The disenfranchisement of “felons”* after they’ve paid their debt to society has, finally, come to be recognized as a pointless and unjustifiable deprivation of a fundamental right. States are starting to recognize that the restoration of voting rights after the completion of a sentence is the correct policy and in furtherance of the Constitution, even if the same principle has yet to filter through to other constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment and Sex Offender Registries.
But even if inconsistent and hypocritical, at least re-enfranchisement is the right thing to do. Is it enough, though? Jamelle Bouie argues it is not, and takes it the next step.
But the growing tide against felon disenfranchisement raises a related question: Why disenfranchise felons at all? Why not let prisoners vote — and give the franchise to the roughly 1.5 million people sitting in federal and state prisons? Why must supposedly universal adult suffrage exclude people convicted of crimes?
Rhetorical questions are the arguments of the insipid. Why? “Why not,” as every armchair philosopher knowingly responds.
There is precedent for this idea. California allows voting for those in county jails (with limited exceptions). Colorado does too. New York recently allowed those on parole or probation to vote. And two states, Maine and Vermont, already let prisoners vote.
Precedent is no more an argument than rhetorical questions. It does serve to challenge those whose best retort is “this isn’t how it’s done,” but that too isn’t an argument. If Bouie hopes to make his case, he needs to confront the rationale for the denial of prison voting. The first step is to face the argument.
We ought to have that conversation now. Americans may see it as common sense that you lose your right to vote when you’re imprisoned, but in many democracies prisoners retain the right to vote. When that right is revoked, it’s only for particular crimes (in Germany, it’s for “targeting” the “democratic order”), and often there is a good deal of judicial discretion. Mandatory disenfranchisement is unusual, and permanent disenfranchisement is even rarer.
While it’s true, in certain quarters, that “Americans may see it as common sense,” that’s no argument for anything, any more than people in other countries make different choices than we do. They don’t have a First Amendment either. Was that what he’s aiming for? Wait, that may be a bad example.
Mandatory disenfranchisement is constitutional — the 14th Amendment allows the government to restrict the right to vote because of “participation in rebellion, or other crime” — but there are few good reasons for the practice. The best argument, outside of the case from custom and tradition, is that committing a serious crime voids your right to have a say in the political process. You lose your liberty — your place in civil society — and the freedoms that come with it.
For the “best argument,” that’s no argument at all. It’s purely conclusory. Is that really the best the opposition has? Well, not quite.
Here’s the answer: If you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote — either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers).
Perhaps a different, and more useful, way of expressing this is that people who are willing to violate the law for their self-interest would use their franchise to put officials in elected positions who would further their unsavory interests at the expense of the general welfare.
But if they’re citizens, and otherwise possessed of constitutional rights despite their conviction, who are we to tinker with their voting choices?
[George Will] says that it “is not a legitimate government objective for elected officials” to “fine-tune the quality of the electorate.” Really? That would mean that not only criminals but also children, non-citizens, and the mentally incompetent must be allowed to vote. In fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government.
Children are citizens. Non-citizens, even undocumented immigrants, pay taxes. Yet, we deny them the franchise. What makes people who put their self-interest ahead of the welfare and safety of others more deserving than law-abiding immigrants** who contribute positively to society for decades, but lack a piece of paper?
It’s not that Bouie’s ultimate conclusion, that even people in prison should retain the right to vote just as they retain many other constitutional rights, is necessarily wrong, but that he gets New York Times real estate to pander to confirmation bias by beating up a half-baked strawman argument.
If he doesn’t believe his contention is capable of overcoming the real arguments in opposition, such that he’s left to deceive readers with his “best argument” sham, then he’s shooting blanks and relying on readers never bothering to either learn the actual arguments or think for themselves. This is no way to argue policy, and yet it’s the way policy is now argued on the biggest soapbox we have.
*I put felons in scare quotes because it’s a scary word that misstates both the nature of criminal convictions and the universe of people involved. In some states, disenfranchisement covers anyone convicted of a crime, felon or misdemeanant. Even as to “felons,” some are convicted of murder and some are convicted of a trivial offense, but after two prior misdemeanors, thus enhancing the level of offense. In other words, the word “felon” is scary, but the people carrying the epithet aren’t necessarily.
**For the sake of argument, let’s limit this to people who committed no crime by illegally crossing the border, but, say, overstayed a visa.
SHG,
I could, I think, construct a good philosophical (jurisprudential) reason why disenfranchising people in prison is justified. But I’d rather be practical.
I don’t want people in Cell Block B to vote because I want the opportunity to vote to be available as a carrot (albeit a small one) later on. That is, successfully complete supervised release in a federal case or parole in a state case and your voting rights will be restored. Fail and you will continue to be deprived of the right to vote.
As an aside, in my experience not many of the folks that get out of federal prison give a hoot about voting. That, of course, is true of the majority of our citizenry who never vote. So, one wonders whether there is another reason why the idea of voting rights for prisoners and convicted felons who are out is being pushed by the elite. I have my cynical views about that but it is a sunny day and I shall not make it cloudy.
All the best.
RGK
I read the other day that, much to the surprise of the enlightened, former convicts were not quite as inclined to register as Dems than as Reps. I blame the failure to teach critical theory in prison for this obvious political failure, but then I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now.
SHG,
It is 1969 and I start law school listening to these lyrics:
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It’s cloud’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all . . .
Thanks for those distant memories. All the best.
RGK
“What did you do during the ‘Summer of Love'”?
“I packed my bags to go to law school.”
It is an odd thing to push. Voting is the least important thing to convicted felons. It certainly never enters the mind of the sex offender I sat across from yesterday, who worries that his branding and home address are readily available to nut-jobbers. Then again, it’s an easy, feel-good fix. That it has no real meaning isn’t the point.
Lyndon B. Johnson.
“Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right.”
Good quote, but sound bites usually aren’t meant to be taken literally. Fairly certain that LBJ did not advocate for the right of a 2 year old citizen to vote.
Voting Rights Act. LBJ’s alt slogan was “vote for me and I’ll set you free.”
We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.
– Lyndon B. Johnson
He said “boys.”
The best reason for not allowing prisoners to vote is because both candidates and elected officials don’t want them to. Who wants to be the candidate who canvasses for the prison vote? No one. Who wants to be the candidate who wins the prison vote? Again, no one.
I suspect the next presidential election might be different.
Authoritarian governments use voting by prisoners and mental asylum patients to skew election results on behalf of the ruling party. Those people are in the custody of the government, duh.
There are technical limitations for population that’s isolated from the outside world and confined to its own small “city”.
1. What would be their district? If it’s the last known address, they are not residents there anymore. If it’s the prison address, they would be voting on issues irrelevant to them, plus, if it’s a big prison in a sparsely populated area, their vote might overpower the local vote.
2. Can they make informed decisions? Such as, do they have unrestricted access to information? Can they pick and choose what media and topics they access? Can they have uncensored discussions on the internet? Can they attend caucuses and rallies? I doubt it.
3. Can it be verified (and by whom) that they are not being misinformed or coerced by their custodians who provide them with vital services, in the environment where a bowl of soup is more important than who becomes a president for the outside world? Should their guardians (guards, guardians, whatever) be allowed to make decisions for them? Hell, no.
I think, the key here is being in custody, where people lose their independence as adults which includes inability to exercise their rights. Why is nobody suggesting that prisoners should be allowed to keep guns in cells because they have the right to bear arms?
You put a lot of work into this comment, so I’ll post it for effort, but it’s wildly off-topic and borderline flaming nutjob, as are most of your comments. Try to focus. Try to write shorter comments. Try, really hard, to stay on topic, or I will not be so kind next time. You’re welcome.
You realize she leaves these bizarre comments but never returns to see what comes of them. Bot or nut? Unclear, but responding to her does not seem like a good use of your time.
She seems to put some effort into her comments, and I hate trashing comments where people tried, even if they’re dumb. I know, I’m a softy.
Sandcastles are fun and usually come with a reasonably immediate tidal conclusion.
Your intermittent consistency on this topic is admirable esteemed one, but I fear you, and some of your regular back page contributors, tidal blinders are with the assumption that the ocean doesn’t exist.
Crayola’s for convicts will not put humpty dumpty back together again…. and even within the margins of “probability” via the “significance”‘ of 1.5 million, I remain disillusioned as to why you continue to aggregate by default as opposed to sharing your cake recipes?
Bake the cake! Frosting is fun too, of course…. but I know you do realize that the frosting is another recipe all together with no direct correlation to the cake.
This may not make any sense without a post about the fragile and “seemingly” certain relationship between the fork and the plate but who has time for that shit when the tide is coming in? (Just the footnotes alone, of such a post, excite me but for the sure folly…?)
P.S. When swinging against the “hard side of the lean” even the triple hinge cut doesn’t guarantee success. The tree will end up on the ground. But, perhaps the secret is more cutting and less theory? Could even be trees falling on “tractors” is a necessary reality to get a view of the forest, but for the trees?
More treehouses might work too?
Why Cell Block B? Perhaps instead the following:
Cell Block 4
Cell Block 99
Cell Block 13
I had to make a choice. I did. “B” it was. Live with it.
The city of Coalinga, California, has a state mental hospital within its borders. The residents there are involuntarily confined. Under CA law, they’re also eligible to vote. Because it’s a fairly small city (it was an old railroad stop in the Central Valley – Coalinga was originally Coaling Station A) and its city council is elected by districts, the residents of that hospital make up over one-third of the potential electorate of that district.
They were apparently responsible for organizing to defeat a citywide local sales tax measure in 2017, which failed by 37 votes, according to the Fresno Bee.
In a first-past-the-post race, a confined person could win a race against 2 or more other candidates with only votes from other confined persons, even if every other eligible voter in the district votes.
Is this an extreme example? Maybe. But it is a real possibility, and supporting inmate enfranchisement requires accepting that possibility.
I could see this happening in upstate New York prison towns as well, where the only population larger than inmates are cows.
Imagine Walker County, Texas home of 11,500 adult prisoners, not counting transfers. In the best election years, no more than 20,000 voters show up at the polls in the county.