Attorney General Rob McKenna just released this statement
Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced the state will appeal the King County Superior Court ruling on felon voters in Madison v. State of Washington...Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 29, 2006 10:33 AM | Email This
“Each state has the right to determine the process for restoring voting rights to felons. Washington state law requires that convicted felons comply with all court-imposed sentencing requirements, including paying restitution to crime victims, before the felon's voting rights are restored.
“Under the ‘rational basis test’ used by the courts, the Legislature does have a rational basis to deny felons the right to vote until they have completed their entire court-ordered sentences, including payment of criminal penalties, victim's restitution, and legal fees, rather than separating out various sentencing aspects.”
Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2006 10:50 AMThe average Joe makes countless sacrifices to lead a good honest life, avoid crime, take the high road, etc. The vast majority of WA citizens could give a flying f___ about felons. Voting is one of the many privledges they don't deserve. And they don't deserve TV in prison either.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 29, 2006 11:26 AMSeems libs don't know the difference between a right and a privilege. I've been arguing with a few of them over at the PI (yeah I know, what do I expect).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=264647
Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2006 11:30 AMAnd if the King County decision IS overturned, don't count out the Queen and her court (WA ST. Legislature) passing legislation to grant felons voting rights without the present restrictions.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 29, 2006 12:28 PMWhich we shall 912, if need be.
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 29, 2006 12:37 PMWashington State Constitution, Article II, Section 1:
LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
(Emphasis mine)
Obviously, we the people have the right to tell Olympia where to go...
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 29, 2006 01:13 PMPayments are what they owe to the victims, through restitution, and to society, through the criminal penalties and legal fees.
By the felonies committed, they have run their account as citizens into arrears, and they should not be regarded again as full voting citizens until the debts to victims and society are paid in full.
The color of their skin and their bank balance has nothing to do with the above. If felons value their voting rights, they are free to become responsible and productive enough to pay those debts. Or citizens may freely elect not to commit felonies in the first place. It's that easy.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 29, 2006 01:26 PMThe emergency clause isn't any good if we 912 the legislation - in other words, file an initiative to overturn the legislation w/ the "emergency" shield.
We can only hope between the legislature and us we won't let "indigent" felons vote in 2008!
Posted by: A Watchdog on March 29, 2006 02:46 PMHowever much y'all care to get your trousers wet about Rob McKenna, you should know that he is simply the attorney for the defendant (i.e. Sam Reed) in this instance.
Libertarians out there take note: Far and away the largest class of felons these days are convicted for DRUG CRIMES. Like every other criminal, these defendants are assessed with a $500 "victim penalty fee."
These are the sorts of ridiculous costs that keep people from voting.
Posted by: bartelby on March 29, 2006 11:21 PMNO ONE is advocating "broadbrush reenfranchisement of all felons."
The argument is simple, and it goes like this: Similarly situated people should be treated the same way.
If Bill Gates gets popped for a felony, he can easily cut a check to satisfy the legal financial obligations (LFOs) attached to his sentence. Many other defendants may not be so lucky.
Under the present law, Bill can vote but the average Joe cannot (at least until he's paid his LFOs and navigated the byzantine maze required to obtain a certificate of discharge, the document that officially restores one's civil rights).
The bottom line is a matter of simple equity. The franchise is a fundamental right. It should not be conditioned on one's income (or race, religion, gender, etc.) How hard is that to fathom?
Posted by: bartelby on March 30, 2006 12:02 AMThe problem is that your justification lacks relevance because you fail to focus on the sentence issue, instead, basing the outcome on an ability to pay.
The fact is that every convicted felon with a restitution requirement IS treated the same way.
To a greater or lesser extent, they must pay restitution, some for costs to the court, others to their victims. Either way, it's a part of the sentence, and the failure to pay is a failure to complete the sentence. Those who have not completed their sentences are not eligible for the reinstatement of the right to vote.
So, in the end, all ARE treated similarly. The sentence should not be based on an ability to pay; I don't believe our structure of fines is set up like, say, Finland, where a court fined a millionaire tens of thousands for speeding.
In the end, it is the criminal in control of the issue of their individual ability to vote. In the end, they always have the option of choosing to avoid committing a crime.
The debtor's prison analogy is bogus... unless you can explain how, in clear violation of the Constitution, it's OK to lock someone up for a debt called child support, but not for failing to pay restitution.
"The fact is that every convicted felon with a restitution requirement IS treated the same way."
That is true, just in the same way that every person forced to pay a poll tax in order to vote is treated equally.
Posted by: bartelby on March 30, 2006 12:37 AM
example; my brother rapes your daughter. Since I care about my brother and don't give a rat's a$$ about your daughter, I believe a note of apology will be sufficient punishment. Then he will be able to be a fully franchised member of society with all his rights intact.
In other words: WTF - get outta here!
Posted by: dan on March 30, 2006 08:22 AMA judge in Florida in a similar case already rejected the poll tax argument, saying :
"The court finds that victim restitution is a crucial part of the debt the convicted felon owes to both the victim and society. Payment of that debt is directly related to the question of the applicant's rehabilitation and readiness to return to the electorate."
Posted by: Palouse on March 30, 2006 08:27 AMNow there are people who have killed others in a fit of rage, got convicted of manslaughter spend 2 years in prison and got 5 years probation. But because they had money and paid off their restitution they can vote.
I'll never vote again because I'll never be able to pay off my restitution and it's better for everyone that I stay out of the work force and on medication.
I've been told that a police officer went nuts and help 23 people hostage for 27 hours, server of whom got injured from him throwing items at them. Once he was detained he was put in a hospital and no charges filed because of his mental illness.
Some of you act like the system is just. But the system is run by people with agenda as varied as anyone. It's easy to run someone through the criminal mill without even bothering to look deeper and who cares if the person getting it deserves it because if they didn't they wouldn't of been arrested.. Right?
I would worry about someone not wanting to be a part of our sociaty. It's those who dont care about voting you need to worry about.
Posted by: Daniel Madison on April 6, 2006 11:32 PM