Sound Politics Public Blog: The idiocy of Sam Reed never ceases to amaze. Restoring felon voting rights

April 16, 2009

The idiocy of Sam Reed never ceases to amaze. Restoring felon voting rights

The Idiocy of Sam Reed and The Columbian never ceases to amaze: In our view April 16: Progress for Felons

The sheer unadulterated idiocy of restoring voting privileges before the completion of a sentence, is the decreased likelihood of the payment of restitution to a criminal's victims or government is obvious.

The leftist moron who wrote this editorial supporting this bizarre nonsense fails to address in his haste to restore the felon's "rights" that the felon violated the victim's rights without a second thought.

We're lied to:

First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Utter nonsense. They provide not one shred of proof that recidivism is influenced in any way by voting rights. Not one. It sounds good, so they print it.

But I just can't feature any of these clowns going, "Gee, if I rob this 7-11, I won't be able to vote in the upcoming school bond levy."

Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government's thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.

This non sequitur is a right they voluntarily gave up by violating the rights of their victim. And who would they vote for? A candidate more likely to get tough on crime? Or a candidate more likely to be lenient while the public gets caught in the middle and screwed?

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.

I'm touched by the concern expressed here for the criminal. But when it comes to the victim?

Not so much. What this law "signals" to a criminal is that when you shoot someone, either killing them or crippling them, this newspaper is going to be far more concerned about your right to vote then it is your requirement to pay your restitution.

They falsely equate restitution, which is, after all, an effort to at least partially make your victim whole, with a bogus poll tax. That is a crock of pure, grade A BS.

When the "new law" fails because felons WILL NOT "stay current" on their restitution payments, how long will it be before this newspaper leads the charge to remove even THAT requirement?

And what mechanism has that waste of skin Sam Reed implemented to enforce any of these requirements?

Reed will make sure that all felons are registered as a part of their release program, and then do absolutely nothing to make sure that they ARE current. If he couldn't set up a program that would keep track of convicted felons that haven't had their rights restored, how can anyone expect this incompetent boob to set up a program to keep track of these felon's payments?

Posted by Hinton at April 16, 2009 12:28 PM | Email This

Comments

1. But doesn't that go along with get everyone registered and be allowed to vote.... except in Minnesota and New York.

I am hoping Coleman takes his challenge to both Supremes and once and for all get uniformity of counting settled. As it stands, conservative districts typically go with the letter of the law (like you comment above which I agree with) while the liberal districts have a completely different standard like allowing people to live in 8 x 8 inch mailboxes and which is direct violation of law.

Posted by: swatter on April 17, 2009 08:06 AM

2. It is not only important to have felons lose their right to vote, it is also, important to remove the right to vote from anybody, with the exception of the military, who is employed by the public sector. The same is true for the public employee who will vote for those who will increase Government, increase Taxes, increase job security and pay for the public employee is the same difference as for the felon voting for someone who will reduce penalties for committing crimes. Voting rights for both groups, felons and public employees, should be removed. After all, both occupations, felon or public employee are both voluntary.

Posted by: Daniel on April 17, 2009 01:05 PM

3. We do not penalize people because they choose to take a legal course, in this case, working for government.

Working for government does not violate anyone else's rights while committing a criminal act certainly does.

Criminals are not concerned with the rights of their victims, we should show an equal lack of concern for the rights of the criminal. Since the 8th Amendment has been interpreted to restrict like-for-like punishment on a physical level, and since the criminal's debt is both to society AND the victim; the suspension of the criminal's right to vote, a right that is restored with the full completion of their sentence, including restitution; is a fully proper law to have in effect.

That Sam Reed is both too incompetent and too agenda driven from that incompetence to want to end his responsibilities in this matter provides precisely zero reason to end this requirement.

Posted by: Hinton on April 17, 2009 03:28 PM

4. We do not penalize people because they choose to take a legal course, in this case, working for government.

Unless the branch of government is the military.

If SoS couldn't track the felons before, there is no way in heck he'd be able to track them under this new plan. It's stupid pablum we're being fed here.

Wanna bet that no action will be taken against offenders during a presidential or gubenatorial year?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 17, 2009 04:57 PM

5. Wake up Hinton....People have and will vote for their on Largess. That's a fundamental problem in trying to control the size of Government from growing out of control and destroying this Nation. It is the True Tax Payers aka the private sector that should have the exclusive Say on how the Government shall serve them. Not, the employees of the Tax Payer, giving themselves greater Largess, Growth, Power and Control over the earnings and lives of those who are paying the bills. Government employees are Not, Tax Payers. They live off of the Earnings of the Tax Payer. If you want to have control over how Government is to serve you then, you must have the exclusive Right of the Vote to ensure your Rights are going to be Fully Represented. A Government that is filled with the numbers that will allow an unfair advantage over the desires of the Governed, to stuff the ballot box and gain sway over the Rights, desires and needs of the Tax Payer, it is Guaranteed to continue to Grow, Control, Tax into Oblivion and Destroy this Nation. It was a Serious Mistake of our Founders not to include in the Constitution this Right of the Governed having the exclusive Right of the Vote. It is a Mistake that needs to be corrected while the last vestiges of Liberty and the Right to Pursue a Happy Life still exist. Without, this needed change this Nation is Doomed.

Posted by: Daniel on April 17, 2009 06:05 PM

6. I have yet to find a firefighter or police officer that should vote - Daniel is right - no public employee should be allowed to vote.

Sheesh.

Posted by: BA on April 19, 2009 10:19 AM

7. BA....You have good people in Government but, only a very few are Noble enough to Vote against their own interest for the good of the Nation as a Whole. That's the Problem. Whether, your a policeman or fireman, he is still the employee of the Tax Payer and if you give the employees the vote on how the company should be run, the vast majority will vote for more jobs, more pay, until the Company goes bankrupt. That is what is happening to our Nation now. Get It? Probably Not...Your a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on April 19, 2009 11:18 PM

8. Don't be silly. Only non government employees can vote is a ridiculous and non constitutional argument. And the idea that someone who doesn't agree with you is obviously a liberal is absurd. I am not a liberal but i can certainly see that not only liberals, but libertarians and most if not virtually all republican/conservatives would be against taking the vote from citizens whose only "crime" was taking a governmental job.

Bringing up the point that many military votes are never counted in many places, when in fact all absentee ballots should be counted EVERY time not just in a close vote would be great. And if you wanted to talk about true, real, campaign reform limiting the donations from bundlers, unions and government employees as well as corporations. Then halt ANY donations from foreigners that would be an arguement with some teeth but to throw out that "no government employee" except military should vote is absurd and again unconstitutional. As a 20 veteran I think of myself as no better or worse than any other GOV'T employee and I certainly voted in my best interest. Yes last i checked the DOD is a government agency. If you use the argument that the DOD is employeed by public sector then all government is employeed by the public sector. You (the public) have no more say in what the manning of the USS Ronald Reagan is than you do the local library so what on gods green earth makes you think the military is public employee.

And lastly while the size of the government has risen dramatically there is still not anywhere near a majority of persons working for the 'gummint'. If the Non-voters in this country, the lazy, uninvolved, disinfranchised whatevers that choose for whatever reason (mine dont count, no good candidates, daughters dance recital, whatever) not to vote would get off their dead ass maybe things would be a little different. But I will continue to believe one person one vote no matter who employees them (dont be an ass, of course they must be citizens in good standing etc.) And i will continue on in the inactive/fleet reserve hoping i will never be called back to defend the constitution from a bunch of half wits who want to start dictating which of the citizens get to vote based soley on their employer. (spelling and grammar mistakes are included and corrections are not welcome. This isn't a grammar class and I am not looking for a tutor. lack of grammar doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence just a lack of organization and time).

Posted by: lurkertroll on April 20, 2009 10:23 AM

9. Hey lurkertroll...Try and read carefully my two posts on this forum. My post @2 makes it a point to exclude the Military from the removal of the Right to Vote. I have also, stated that the Right to Vote by only those of the Private Sector aka the ones who pay the Bills, that there needs to be a change to the Constitution that allows only the Governed having the exclusive Right to Vote. Now, that you have been made aware of what I posted, it should take care of two of your misplaced Rants. In your other ramblings, you have failed to address the premise that If the Governed, the ones who pay the Bills, the ones who do the employing, the ones who make it possible for the Government to Exist in the first place, why shouldn't they have the exclusive Right of the Vote?

Around one out of 6 do work for Big Government. No, that is not a majority but, many elections have been swayed by less than 6 percent. The Bottom Line....That 6 percent tied to the vast numbers of the Voters who are the Easy Believers, Easily Conned, Indoctrinated, Useful Idiots, meaning LIBERALS!....Government will continue to expand out of control until America will no longer EXIST!

Posted by: Daniel on April 20, 2009 11:25 AM

10. CAN YOU BLAME SAM? Look, he needs all the votes he can get when he comes up for re-election. He is certainly not going to get many Republican votes. In fact, several Republicans will be running against him in the primary.

Posted by: Jack LeCerveau on April 23, 2009 03:44 PM