Democrats in the legislature, joined by Sam Reed, seek to restore voting rights to all non-incarcerated felons. This includes criminals who have served their time but still owe fines and restitution to their victims. It also includes those who haven't completed their prison time, but are out under state supervision.
Today's P-I has an article about the state's "supervision" program:
In 2004, a convicted sex offender under supervision tore through four states on a 24-day rape-and-robbery spree that ended when he shot a teenage girl and then, hours later, a gas station clerk in her 50s. The same year, another Washington felon on community release beat a young mother to death in front of her children. The list goes on.Who wants the elected officials who oversee the supervision program to have to compete for the votes of the criminals under supervision? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 02, 2007 08:14 AM | Email This
On the other hand, being given the right to vote (when they never voted before) improves their sense of community and decreases their likelihood of reoffending? I think not. Only a social engineer in the Democrat party would say so.
On yet a third hand, why shouldn't taking away their right to vote (or keep it away in this case) be used as a deterrent? If they don't vote anyway, who cares?
This thing is so stupid. Aren't there any Democrats with an ounce of brains left? Yes, Sam, I am calling you a Democrat.
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2007 08:20 AMhttp://www.gregpalast.com/a-blacklist-burning-for-bush/
Second, a bigger problem is that they let violent offenders out of prison, like the one described. Why? Could be lax laws for violent offenders, could also be prison overcrowding. Either way, if a person, under the law, has been deemed to have "paid their debt to society" then they should have their right to vote restored. Me personally, I don't believe the person you describe can pay their debt to society. But monetary penalties are nothing more than a modern day poll tax at this point.
Posted by: Gentry on February 2, 2007 08:46 AMSwatter, you actually score in your own goal. All 3 of your points argue for letting ex-felons vote. Perhaps fewer ex-felons would vote than non-felons, but then it doesn't matter; all that does matter is those who would vote. How could voting not increase their sense of participation in society? And while I doubt that taking away the vote is a deterrent -- I imagine prison is more of a deterrent -- let's say you're right and it is a deterrent; therefore, once we choose to release someone from prison, wouldn't we want to restore the right to vote so that the threat of losing it would be a deterrent to reoffending?
Posted by: Bruce on February 2, 2007 08:54 AMI am afraid, though, that I will be doomed to live here forever, because where I come from, I have to stay till I get it "right".
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2007 08:57 AMWith mail-in ballots, felons may start having votes count, as distincly differnt from felons voting.
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 2, 2007 09:02 AMI don't understand the wording of your second sentence; please enlighten.
Posted by: Bruce on February 2, 2007 09:05 AMAnd for a very, very small amount of time are guns used in crimes. The vast majority of time guns are used for target practice, hunting, or just sitting idle.
I just find it interesting how this "rehabilitated" person can be trusted with a ballot, but not a gun.
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 2, 2007 09:22 AMOf course, those who use such a standard are, 1. democrats who will actually benefit from such a determination; 2. convicted felons or 3. those who have yet to be victimized by felons.
For those 3 groups, it's comparatively easy to allow felons to have all of their rights the moment they walk past the gate to their lock up... even if their sentence isn't completed.
The fact remains, however, that ALL parts of the sentence, including that pesky restitution part, are SUPPOSED to be EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
The sentence is completed when each and every aspect has been fulfilled. Until then, there's really no difference between someone being locked up and someone out on parole.
And, what your argument suggests is that, should society make a determination (that someone is what you call a "great risk to others") then we should (although excepting sex offenders, we currently do not) have a mechanism to keep them locked up until such a determination is made.
Further, utilizing your "reasoning," the moment someone completes their sentence, no matter what the crime, then we should also restore their right to bear arms. I mean, after all, why not if "society has clearly decided that they are not a great risk to others?"
At the end of the day, restitution may be more important then any other aspect of a sentence, in that it is supposed to go some distance towards making the victim whole... to the extent that a victim CAN be made whole.
There is no justification to enable felons to vote until they've completed every aspect of their sentence, including paying all fines, fees and restitution. And Reed's support of this bill is yet another sign that his main concern is making his job easier, instead of doing what's right for the non-criminal people of this state.
The only change I would support might be to, upon completing ALL aspects of a sentence, automatically restore to the felon the right to vote without going through any cumbersome court process.
But anything else is just being done to get the leftists more votes... and make the Secretary of States job easier... and frankly, if Reed finds his office pogue position too difficult, he can always do us all a favor and resign... because if this guy IS a "Republican," then I'm ashamed to call myself one.
Side note: We need more jail space to stop having to let folks on parole....most times it's because we need the space. Yes some do deserve parole early, but if paroled doesn't mean they have paid their debt. Just that they don't have to be in jail. They are just serving their sentence is a different manner.
Posted by: Dengle on February 2, 2007 09:29 AMI hate to birng this up, but there are some recent new inmates at federal prisons that used to be Republican lawmakers. It hasn't been such a good year or two for the Reps in that department. Of course, the Dems aren't saints, either.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 2, 2007 09:38 AMI believe that once someone has been convicted of a felony, the most serious class of antisocial criminal behavior, they forever forfeit their right to decide anything about how our society works, or to be in any position of authority or control over the rest of us (their victims).
Posted by: Steve on February 2, 2007 09:52 AMToday he tries to keep a low profile, stays out of trouble, yet wants to get involved in the community in which he lives. One way is by voting (which he still can't do) and becoming involved in the issues that matter to him. Believe it or not, he is a conservative. Yet, he believes that the right to vote should be restored automatically upon release form all terms of the imposed sentence. He does NOT believe that ex-felons should automatically have their gun rights restored (this stemming from some of the people he met while incarcerated!). Is he lazy in not filling out the petition to restore his right? Maybe. But keeping a low profile is important to him and the ones that he loves.
So, to get to the point..sorry for the long story...I agree with him that the right to vote should be restored automatically upon finishing all aspects of an imposed sentence (pay all fines, restitution, do all community service, etc.) without having to file forms or make petitions. Guns? Not for ex-felons. (A side note: Felons can have their gun rights restored - all it takes is a petition to the governor who can approve or reject the petition. I haven't heard anyone mention this yet). By ensuring that ex-felons can not LEGALLY buy guns, we have done our part to try to curb any future violent gun related violent acts on their part. But, they can always buy one on the street if they really wanted too.
Posted by: Michael H on February 2, 2007 09:53 AMHave you asked your brother why filling out the form is not keeping a low profile? You should encourage him to do so.
Posted by: Dengle on February 2, 2007 10:14 AMI never got a clear answer as to why he had it, just that he "wanted to protect himself." Whatever that means. He hasn't talked about it in a while except to refer to that period in his life as "one giant act of stupidity." I see your point on him having a say on rules when he didn't obey the rules himself. But this occurred 20 years ago, and he has not re-offended in any manner since then. A true scared-straight story. How long must he wait before we say that we welcome his input as a taxpayer, homeowner, and productive citizen? Shouldn't he have a say (one vote) in who controls the tax dollars that he contributes?
Dengle @19
I have encouraged him to do so in the past. However, the choice is his to make. He is afraid that somehow, someway, unwanted attention would be directed to him and he would have to re-live the embarrasment and ridicule that he went through at that time. A bit paranoid if you ask me, but who would want Jim Forman from channel 5 or Chris Halsney from channel 7 knocking on their door?
why? because a felon should not have a power (vote) over law-abiding citizens who chose not to do wrong. the felon vote then becomes equal to the victim's, victims' families or cancels it out.
why should a felon have power over my life? any amount of power--like a vote? power to determine my taxes/levies? a voice in the legislation i have to follow?--which--by the way--the felon chose to NOT follow?
another unfair slap in the face to the honest taxpayer & law-abiding citizen. same as giving illegal aliens any benefits. unfair to the legal populace. snub of nose to voters by legislators.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 2, 2007 11:10 AMThis is incorrect. Secretary Reed and our office have NOT advocated restoring voting rights to all non-incarerated felons.
In testifying before legislative committees have been very clear on this point. (See the TVW audio links posted at the end of this comment)
We have pointed out that there is no state electronic database of felons who have had their civil rights restored (by a court or by a pardon) over the decades. The Administrator of the Courts has been tracking restoration of civil rights over the past 4-5 years, but the data is non-existent prior to then.
Nor is there a database of which felons who have or have not fulfilled their financial obligations (fines, restitution or court costs). The Madison court case resulted in a court order barring us from prohibiting felons from voting who have not met their financial obligations. Secretary Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna vigorously opposed and appealed this decision.
Whatever the felon disenfranchisement law is, we need a way of comparing the Statewide Voter Registration Database against databases manintained by other agencies in the criminal justice system. In many cases there are no such databases.
Go to:
http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2007011300&TYPE=A
and que to 01:10:04 on the streaming audio to hear what our agency did say at the legislative hearing.
A special subset program could be implemented for a test of societal fitness for rapists by allowing them to live with politicians who have young girls in their household. The politicians would then be able to show how well the system is capable of reforming rapists.
It would also be a great opportunity to create more jobs. A large bureaucracy of unionized state employees could be formed to oversee the program.
The real issue is getting the party in power...
DEMOCRATS
to follow, obey, honor, current election law.
We have bigger fish to fry than restore felons voting rights.
We are discussing changing the rules. Why? The D's have proven the rules are for losers. Why play their game?
The current rules are not being followed. The party in power currently doesn't follow election law.
It won't matter one wit when felon franchise is restored as long as the election system is broken.
FIX THE SYSTEM FIRST!!!
Purge the rolls.
Everyone re-registers with proof of citizenship and residency.
No mail ballots.
No electronic machines.
Accounting style rules for ballots and votes.
Get all that straightened out then will talk restoring felons franchise.
Posted by: JCM on February 2, 2007 11:50 AMDuBois, who lives in a trailer park near Chattaroy on $660 a month in food stamps, Social Security and state disability payments
She should be suing the prison system for not returning her as a productive member of society.
None whatsoever.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 2, 2007 12:11 PMStefan, can you show us where Sam Reed or his office say they seek to restore voting rights for all non-incarcerated felons? A video link or link to documents from the SOS would be helpful.
Frankly, I don't know who to believe here...but as the person making the accusations, it would be helpful if you showed us some proof, Stefan.
Posted by: Randy Mueller on February 2, 2007 12:22 PMHIs proposed Heritage Center in Olympia is a multi-million dollar boondoggle that taxpayers shouldn't fund either.
Posted by: sgmmac on February 2, 2007 12:23 PMRandy Cunningham comes to mind. I think that guy Ney is supposed to be entenced soon. The Reps haven't been good boys and girls lately.
Of course, I sure the Dems will catch up with the soon.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 2, 2007 12:51 PMI have no problem with restoring people's 2nd Amendment rights. I have a problem with letting violent offenders out of prison in the first place. I also have a problem with overcrowding prisons with non-violent drug offenders, and letting violent offenders out at all.
A lot of the "fines" that people get while in prison have less to do with restitution than with red tape.
What are you worried about anyway, that felons will vote to reform the American "for-profit" prison system? A system in which human rights abuses occur regularly, like prison rape and HIV infection. Ridiculous. Do you really think that all felons vote Democrat? There's many a Republican felon that would disagree.
What is the concern here? Mine is election integrity. I can't really discern a logical argument against restoring people's rights once they leave prison.
Could someone please explain to me where felons voting would be a concern?
Posted by: Gentry on February 2, 2007 01:04 PMOf equal or bigger concern should be judges who think they can control established voting rights law without appropriate legislation and/or public vote. That's the case with King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman and the Madison case. Judges like Spearman must be remembered at election time. And Spearman has to be remembered if he decides to run for the Supreme Court again.
We can talk about robbers being allowed to vote, but not rapists and murderers. Okay?
Posted by: swatter on February 2, 2007 03:10 PMBesides, no one on here has come up with one defense against the use of purge lists to eliminate voters. Look into the history of Choicepoint, just scratch the surface, and you will find that felony purge lists are used, time and again, to eliminate voters who were never felons. I've already provided links.
Stefan, what about it? Everyone bows down to your knowledge of election issues around here, well, are you aware of all the information Greg Palast has exposed on this issue?
Posted by: Gentry on February 2, 2007 03:41 PMI will explain why I think felons voting is a concern. If we allow those who have been unable or unwilling to conform their behavior to the barest minimum of civilization (i.e. don't kill people or maim them, don't steal their stuff, don't defraud your neighbors) to then turn around and help make the rules for the rest of us, we have the foxes guarding the hen house, or the inmates running the asylum if you will.
I submit that it is immoral to allow severe transgressors to have any say whatsoever about the rules we all live by. I do not consider these felons my peers. We live in an enlighted society where we don't automatically sever hands of theives, or literally take an eye for an eye. But come on, do you really think sitting in a cell for a few years makes everything alright for the greater society whose fabric has been ripped apart by these deviants. We all live in fear and worry, even if we have personally never been victimized. We must spend our hard earned money on security, insurance, police because of these felons. They have harmed us all enough - there is no reason to let them set the ground rules for us law abiding citizens.
I would be in favor of setting up an isolated enclave, probably on an island, where any felons who chose to could move and self govern. But I think it would rapidly descend into a lord of the flies situation.
Posted by: Steve on February 2, 2007 04:36 PM1. My observation is and I know that it will drawn comments from the progressives is that most progressives care little about the individual situation, but more about the collective definition. All felon voting is about is another voting block to be exploited. Biden's comments about Obama give a clue to the view of most people of color by progressives.
2. Since it is about voting blocks, why does one even have to be a US citizen to vote? Why not just let everyone on US soil vote?
3. If the reinstatement of voting privledges was about citizenship and its responsiblities as well as rights, then the proposal would be to restore
voting privledges after restitution is paid and probabtion is completed.
I am an indie, but I can see that given the all
encompassing definitions of citizenship to follow the pubbies will probably be out of office for several decades. There was a recent article about one out of eight Brazilian Legislators was involved in corruption. Expansion of the definition of citizenship based upon a rights formula alone instead of a rights and responsibilities formula means this state and country are on the way to a third world political system and eventually a third world social and economic system.
1. My observation is and I know that it will drawn comments from the progressives is that most progressives care little about the individual situation, but more about the collective definition. All felon voting is about is another voting block to be exploited. Biden's comments about Obama give a clue to the view of most people of color by progressives.
2. Since it is about voting blocks, why does one even have to be a US citizen to vote? Why not just let everyone on US soil vote?
3. If the reinstatement of voting privledges was about citizenship and its responsiblities as well as rights, then the proposal would be to restore
voting privledges after restitution is paid and probabtion is completed.
I am an indie, but I can see that given the all
encompassing definitions of citizenship to follow the pubbies will probably be out of office for several decades. There was a recent article about one out of eight Brazilian Legislators was involved in corruption. Expansion of the definition of citizenship based upon a rights formula alone instead of a rights and responsibilities formula means this state and country are on the way to a third world political system and eventually a third world social and economic system.
"We all live in fear and worry"
No, no we don't. Some people live in fear, you do obviously. I don't, and I know plenty of others that do not live in fear as well. It's a ridiculous statement on the surface. And I've had plenty of encounters with those that would do me harm, and have. Projecting your fear on others is all you have done here.
We can argue the idealistic world view all we want. Should certain citizens not be allowed to vote? Well in the idealistic world, Murderers would never get out of jail.
But here in the really real world, those that are in power have a clear history of using felony purge list, not to eliminate felons, but to eliminate as many people as possible from the voting rolls from the opposition as they can identify through location and demographics.
If society says that someone is now going to once again participate in society, and let's that person out of jail, then that person should be allowed to participate in society. If on the other hand they are a danger to society, the problem is not in letting them vote, but in the fact that the law that set the punishment did not fit the crime.
Personally, I don't think violent rapists or murderers should be allowed out of prison.
But so far, not one person here wants to deal with the Choicepoint issue. And that's sad. Because frankly, left or right or in the middle, my goal is to make sure the vote is counted fairly and accurately.
Posted by: Gentry on February 2, 2007 04:55 PMArt. 6 Section 3 says: "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."
Shouldn't this take a constitutional amendment--a 2/3rds vote and a vote of the people?
The RCW's have long provided that "infamous crime" means a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in a state prison. RCW 29A.04.073--felonies.
Is the legislature just planning to do a blanket restoration? What an accomplishment!
Even if they take that approach, I think it still would be unconstitutional because when this provision was most recently adopted by the people getting rights restored was understood to involve a judicial process.
I hope someone challenges this law if passed.
Posted by: Besquared on February 2, 2007 05:39 PMThat's a good question for Judge Spearman.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on February 2, 2007 06:00 PMUnless you leave your front door unlocked at night and let your children play unsupervised in this city, don't tell me you don't react to fear of crime.
And you still haven't answered my question - if you think that once felons leave prison they are suddenly equal to everyone else, why shouldn't they be able to hold office, or practice law, or drive armored cars full of cash, or run day care out of their homes? Do you agree there is a line to be drawn somewhere, or not? If you do, we can argue about what belongs on which side of that line. I simply think voting is beyond the line.
Posted by: Steve on February 2, 2007 06:30 PMAs far as owning guns, many states and federal law state that convicted felons can't own them, so I have no problem with that. I own a musket that I use for ACW re-enactments which is legal. I doubt you'll catch me on a tower with a muzzle loader anytime soon.
Posted by: MKL on February 2, 2007 09:20 PM