Hillary: Let Ex-Felons Vote

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible White House candidate in 2008, joined 2004 nominee John Kerry and other Democrats Thursday in urging that Election Day be made a federal holiday to encourage voting.

She also pushed for legislation that would allow all ex-felons to vote.

Story Continues Below



Standing with Massachusetts Sen. Kerry and other Democrats who had alleged voting irregularities in the 2004 contest, Clinton said, "Once again we had a federal election that demonstrates we have a long way to go."
"I think it's also necessary to make sure our elections meet the highest national standards," said the New York senator.

She and Kerry, both considered contenders for the 2008 nomination, were joined by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who forced a highly unusual House and Senate debate Jan. 6 on the presidential election results.

Kerry, who lost the national contest by 3.3 million votes nationwide, and 118,000 within Ohio, denied the bill was an attempt to discredit the 2004 results.

"This has nothing to do with me," said Kerry. "It is not partisan, or shouldn't be."

Clinton echoed those comments, though her senatorial re-election committee, Friends of Hillary, is pushing the bill hard.

Visitors to the group's Web site are greeted first with a full-page form asking people to endorse the Count Every Vote Act.

"My Web site has information about everything I work on. This is one of my biggest priorities and obviously I hope that people who share our goal of making sure every vote counts will support us," said Clinton.

In addition to creating a federal holiday for voting, the bill would:


Require paper receipts for votes.

Authorize $500 million to help states make the changes in voting systems and equipment.

Allow ex-felons to vote. Currently an estimated 4.7 million Americans are barred from voting because of their criminal records.

Require adoption of the changes in time for the 2006 election.
Boxer said the bill "is meant to ensure the election debacle of 2000, and the serious election irregularities of 2004, never ever happen again."

Both parties have called for changes to ensure a more accurate vote count. Republican efforts have centered on reducing voter fraud, while Democrats have called for making access to the ballot box easier and simpler.


© 2005 Associated Press.

Which 2004 irregularities are those Ms. Boxer?

I'm undecided on the felon voting issue but shouldn't that be left up to the states to decide as it is today?

It's interesting that apparently Hillary thinks allowing current or ex criminals to vote will help her sides cause in elections to come.

I like the response from Frist's office: 'People introduce bills every day'.

Exactly! To Hillary......all ex-cons are Democrats. Just like to Howard Dean......all hotel staff are black!! Geez....they just keep stepping in it.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

The last sentence tells the tale. Boxer is talking about the "serious election irregularities" that prevented the democrats from stealing the election. I think everyone should have to vote in person and show I.D. I've yet to hear one democrat say that dead people should not be allowed to vote. Why should voting be easier than writing a check? And felons voting? They know they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to have a chance.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

They've lost 2 presidential elections in a row so now they have to let their felon fans vote-that might give them a fighting chance.

Maybe the democrats frauds in Washington state.

__________________
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness ~Thomas Paine

Well, maybe. It's kind of unfair that your right to vote in federal elections depends on what state you live in. And if you move, your status could change. That just doesn't feel right.

Then you had the cases in the 2004 election where states failed to update each other on the proper status of ex-cons who had moved between states, resulting in lots of people who should have been eligible to vote in Florida being barred from doing so because they weren't eligible in their previous state of residence.

States might have an absolute right to determine who can vote in *state* elections, but shouldn't federal elections have a consistent standard?

I don't have a problem with felons being allowed to vote after they've completed their sentence. They did their time and paid their debt to society; what's the point in continuing to withhold a basic benefit of a democratic society?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Hillary is just working hard to insure her and Bill's ability to vote in future elections.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

it's criminal for them to not be allowed to vote. Can you imagine just how far it could be abused. I'm sure stalin loved using that one for "criminals of the motherland"

Many things from drinking age to criminal sentences are left to the states. Also, there were nearly as many felons who voted who were ineligible in Florida in 2000.

It depends on the crime, there might be some lower levels of felony convictions were it is ok that they vote. Some should be banned for life. And many have not completed their sentences and are still on parole or probation. I don't think the direction of our country should be determined by someone who feels molesting children is an acceptable activity. Or that murder or rape is ok. There may be certain circumstances where it is ok for these people to vote, but that is more the exception than the rule. Crimes come with various punishments, this should be one of them. Although the fact that democrat politicians want felons to vote speaks quite a bit to their constituency and core beliefs.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

The fact that some people were improperly allowed to vote does not balance out the cost to those who were improperly denied the right to vote. Two wrongs clearly don't make a right.

Perhaps, and in some states that's the way it works. But I fail to see the connection. I murdered someone when I was 20 and served 30 years in prison for my crime. When I'm released, theoretically I've paid my debt to society. What is the logic in denying me certain civil rights?

Lifetime punishment for wrongdoing strikes me as wrongheaded on many levels, from simple fairness to practical concerns: we place so many barriers in front of ex-cons, why are we surprised when they reoffend?

Then they're still serving their sentence. I have little problem with restricting their rights in that case. It's lifetime, perpetual punishment that I find harmful to a free society.

Fair enough; I feel the same way about conservatives.

Seriously, people who feel that way already get to vote, as long as they haven't either offended or gotten caught. I still fail to see any compelling connection between their crime and their right to vote.

An easy line, devoid of substance. I don't believe in "coddling" criminals, but nor do I believe in mindless, endless mini-punishments for people that have made mistakes. I believe such punishments do our society more harm than good, both morally and practically. If we don't hold out the hope of redemption to people who violate our rules, what incentive do they have to try to live within those rules?

But then "rehabilitation" is such a dirty word to the "build more prisons and (*)(*)(*)(*) the cost" crowd.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.