The Red Wave of Conservative Women Elected to Congress

Meaning, for one, that neither fraud nor suppression is susceptible to measurement.

The other problem is that what the left calls 'suppression" includes voter ID requirements, which no reasonable person can oppose, and eliminating or consolidating polling places, which may or may not translate into fewer votes. In some cases it may. In other cases, it may cause nothing worse than annoyance and inconvenience. But to hear the left, it's all and invariably and always, always, serving to significantly disenfranchise minorities. Same with voter ID. You cannot square this phony "concern" with Democratic victories in 2012, 2016 (the popular vote, I mean) and 2020.

It's ludicrous.

 

Fair enough. Now tell us who is currently denied opportunities in the USA, by us deplorables, on the basis of gender. And I don't care about some isolated anecdote. I'm sure they exist. I mean official barriers.

 

And if they it's up to them to file with the court and they aren't being asked to pay for a vote, they are being asked to pay their fines and retributions. Fair enough, don't commit a felony. And it is about the LEGAL sanctions which are applied to you when you commit serious crime against other citizens. Not my fault most vote Democrat, but what does that say about the Democrats?

 

Can you point me to the lawsuits or sworn statements about voter suppression that have been filed? Who went to the polls and could not vote because their vote was suppressed, where?

 

Raping and strangling to death a young woman is just a "mistake"? And making them pay their dues is not voter suppression.

 

Depends upon what you require.

Deliberately creating long lines to vote.

There are plenty of ways to check identity and many states are too restrictive on what they accept as ID.

 

The voter suppression is typically legal:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/01/ben-ginsberg-voter-suppression-republicans/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-campaign-2020-voter-suppression-consent-decree-1028988/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/21/trump-adviser-republicans-voter-suppression

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-24/voter-suppression-clouds-2020-vote

 

My fault here, but you misunderstood me. I meant not all those who have been prevented from voting had committed serious crimes such as you described.

 

This seems at odds with your previous statement that if you want a vote, don't commit a felony and that all felony's are serious.
I think everyone could agree some crimes are beyond the pale.
So back to the subject, what about the 5 million or so voters who were denied their right to vote by these measures.

 

I'm not sure I made either of the posts quoted here, Langley Man.

 

What about them? They weren't "denied" any right. They forfeited their right temporarily by committing felonies, and at least in my state, will have the right automatically restored when they complete their sentence.

What about their right to liberty? They lost that, too. I don't care.

 

There is really no such thing as a felony that is not "serious." My personal view is that most misdemeanors are serious as well. You can get up to a year in prison for a misdemeanor. That to me is serious.

 

That's just an opinion. If you want to vote, get a state-required ID. My own opinion is that if the vote is so critical to democracy, it should be treated by the voters with more respect. But my opinion doesn't matter either. The law matters. Don't like it? Work to change it.

 

I can only speak for my own state. We have plenty of time to get an ID before an election.

 

With all the early voting opportunities, there is zero excuse for not voting. Zero.

 

But we aren't just talking about your state are we?

 

I don't think there are any states that permanently deprive convicted felons of the right to vote. I found a good summary of this the other day, state by state.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

As you see, your right is restored, or never even suspended, in all 50 states, and in the District of Columbia. No exceptions. Even for murderers and child rapists as far I can tell.

In 11 states, an additional ministerial or legal act is required, like filing an application in the court that sentenced you, but this is a reasonable requirement because it gives the state the opportunity to respond and advise the court, just for example, that the applicant is not eligible because he has a year to go on his supervised release, or has some other unfulfilled condition of probation (like completing a 6 week repeat offender program or something) which was part of the sentence.

If your broader point is that felons cannot or should not lose their right to vote, even temporarily, under ANY circumstances, then we just disagree on policy grounds.

 

And there are worse cases than even that. Some people would not even require them to complete their sentences before having their right to vote restored.

This country is way too soft.

 

It was the cost of getting your vote back that I read about.
BTW your link is broken.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-elect...ve-former-felons-the-vote-in-florida-12121174
"More than a million former offenders got the right to vote under the new rules in 2018, but a year later the Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed the law requiring all fines and fees connected to the sentence to be paid off first. Campaigners say it means more than 750,000 people have effectively lost the opportunity to cast their ballots all over again.

 

Somewhat off topic. We could argue which crimes require longer sentences and even maybe which might also lose you your right to vote, but its just a distraction from the main point.

 

Good.

 

It's really a waste of time. The law is the law. You have as much right as I do to lobby for change ... not here, in the legislature.

 

No it wasn't. But here it is again.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

 

It wasn't, I just made that up, as one does

 

Something that just occurred to me is that very few people actually go to prison for "non-serious felonies," whatever that means. Typically they are given some kind of deferred adjudication first, meaning it doesn't even go on heir record.

They go to prison because they have criminal records or because the offense wasn't "non-serious" anyway. They have records because they do not respect laws or property. This is the meaning of "scofflaw."

They can also go to prison and be finally convicted if they screw up their probation by committing a new offense or blowing off the probation requirements. I have zero sympathy.