I saw an article in the Richmond Free Press that said, "[Virginia] Gov. Terry McAuliffe has restored the voting rights of 152,694 ex-convicts since taking office. That’s more people than the combined populations of Petersburg, Hopewell, Charlottesville and Danville, and enough to create the fifth largest city in the state."
The standard reasoning for felony disenfranchisement seems to be, "(1) Most felons are black. (2) Most blacks vote Democratic. (3) Voting Democratic is bad for the country. Therefore, (4) disenfranchising felons will benefit the country."
Premises 1, 2, and 3 may be true, but this method (felony disenfranchisement) seems like an overly complicated and expensive way of accomplishing the desired goal (Republican victories). Wouldn't it be simpler to just ban the Democratic Party outright, or repeal the Fifteenth Amendment? Once it has been accepted that it's okay, even desirable, to target a particular race or party, why not take the idea to its logical conclusion?
A more direct strategy would be a lot more efficient than saying, "Okay, let's disenfranchise felons. Then, let's declare a behavior that we know a lot of blacks engage in (i.e. selling crack) to be a felony. Then let's have the police target the crack dealers, while mostly leaving alone their white customers. Then let's prosecute the crack dealers and throw them in prison." Involving the criminal justice system to accomplish a political agenda creates a lot of unnecessary overhead.
One might argue, "You can't just ban all blacks from voting, though. You have to convict them of a crime first; otherwise you violate the Constitution." But the drug war itself is arguably unconstitutional, at least at the federal level. We never passed a prohibition amendment against crack, the way we did against alcohol. The only way Congress was able to outlaw crack was through a creative interpretation of the Commerce Clause, pursuant to decisions like Wickard v. Filburn.
Once it's been accepted that it's okay to interpret the constitution to mean the opposite of what it says, why not just do that whenever it's politically expedient, and treat the Constitution as infinitely malleable? The Supreme Court could, if it wanted, rule, "The Fifteenth Amendment says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; but we consider blackness to be more of an ethnicity than a race or color, so therefore blacks are not a protected class." The Supreme Court justices have proven that they can pull out their asses whatever rationales they want to justify government actions, so a decision like that would be nothing exceptional. Their rulings don't have to actually make sense, or be intellectually honest, or anything like that.
Sometimes Republicans talk about felony disenfranchisement as though it had to do with issues other than race. You just have to look at which states have felony disenfranchisement laws, though, to see what's really going on. A Fusion article notes, "Maine and Vermont—the nation’s first- and second-whitest states, respectively—provide America’s only opportunity to see what happens when prison inmates vote." Why would Maine and Vermont bother to disenfranchise felons, given that they hardly have any blacks in their populations? The southern states, on the other hand, have lots of blacks, so they do disenfranchise felons.
But the fact that there's no uprising in the southern states against felony disenfranchisement laws suggests to me that people don't actually take felons' right to vote all that seriously. It's kind of like how there's been no uprising against the Electoral College, or against gerrymandering. In the end, although people may complain about it, they don't actually care enough to want to do anything to force the issue. Even if they feel like their democratic rights have been trampled, they're content to just express that opinion and then move on, without taking to the streets over it.
After all, felons retain most of their other political rights. They can still write letters to the editor. They can still show up at rallies. They can still donate money to candidates. They can still volunteer to knock on doors for candidates, or man phone banks. They can still put signs in their yards and bumper stickers on their cars. They can still create dank memes.
Felons can't serve on juries, but restoring their rights doesn't necessarily lead to them serving on juries. The prosecutor can still ask during jury selection, "Has anyone here been convicted of a felony?" and then use his peremptory strikes to eliminate all the veniremen who raise their hands.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees felons the right to run for federal office, but this doesn't seem to actually result in a lot of felons' running for office. If you're a felon who isn't already famous, then you probably need to keep a low profile, and hide your felon status, so that you can continue to find work. Running for office is the opposite of keeping a low profile.
Also, there are only two kinds of campaigns for public office: (1) those that are boring, and (2) those that are controversial. Controversial campaigns tend to be costly, because they can result in a lot of social and economic ostracism. That's why we don't see a lot of candidates saying anything controversial. It's not that there aren't a lot of people who would like to express some divergent thinking; it's that they don't want to OPENLY say what's on their mind unless they can do so anonymously. But you have to give your real name when you run for office.
I'm not convinced that felony disenfranchisement deters people from committing felonies. There are a lot of other rights, like the right to not have to spend a year or more in prison, or the right to possess a gun, or the right to engage in certain professions (law, accounting, psychiatry, etc.) that people probably value more than their right to vote. I've never heard of someone facing felony charges saying, "And you know what's the worst part? If I get convicted, I'll lose my right to vote!"
I'm also not convinced that a person's being a felon causes him to differ all that much from non-felons in his political beliefs. Crack dealers, for example, aren't necessarily libertarians. If you ask them about their opinions on drug policy, they will often say that they think crack should be illegal. They just regret that they got caught dealing it.
Nor am I all that convinced that legislators usually made good and logical decisions about which offenses to classify as felonies, and which as misdemeanors. If I steal a $5 bill out of your pocket, that's a felony. If I commit destruction of property in the amount of $999, though, that's a misdemeanor. Why is it worse to steal property than to destroy it?
If you possess pornography involving a 13-year-old, that's a felony. But if you sexually abuse a 13-year-old, that's a misdemeanor. Why is it worse to possess a video of a sexual assault than to commit a sexual assault?
The answer always is, there was some interest group that lobbied for the law to be what it is now, and that continues to lobby against changing it.
By the way -- what is the point of voting, to begin with? Isn't it so that people who want to register their dissent choose ballots over bullets? It's essentially a form of appeasement, then. The rabble would present a threat unless pacified by giving them voting rights that make them feel like they made a difference.
One would think, then, that those who have shown a propensity for breaking the law should be all the more important to try to appease. If you have a large percentage of the population that isn't allowed to vote, and has a greater tendency toward criminality anyway as a way of solving their problems, plus doesn't have much to lose because they're already convicted felons, I would think that's a group the state would have reason to fear. On the other hand, if it's a politically apathetic group, then probably they're not going to vote anyway, so the issue is moot.
The standard reasoning for felony disenfranchisement seems to be, "(1) Most felons are black. (2) Most blacks vote Democratic. (3) Voting Democratic is bad for the country. Therefore, (4) disenfranchising felons will benefit the country."
Premises 1, 2, and 3 may be true, but this method (felony disenfranchisement) seems like an overly complicated and expensive way of accomplishing the desired goal (Republican victories). Wouldn't it be simpler to just ban the Democratic Party outright, or repeal the Fifteenth Amendment? Once it has been accepted that it's okay, even desirable, to target a particular race or party, why not take the idea to its logical conclusion?
A more direct strategy would be a lot more efficient than saying, "Okay, let's disenfranchise felons. Then, let's declare a behavior that we know a lot of blacks engage in (i.e. selling crack) to be a felony. Then let's have the police target the crack dealers, while mostly leaving alone their white customers. Then let's prosecute the crack dealers and throw them in prison." Involving the criminal justice system to accomplish a political agenda creates a lot of unnecessary overhead.
One might argue, "You can't just ban all blacks from voting, though. You have to convict them of a crime first; otherwise you violate the Constitution." But the drug war itself is arguably unconstitutional, at least at the federal level. We never passed a prohibition amendment against crack, the way we did against alcohol. The only way Congress was able to outlaw crack was through a creative interpretation of the Commerce Clause, pursuant to decisions like Wickard v. Filburn.
Once it's been accepted that it's okay to interpret the constitution to mean the opposite of what it says, why not just do that whenever it's politically expedient, and treat the Constitution as infinitely malleable? The Supreme Court could, if it wanted, rule, "The Fifteenth Amendment says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; but we consider blackness to be more of an ethnicity than a race or color, so therefore blacks are not a protected class." The Supreme Court justices have proven that they can pull out their asses whatever rationales they want to justify government actions, so a decision like that would be nothing exceptional. Their rulings don't have to actually make sense, or be intellectually honest, or anything like that.
Sometimes Republicans talk about felony disenfranchisement as though it had to do with issues other than race. You just have to look at which states have felony disenfranchisement laws, though, to see what's really going on. A Fusion article notes, "Maine and Vermont—the nation’s first- and second-whitest states, respectively—provide America’s only opportunity to see what happens when prison inmates vote." Why would Maine and Vermont bother to disenfranchise felons, given that they hardly have any blacks in their populations? The southern states, on the other hand, have lots of blacks, so they do disenfranchise felons.
But the fact that there's no uprising in the southern states against felony disenfranchisement laws suggests to me that people don't actually take felons' right to vote all that seriously. It's kind of like how there's been no uprising against the Electoral College, or against gerrymandering. In the end, although people may complain about it, they don't actually care enough to want to do anything to force the issue. Even if they feel like their democratic rights have been trampled, they're content to just express that opinion and then move on, without taking to the streets over it.
After all, felons retain most of their other political rights. They can still write letters to the editor. They can still show up at rallies. They can still donate money to candidates. They can still volunteer to knock on doors for candidates, or man phone banks. They can still put signs in their yards and bumper stickers on their cars. They can still create dank memes.
Felons can't serve on juries, but restoring their rights doesn't necessarily lead to them serving on juries. The prosecutor can still ask during jury selection, "Has anyone here been convicted of a felony?" and then use his peremptory strikes to eliminate all the veniremen who raise their hands.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees felons the right to run for federal office, but this doesn't seem to actually result in a lot of felons' running for office. If you're a felon who isn't already famous, then you probably need to keep a low profile, and hide your felon status, so that you can continue to find work. Running for office is the opposite of keeping a low profile.
Also, there are only two kinds of campaigns for public office: (1) those that are boring, and (2) those that are controversial. Controversial campaigns tend to be costly, because they can result in a lot of social and economic ostracism. That's why we don't see a lot of candidates saying anything controversial. It's not that there aren't a lot of people who would like to express some divergent thinking; it's that they don't want to OPENLY say what's on their mind unless they can do so anonymously. But you have to give your real name when you run for office.
I'm not convinced that felony disenfranchisement deters people from committing felonies. There are a lot of other rights, like the right to not have to spend a year or more in prison, or the right to possess a gun, or the right to engage in certain professions (law, accounting, psychiatry, etc.) that people probably value more than their right to vote. I've never heard of someone facing felony charges saying, "And you know what's the worst part? If I get convicted, I'll lose my right to vote!"
I'm also not convinced that a person's being a felon causes him to differ all that much from non-felons in his political beliefs. Crack dealers, for example, aren't necessarily libertarians. If you ask them about their opinions on drug policy, they will often say that they think crack should be illegal. They just regret that they got caught dealing it.
Nor am I all that convinced that legislators usually made good and logical decisions about which offenses to classify as felonies, and which as misdemeanors. If I steal a $5 bill out of your pocket, that's a felony. If I commit destruction of property in the amount of $999, though, that's a misdemeanor. Why is it worse to steal property than to destroy it?
If you possess pornography involving a 13-year-old, that's a felony. But if you sexually abuse a 13-year-old, that's a misdemeanor. Why is it worse to possess a video of a sexual assault than to commit a sexual assault?
The answer always is, there was some interest group that lobbied for the law to be what it is now, and that continues to lobby against changing it.
By the way -- what is the point of voting, to begin with? Isn't it so that people who want to register their dissent choose ballots over bullets? It's essentially a form of appeasement, then. The rabble would present a threat unless pacified by giving them voting rights that make them feel like they made a difference.
One would think, then, that those who have shown a propensity for breaking the law should be all the more important to try to appease. If you have a large percentage of the population that isn't allowed to vote, and has a greater tendency toward criminality anyway as a way of solving their problems, plus doesn't have much to lose because they're already convicted felons, I would think that's a group the state would have reason to fear. On the other hand, if it's a politically apathetic group, then probably they're not going to vote anyway, so the issue is moot.
