rights is not, therefore, automatic but at the discretion of the court upon the ex-felon making a showing that restoration is appropriate.
Florida, crackers, Ohio, all here, kind of. Video is funny, anyway.
Slarti,
Thanks, but I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Originally you said:
As DTM points out, the 1868 constitution adds language specifically denying the vote to all felons(Art XIV, Sec 2) and adds larceny to the list of disqualifying crimes in Section 4. These would seem to have the effect of dramatically increasing the number of people actually disenfranchised under Florida law, at exactly the time that large numbers of blacks were starting to vote. The addition of larceny to the “bribery, perjury or other infamous crime” of the earlier consitution seems telling. It’s a competely different class of crime with no bearing on elections, unlike the others. Given that other southern states were passing similar laws with the more or less explicit intent of reducing the black vote, it seems reasonable to conclude that Florida’s changes were made with a similar goal in mind.
See, drawing DaveC. out of his lair is my deal here. 😉
I like the Amish angle.
Francis,
You could be right. My criminal procedure experience is literally decades in the past (and I hope to keep it that way).
Balloon Juice, under the byline of John Cole, is all over the gay issue.
Vernon Robinson makes an appearance.
I might make a drive through Viroqua, WI, this weekend, and I feel some connection when I wave to the Amish there. Perhaps its because the Crown Vic is all black, and I grip the wheel like I’m steering a horse.
Plus as a parent I worry about all the Amish kids being hopped up on the pot. Poke around Ontario or Kendall, WI, and you’ll see what I mean. At least they aren’t on the crystal meth because it is made out of batteries or some other electrical component.
Fortunately for me, the elections are all about local and state stuff.
Should I vote for Rod Blagojevic because even though there are a bunch of crooks associated with the Dems in IL, he at least didn’t support his father-in-law’s favorite relative crook’s illegal dump in Joliet? Or should I be mad because he cut back the crazy Republican Geo. Ryan “Build Illinois” money-throwing-away program by firing Republican patronage jobs, plus legitimate concerns like orphanages and group homes?
Should I vote for Judy Baar Topinka because her name reminds me of “Simon Baar Sinister”, my favorite villian in the Underdog Cartoons? Or should I be mad at her for serving Gov. Ryan?
Should I vote against Jesse White because he gave a job to a cute young lady that he liked, and she turned out to be a total bust? Or should I vote for him because I think he’s a nice guy, and he played for the Cubs, and of course, the Jesse White Tumblers are so fun to watch? (Hint: since I don’t even know his opponent’s name, I’ll probably vote for Jesse.)
Note to everybody who assumed that the bike trails I ride are some kind of Federal Govt thing – NOT. Republican County Board members in Republican counties got these deals done, with local bond referendums, etc. and they kick Cook County’s butt, which also is a local thing, and except for the lakefront bike trail of course.
Sort of explanation for radio silence. My concerns are kind of boring.
Thullen, BTW, I didn’t get your email or comment on my fake blog until last month. Internet tubes were tied up or something.
I’ve got proof if you know where to look for it.
It’s good to see that my local politics are trending with the rest of the country as well.
It’s unclear from the story if these letters were sent out specifically to 14,000 Hispanics who are Democrats or, as the OC Register reports, 14,000 foreign born Hispanic voters in general. If the allegations in the Register are correct, the candidate who is behind the mailing is a Vietnamese-American running against a Hispanic-American incumbent.
I’m betting that the parties behind this will claim that their overly general statement that it is illegal for any immigrant to vote was either a miscommunication or was a translation error and will swear that they were only trying to prevent voter fraud.
So. Apparently the only prevention for “ObWi disease” is to decline to respond to either Jes or Slarti when Florida 2000-related issues arise. Maybe I should have stayed out of it, but in fact I think this is one digression that’s directly relevant to the post topic.
The intent to disenfranchise black voters is harder to prove than the effect, but it is possible. I’m not a historian, just a white southerner who grew up in a legally and socially segregated town during the civil rights movement and learned to interpret white racist coded language at an early age. My life experience teaches me to view with suspicion benign interpretations of southern law and practice. Slarti’s life experience appears to have predisposed him to give the benefit of the doubt in these matters. I’m not sure that an exchange in a comments section is going to affect that.
Certainly, one which begins by my accusing him of faux naivete is unlikely to do so. It was unfair and unwise, and I apologize.
So I probably ought to be willing to settle for Slarti’s acknowledgement that felon disenfranchisement is racist in effect. In the political world of the last forty years, a voting restriction that is racist in effect is also partisan in effect, because African-American voters overwhelmingly vote Democratic. So, yes, I’m conflating the two, because they are conflated in practice. I’m also willing to be honest that the basis for my view that felon disenfranchisement is wrong is not solely anti-racism but also partisanship. From both perspectives, I see elimination of felon disenfranchisement as a leveling of the playing field.
But Slarti compared my assertion that the racist intent of felon disenfranchisement is a fact in Florida (and Virginia and Kentucky and Alabama and Tennessee and Mississippi) to Red State Erick’s assertions (that pollsters are oversampling Democrats in an effort to demoralize the Republican base and that Democrats withheld the Foley allegations for over a year) in its disconnectedness from reality. That comparison is insultingly unfair and inaccurate. But then, so was my accusation of faux naivete.
Slarti puts weight on the fact that felon disenfranchisement long predates the existence of the United States; it became part of the English legal system and thus made its way to this country. But this overlooks the extent to which fd was refined and intensified in the states of the former Confederacy after the passage of the 15th Amendment extended the vote to all adult males, and in the post-reconstruction period when white supremacy was being consolidated. One of the techniques was to specify disenfranchising crimes — those for
which black citizens were more often convicted. Debate in the state legislatures of the period makes the black-vote-suppressing intent of these measures clear. Some recent histories that document this are The Disenfranchisement of Ex-Felons (out this year) and Jeff Manza’s 2005 Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. (A comment above links to a chart from a report by Manza).
Unlike most of the other devices used to suppress black voting (poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.), felon disenfrachisement has not been found unconstitutional per se, though some refinements of it have been struck down for their racially biased application. However, the reversal or mitigation of felon disenfranchisement in southern states (Georgia, Louisiana, North and South Carolina) has occurred only in the last thirty-plus years, as part of the civil rights struggle. And that struggle goes on today: This month, the ACLU of Mississippi is suing to overturn the disenfranchisement of many more voters based on an opinion of the (Republican) Attorney General in 2004 that
added a new collection of disenfranchising felonies to those already specified in Mississippi’s Jim Crow-era constitution.
The Florida 2000 debacle, along with the huge increase over the last 15 years in the number of Americans (and the proportion of black and Latino Americans) imprisoned for felonies, has spurred a new wave of efforts to end felon disenfranchisement. Those interested can stay updated at this Sentencing Project site.
Thank you, Nell. I’m not sure that I agree with you, but I do appreciate the gracious nature of your comment.
I doubt I can do your comment justice with a reply, given demands on my time at present, but I’ll give it a go.
First, I ought to reiterate that I’m not holding any illusions that Florida has never contained, been run by, or otherwise favored racism. I think I sensed some of that in one or more comments here; it’s not important who or when. If I’m mistaken, consider this point a waste of pixels.
Second, I should acknowledge that while disenfranchisement of criminals goes back far enough before the enfranchisement of nonwhites that it’s clear that the intention behind those laws were NOT racial, Larv (and possibly a few others) make(s) a good point that the widening of the disenfranchisement may well have been to selectively disenfranchise blacks in tandem with some overly-selective application of law enforcement. “High crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t transition to “larceny” all that smoothly, so point taken.
Third, I take Francis’ point that exclusion of felons might be a decent idea in concept while simultaneously being very tricky and prone to error in execution. If that wasn’t Francis’ point, the above still holds for me.
Fourth, I have no good ideas what to do with current felon laws. Do away with them? Have their effect go away after parole is completed? Your guess is probably a great deal better than mine. It’s pretty clear that doing away with them in Florida, at least, would require amending the state constitution. It’s also clear that the felon laws have been horribly ineffective on both sides of the notional intent: horrible at keeping felons from voting, and horrible in terms of error rate.
Fifth, I probably have a bunch more to say on this, hopefully along with some contrition for being overly prickly, but I’m not booked solid until at least 0:dark:30. So this is going to have to do.
Slarti, I recognize you’re just asking the question, so this isn’t directed at you, but I don’t understand what the fear is about changing the laws so that people are disenfranchised only while they’re in prison, or only until their parole ends. Plenty of states get along fine without banning people from voting for the rest of their lives because they make a mistake, so it’s not like it’s never been tried. Once the system decides that someone is ready to rejoin society, why not let them rejoin the voting part of society?
Hell, there are two states that don’t disenfranchise people even when they’re actually in prison (though I’m not sure how easy it is for prisoners to vote), and I haven’t heard of any movement in Vermont toward electing legislators who want to legalize car theft, for example.
What are the arguments in favor of felon disenfranchisement? Surely it isn’t the concern that felons will vote in large enough numbers to have a significant impact on lawmaking, is it? It seems to me that those who feel like they do not have a stake in civil society are more likely than the average citizen to commit felonies and the least likely to vote. If this is the case, then isn’t it the case that keeping felons from voting would not so much punish them by taking away what they have (a sense of investment in self-government) as cut them off from something they need to get back on the right path?
Is this simplistic thinking on my part?
Barring them from elected office would be another question entirely, of course.
I’m not a historian, just a white southerner who grew up in a legally and socially segregated town
Nell, which state, if you don’t mind me asking?
Props on the comment, the one point that I would add is the interaction between this disenfranchisement and the increase (and asymmetrical application) of felonies resulting from the War on Drugs. More info on that problem is here and here.
vote GOP or OBL with kill you
s/with/will/
There is a discussion on a BBC website about prisoners’ voting rights in the UK. At the moment, while it’s legal to campaign for election when in prison (though I think Tommy Sheridan is probably the only elected representative who ever did) a convicted prisoner can’t vote. (Someone locked up on remand can, I suppose, if they arrange a postal vote.)
And in Ireland, a prisoner can vote, but isn’t given access to a ballot, which strikes me as a kind of unique solution. 😉
I don’t know of any other country besides the US that disenfranchises people after they’ve left jail – certainly not as a routine, regular thing, or for such a wide range of crimes.
Weren’t there several Sinn Fein candidates who were elected from prison, Jes? Maybe I’m guilty of getting my history from movies, but in Michael Collins, one of the opening scenes has Collins campaigning for a candidate who is in prison. Maybe that’s why Brits stand for election, while Americans run. 😉
This reminds me of what Georgia did to turn back Reconstruction policies, which was to create a law that blacks were ineligible to hold office. Here’s an overview of the period.
Maybe that’s why Brits stand for election, while Americans run. 😉
I always figured it was because British politicians are fatter. 😉
Weren’t there several Sinn Fein candidates who were elected from prison, Jes?
Not several – just one. Bobby Sands famously was elected a Sinn Fein MP while in prison and on hunger strike, and died shortly afterwards. (More than one may have campaigned from prison, though, I suppose, but they didn’t win.) I say “famously” but in fact I’d completely forgotten about Sands until you reminded me. Sheridan was not only elected, he took his seat in the Scottish Parliament, and I think that makes him unique.
Another wrinkle in felon disenfranchisement is that prisoners are counted by the census as residents of the area where the prison is, even though they can’t vote (and a prisoner counts as a full person, not 3/5 of one like a slave). So prisoners not only lose their own votes, but can be moved elsewhere to increase the effective representation of other people through redistricting. In New York, 66 percent of prisoners come from New York City but 91 percent are imprisoned upstate, where the surrounding people are (conveniently) more Republican.
vote GOP or OBL wi[ll] kill you
How about “Vote Dem and eliminate OBL’s #1 recruiting tool”
@LJ: The state is Virginia; I’m still here. There’s still a lot of codespeak.
You’re absolutely right to point to the War on [Some] Drugs as a big factor — in the higher numbers, as well as the higher proportions of black and Latino prisoners. The racial effect increases at each stage: more likely to be involved with the drugs in the War on, more likely to be convicted, more likely to be sentenced to prison. (This last is relevant in New York, among other states — felons who are sentenced to house arrest or halfway houses or something other than prison can vote.)
Another side effect of the War on [Some] Drugs has been the increase in crimes classed as felonies. Then there are the cumulative effects of the lawnorder push from Nixon on: more conservative judges, tighter sentencing guidelines, longer sentences…
And, in Virginia, the abolition of parole, thanks to Gov. George Allen. All that prison-building made the cement and gravel manufacturers some of his biggest backers. I don’t know if we’re the only state with no parole; I hope so.
KCinDC reminds me of something I was going to write about but left out — the emanations and penumbras of the Hayden v. Pataki court challenge to disenfranchisement of serving prisoners in New York. The case was dismissed this past June, but I believe there is to be (has been?) a separate hearing on the vote dilution issues involved. A favorable ruling there could have wide effect.
Gromit: Your question’s a good one. The main argument for fd is that felons have violated the social contract, thereby giving up the right to participate in civil society.
That’s an archaic view, to me. Most countries and most U.S. states view serving one’s time/paying restitution/etc. as restoring the social contract.
And your point about voting being one of the tools to help ex-prisoners reintegrate is not at all simplistic; it’s one of the major arguments against fd, and there is solid evidence to support it.
Jes is correct in saying that the U.S. is almost alone in the current practice of fd. And even in the U.S., a majority of states automatically restore voting rights when a felon has completed his/her sentence.
However, that’s hedged about in the Carolinas and some other states with rigamarole paperwork designed to lower the number of ex-felon voters, and other states have begun to pile on restrictions such as restoration only after full sentence period has passed, regardless of parole; and/or requiring that ex-felons pay all outstanding costs and fees relating to their case before being able to vote, etc. etc. ad nauseum (and I do mean nauseum).
Every two years the American politics industry
fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country – and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.
Election time in…
restoration of the franchise:
so far, the resistance to restoring the franchise to felons has come mostly from Republicans. And there are, as Nell points out, any number of ways to prevent restoration from occuring, including dramatically extending the length of probation (not parole: parole is release during your period of confinement; probation is post-confinement restrictions on liberty which, if violated, lead to further confinement).
oddly enough, polling among post-confinement felons shows that Republicans’ concerns that this is a naturally Democratic constituency are misplaced. Many felons appreciate the dangerousness of their fellows and would vote quite conservatively.
oddly enough, polling among post-confinement felons shows that Republicans’ concerns that this is a naturally Democratic constituency are misplaced.
Pardon me while I put on my paranoid liberal’s hat, but I would think that this suggests two things. Either more sophisticated models show that the ones who would show up at the polls would be more reliably Democratic or the lost votes are more than compensated by the ability to posture and claim that such measures are protecting us from criminals. I don’t think this is something that is left to chance. FWIW
for the record, Delaware, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming have no felon voting. Nor
Arizona and Maryland after 2 convivtions.
Washington (prior 1984) is similar to Tennessee (prior 1986).
For Washington State, the issue came up in the election between Gregoire and Dino Rossi.
Some international comparisons are here at the ACLU site
Iowa – By executive order, Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack in 2005 restored voting rights for all felons who’d finished their time served at that point. The law still stands (probably Republican legislature, I’m guessing).
Delaware – Under a 2000 amendment to the state constitution, felony offenders may
apply to their County Board of Elections to have their right to vote restored five
years after expiration of sentence (including payment of fines and restitution), and restoration is automatic upon a determination of eligibility. Certain offenses require pardon ((murder,
manslaughter, bribery or public corruption, sex offense).
The situation’s pretty dynamic, with the trend mostly toward easier restoration. Another reason to elect Democratic governors and legislators.