Jump to navigation
The Right To Vote
R. Alex Whitlock
It seems that most people are quick to claim laws that they like as inherently constitutional and laws that they dislike as unconstitutional. I'm not much different, in that regard, but periodically I do find laws that I don't really have a problem with but that I find pretty difficult to defend from a constitutional standpoint.
One such law is that of felons being denied the right to vote once they've served their sentence. When incarcerated, prisoners lose all sorts of rights, so I don't have a problem with that. But once they've served their sentence and have been released, it seems to me that there are no constitutional grounds to deprive them of the right to vote unless that was expressly a part of their sentence to begin with. I think that democracy as a whole may benefit from such laws.
For instance, if a felon were to commit a crime in Maine, which allows felons to vote, and then moves to Idaho, wherein felons are disenfranchised, I'm not sure what right the latter has to deny the prisoner of their vote. I could maybe be convinced that Idaho has the right to attach disenfranchisement to the sentence (I'd need to think upon it further), but they shouldn't be allowed to attach an additional punishment onto a sentence applied for a crime committed out of the state.
Absent Constitutional problems, whether or not such laws are a good idea is a different question. It seems that people that can't follow the law are probably not the best people to elect the people making the laws. A little problematic, though, is the expansion of the term "felony" to include all sorts of offenses wherein the denial of voting rights seems out of line. Petty drug offenses come to mind. When it comes to violent felonies and other more serious offenses, however, I think that the civic case for their being assured the right to vote is pretty weak.
Observations
You've posited three interesting cases I can see:
#1 - Violent vs Nonviolent felonies. Between these I can't see (as much as you seem to) a major difference; the idea of the "felony" class is a more serious crime level, and whether someone commits a crime, or simply damages a large number of people in a "nonviolent" way, I don't see a vast difference.
Selling drugs is one example; I don't see many things I'd consider a "petty" drug offense.
#2 - The case of someone moving to another state, and having the felony conviction follow them; interesting take. From one end, they are "losing" their right to vote by moving. From the other, the new state is giving "full faith and credit" to the Felony conviction and applying state law accordingly.
#3 - The main constitutional issue you raise is whether "that was expressly a part of their sentence to begin with." Did you mean that the judge/jury should be required to add the words "and to lose the right to vote until such time as the government of this state restores it to you", or did you mean simply that it be on the books as part of the law, just as the question of probation and specific responsibilities/restrictions therein are summed up in the words "Probation" when in court?
I personally have no problem with felons - of any sort - being denied the right to vote until it is legally restored to them, mostly because I feel that someone who has so little respect for the law (and the other members of society) that they're going to break it, ought not be given a chance to weaken the law with their "input" as well. They've done enough damage as it stands.
That's an interesting application of "full faith and credit", but it seems valid.
I think the argument against overly aggressive creation of felony offenses is a good one, but only loosely connected with the voting issue -- the long prison term and lifetime disqualification from most desirable jobs would seem to be the main drawbacks of felony.
"Full faith and credit" does not apply, in my view. The issue is not Idaho's recognition of the crime that he committed in Maine, but rather they are adding a punishment to it. In this vein if someone were to move from Idaho to Maine and Maine were to continue the disenfranchisement, that could apply under full faith and credit. But it's up to Maine to decide what punishment Maine criminals get, not Idaho. Idaho can help them with it by honoring some punishment imposed by Maine, but I don't see how they can apply a punishment that Maine has rejected. To pick another example, if a convicted killer serves his sentence and moves to a state wherein killers are never allowed to ever be released from prison, the second state does not have the right to impose the legal sanctions in second state for a crime committed in first state.
Regarding violent and non-violent felones, I would agree if fundamentally unserious crimes (Marijuana possession, for example) weren't deemed felonies. But instead we've increasingly moved in the direction of calling everything a felony so that some sort of further distinction is needed.
And yes, I do think the constitutional issue can be mostly skirted by adding, at the time of the sentencing, that a loss of voting priviledges in applicable jurisdictions is part of the punishment. For some crimes there may be an argument that it is an unduly harsh punishment, but probably not for most felonies.
RAW,
I have to disagree on this basis: I also have no problem with any state denying, within their borders, the vote to a person convicted of a Federal felony (as opposed to a State felony).
The other thing is that the "right to vote" is not actually in the constitution. There is a rather long laundry list of things in the constitution that states are not allowed to use in denying someone the vote:
Amendment 15 - Race
Amendment 19 - Gender
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes
Amendment 26 - Age (once you turn 18)
Beyond these, the "right to vote" is nowhere in the constitution. The States are charged with administering their voting mechanisms, and as long as they don't trip these four, constitutionally they can do what they want. For example, most states have a clause that denies the right to vote to any "adult" declared so mentally incompetent that they are not allowed to take charge of their own lives (e.g. retarded adults who require a "Guardian", either state-appointed or family member).
It is entirely constitutional for a state to include a clause that convicted felons - whether in-state, out of state, or Federally convicted - are not allowed to vote in that state.
Interestingly, upon a re-read of article 26, any state COULD (theoretically speaking) lower their voting age below 18 with no problem; all article 26 does is set a minimum.
Great discussion here. I found the website
http://www.felonvotingproco... that talks about this issue at great length. Alex - you had mentioned that Maine allows felons to vote. The ProCon.org website shows that Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow felons to vote while in prison. Fascinating.
Mike,
It's an odd republic that considers voting to be a privilege and not a right, but you are correct that it is indeed not a right. I think there's a case to be made for an implied right to vote, but I don't read the Constitution that way for other implied rights and there's no reason to start now!
Kinda trippy to think about what a legislature could get away with if the courts were to read the Constitution very strictly.
Tommy,
Thanks for the link.
RAW,
That's why the constitution has Amendment 2: it's a fail-safe that if a supermajority should think their legislative body have gone off the deep end, they have the right to rebel and form a new government.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
