Even if they haven't paid off court-ordered fines, felons would be able to vote, under a ruling made yesterday by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman. Spearman has previously distinguished himself by excusing an alleged quadruple murderer from trial on highly questionable grounds of mental incompetence.
Spearman said the state law requiring payment of all court-ordered fines and fees before a felon can vote again violates the equal-protection clause in the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. He said "discrimination on the basis of wealth and property has long been disfavored."
Under state law, felons can petition the state to have their voting rights restored, but only after they have completed their sentences - including any probation or community service - and have paid all of their court-related costs. State lawyers argued that the judge shouldn't make a distinction between court-ordered payments and other parts of a felon's sentence, such as jail time.
"It's rational for the Legislature to say we want you to complete everything, as opposed to start separating out sentence elements," said deputy solicitor general Jeff Even....It...was unclear how many people the ruling will affect. But, based on past estimates, it could add tens of thousands of convicted felons to the voter rolls.
Estimates of felons voting in the 2004 gubernatorial election ranged from 794 to 946; Democrat Christine Gregoire bested Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes only after a second recount. The system for weeding out illegal felon voters before they vote has been a mess.
Accordingly, the Washington state legislature last year approved a measure to tighten enforcement of restrictions against ineligible felon voting. I do not believe felons should be barred for life from voting. They should be able to vote after meeting court-imposed conditions, including payment of fines.
Voting is a privilege, not a right. Felonies carry consequences. Monetary fines are one appropriate consequence, along with community service and probation. That a few convicted felons may claim inability to pay does not excuse the whole class. The possibilities for vote fraud are significantly enhanced by adding ineligible felons to voting rolls, particularly in a state where most voters vote by mail. Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, is currently mulling whether to appeal Spearman's ruling. To not do so would be unfathomable.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 28, 2006 08:14 AM | Email ThisWTF is this maroon talking about?
Someone commits a crime, fines and fees are part of the punishment. What has that got to do with wealth?
Let's see dems control both houses and the Gov. office, what was stopping them for legislatively changing the law?
The know they can't win this issue so they find a tame liberal judge.
I get more and more disgusted with the libs all the time.
Posted by: JCM on March 28, 2006 08:39 AMAre there no conscequences for breaking the law? They committed the crime and do time and have fines. Until they have completed the entire sentence, they shouldn't have their right to vote. They haven't completed the sentence. There is no discrimination...they have a sentence for being a criminal! What the hell is this j@cka@ss doing!!! He's a complete and utter idiot.
When does this get appealed? This is sick. WA state: do what you want....there are no consequences to choice. Just ridiculous!!!
Posted by: Dengle on March 28, 2006 08:40 AMSam Reed is at:
email:
sreed@secstate.wa.gov or
mail@secstate.wa.gov
Mail:
PO Box 40220
OLYMPIA WA 98504-0220
Telephone:
(360) 902-4151
Rob McKenna is at:
Mail:
1125 Washington St. SE
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA. 98504-0100
Telephone:
360-753-6200
Fax:
360-586-7671
Web contact page:
https://wws2.wa.gov/ago/formhandler/ContactForm.asp
Funny how they choose which parts of the constitution to follow and which parts they don't like.
Posted by: Andy on March 28, 2006 08:58 AMFelons can lose it, the same as they can lose the right to walk around freely for a period of time (jail), and the right to keep all the money they earn (fines).
Don't ever let politicians, bureaucrats, liberals and other tyrants, looters and moochers get the idea that voting is a priveledge granted by the government to special people who meet certain qualifications.
Posted by: ken on March 28, 2006 09:06 AMArticle VI, Section 3, Who Disqualified:
"All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise."
So if his objection is wealth and property, then the means by which a person can be restored to their civil rights must not be dependent on wealth or property. So let's consider the situation of someone without wealth or property. What do they have that they can provide to the vicitim as restitution and to the state (the people of Washington) as proof of bona fide intentions to be a law abiding member of society?
They have no money or property, so that's out. Even if they had it, the judge believes that the possession of wealth is an unfair advantage.
They can behave properly, but everyone who didn't commit a crime is already doing that. Proper behavior also does not restitution make.
We don't lop off limbs in this country, nor brand criminals, so that's off the table before we start.
We're already taking their time in the form of incarceration. Wealthy or poor, you do your time until the prison system says they're letting you out. Besides, prison time does not restitution make.
Perhaps fallow prison time is not useful in and of itself, but perhaps time being used in a constructive manner would be. Properly used time could be used to provide a restitution, independent of the means of the individual. So perhaps the state should investigate avenues of labor that are profitable, capable of being done by anyone fit enough to commit a crime that requires restitution, and furthers a public good. The pay for that labor would be applied against the restitution burden. They can employ themselves in that labor, or set aside an equal or greater portion of wages earned in private employment.
Ah! I've rediscovered indentured servitude. Which is legal and constititutional so long as the similar concepts of court-ordered community service and child support are also legal and constitutional.
Now, if the state would just start giving the option to inmates to do farmwork that feeds a state-run biodiesel venture as a means to accomplish their restitution, we'd have removed the element of "wealth and property" from the restitution requirements, and advanced an environmental stewardship goal at the same time. Everyone wins.
Posted by: gmcraff on March 28, 2006 09:23 AMFelons can lose it, the same as they can lose the right to walk around freely for a period of time (jail), and the right to keep all the money they earn (fines).
Don't ever let politicians, bureaucrats, liberals and other tyrants, looters and moochers get the idea that voting is a priveledge granted by the government to special people who meet certain qualifications.
Exactly what I was going to say.
The folks who point out that voting is a right are exactly correct. See, for example, amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 of the US Constitution. That right (along with others) can be lost after being duly convicted of a felony, but for the rest of us citizens, our sufferage cannot be denied.
We as citizens should not allow our government to take rights from our fellow citizens-unless very necessary. It's bad enouhg we are putting folks in jail for not being able to pay but if we make "criminal class" from which no one can emerge, we may have to buy more guns, build taller fences at home, keep our kids inside: cower.
Posted by: Shhh on March 28, 2006 04:03 PMThe fact that your voting rights CAN be taken away by the state makes it a privilege. However, RIGHTS like due process, free speech, protection from self incrimination, right to legal counsel, etc CANNOT be removed by ANY state, and apply equally to everyone. This is what makes them rights.
Posted by: Palouse on March 30, 2006 08:44 AM