The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 13, 2008, 03:59 AM   #1
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
Florida: 30,000 Felons on voter rosters

This popped up on my radar...

Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation
Thousands who should be ineligible are registered to vote

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,3762352.story

More than 30,000 Florida felons who by law should have been stripped of their right to vote remain registered to cast ballots in this presidential battleground state, a Sun Sentinel investigation has found.

Many are faithful voters, with at least 4,900 turning out in past elections.

Another 5,600 are not likely to vote Nov. 4 — they're still in prison.

Of the felons who registered with a party, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new registrations in this critical swing state.

Browning said he was not surprised by the newspaper's findings. "I'm kind of shocked that the number is as low as it is," he said.

Asked how many ineligible felons may be on Florida's rolls, Browning said, "We don't know."


See the full story for more details.

Now, my opinion is that not having sufficient staff or funding to weed out these ineligible voters negatively affects my civil rights as well as yours. This is especially true given the political demographics of most felons and likely many illegals.

Have we gone too far in making voter registration too easy? Shouldn't it require answering a few important questions kind of like the 4473 form?

The recent abuses of ACORN tell me that if you can sign someone up to vote more than 20 times, we probably have a huge voter fraud problem in quite a few states. The question is, how do we limit the problem?
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old October 13, 2008, 04:17 PM   #2
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
In the article they explain that when one fills out a voter card they are automatically added to the voter list and it is then the responsibility of the state/county to identify those that are ineligible and remove them. There is the problem. Why don't we have the same ID requirements to get a voter card as we do to get a driver's license or even a state CCW? For some reason, any attempt to fix the system is equated to having a "poll tax" or some other method of keeping select groups from voting. As the democrats generally benefit from these errors, they are the first ones to yell when someone wants to change the registration process.
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old October 13, 2008, 05:33 PM   #3
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,947
Similar instances of voter fraud are appearing all over the country. I was suprised to see a big one here in Indiana. The city of Indianapolis has approximately 30,000 more people registered to vote that elidgable voters living in the city. If this election is already over as some in the media like to suggest, then why does an organization with ties to the winner have to cheat I wonder
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old October 14, 2008, 02:58 AM   #4
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
I must be living under a rock.
First I miss the chance for a 110% house loan, with bad credit.
Now, I find I've missed the chance to vote 30 or 40 times.
Socrates is offline  
Old October 14, 2008, 08:12 PM   #5
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
One would think that with most states now having a mag-stripe on your D/L or ID, that scanning the card could perform an electronic check of your citizenship status. At the polls, this could help reduce voter fraud.

In fact, using a card-scan plus a thumbprint scan could seriously elminate voter fraud. Even if you held several fake ID's, your thumbprint won't match the one on file and/or it might be able to detect that your thumbprint was already used with another ID.

Opinion: Voter fraud should be taken very seriously. If caught, the person should be detained for police to arrest. The penalty should also be serious - 12 years on the first offense. Conspiracy to violate election laws by fraudulent voting or use of false ID's, should be a 20 year sentence. Adding a $250,000 fine for each illegal vote cast may never be paid back, but would also be a deterrent.
Exemptions would be made for those assisting a disabled person in voting, such as the blind, stroke or paralysis victims, etc.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old October 14, 2008, 08:13 PM   #6
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
They current penalty is 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old October 14, 2008, 08:26 PM   #7
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Is that a Federal or state statute?
Socrates is offline  
Old October 14, 2008, 10:06 PM   #8
grymster2007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
One would think that with most states now having a mag-stripe on your D/L or ID, that scanning the card could perform an electronic check of your citizenship status.
For the past few elections, I've presented my CA DL to the elections folks when they look up my name in the books they use. This act invariably prompts them to tell me to "put it away" or say "we don't use photo ID to validate registrations". To which I usually respond "I want you to know my vote is legitimate" or "you should be using photo ID in validating registrations".

Probably nothing to do with the millions of potential illegal voters here in sunny California. Nah... must be just some short-sightedness or insensitivity on my part.
__________________
grym
grymster2007 is offline  
Old October 15, 2008, 04:36 PM   #9
Bogie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
St. Louis City, with about 250,000 population (or less...), waits until dead last before turning its vote tallies in state and federal ballots... Why? So they know how many dead people have to vote.

They've also kept polls open WELL past established deadlines in order to properly stuff the boxes...
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist.

And making the world's greatest bottle openers!
Bogie is offline  
Old October 18, 2008, 11:05 AM   #10
MD_Willington
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2005
Location: SE WA State.
Posts: 563
IIRC 24,000 or so over here in WA State too...

Fraudoire and ACORN
MD_Willington is offline  
Old October 19, 2008, 09:56 AM   #11
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
On the face of it, most folks would think;

Felon = criminal who deserves to lose their rights.. I may be politically incorrect here but a lot of our current released felons are political prisoners who have been let out of the box. We put more folks in jail and convict them of a felony than any other country.... I believe our government has evolved to the point it is refusing a large segment of society its rights. It should take more than one felony to cause a person to lose the rights our founding fathers claimed all folks have a right to.
blume357 is offline  
Old October 19, 2008, 10:49 PM   #12
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
Is the right to vote a natural right?

Or is it a privilege conferred on us by our system of govt? Certainly it is a legal right under our Constitution today, but is it one of our "natural rights" as envisioned by the founding fathers? Blacks, women, and at one time the poor in our nation did not have the "right" to vote. This was changed by Constitutional Amendment, with women being the last, in 1920.

But of our natural rights, life, liberty, the right to arms, etc., we deprive felons of these as a matter or course as their just punishment for crimes committed. And at one time, this applied only to real crimes, crimes which directly harmed fellow citizens, like murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

But over the years, things have changed somewhat. Many, many things that were once misdemeanors, or were not even crimes at all are now felonies. And along the way, felons right to vote and right to arms after release is now denied automatically. They can petition a court for restoration of their right to vote, and get it restored, but it is a cumbersome process which most do not bother with.

Technically they can also petition the govt for the restoration of their firearms rights, but since Congress consistantly refuses to fund that portion of the govt that is a key feature in getting their rights restored, it cannot happen.

You are right, there are many people walking the streets of our nation who's terrible threat to society was to posess too much of a prohibited plant or chemical. Or who as a youth engaged in vandalism againt church property and recieved a conviction for felony trespass. Or who committed any number of other small offenses which in previous generations would not have merited a felony conviction, but do now. It is a game of words, and felon for having some dope is the same as felon for killing someone, a felon. And of course, we don't want felons voting or having guns, now do we? Just as someone with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is a wife beater, and we don't want them having guns either, do we?

Unfortunately, perception creates its own reality, and the words used to describe something or someone create a certain perception. "Assault Weapon" comes to mind, as do "Cop Killer Bullets" for recent examples. It is very difficult to get our elected officials to vote for repealing anything, let alone something that "sounds" bad. And frankly, "felon" sounds bad.

I know some people that are felons, now and forever more, because they did something stupid in their youth. Minor things that injured no one except themselves, but under our system they are felons and denied the rights non-felons have, for the rest of their lives. It isn't fair, but unless and until we change it, it is what we have to live with.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 20, 2008, 12:28 AM   #13
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
To answer the simple question then: Voting is a political right, known back at the time of the founding as a "privilege." Immunities are those things that are considered "natural rights."
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 20, 2008, 07:15 AM   #14
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,089
44AMP - well said.

Many people refer to certain drug crimes as "victimless" crimes, but that is, unfortunately a misnomer. It is victimless only when the user of drugs acts in a manner that does not endanger others. Driving while intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) is not victimless. Nor are homicides that occur because the perpetrator was delusional under drugs or neglected the baby in the bathtub.

I once said that I'd be in favor of allowing felons to get their rights back, but only after their first imprisonment or sentencing (with exceptions). They would have to serve the full sentence* and remain free from further felonies or violent crimes for some period - 5 years - before getting back any rights. Any subsequent felony conviction strips them of their voting rights, right to hold office and 2A rights permanently. We give you one chance to redeem yourself. At the same time, some crimes must be lowered to misdemeanors OR the limitations on misdemeanor fines increased.

* A full sentence may include up to 1 year of parole with a clean prison record to get the person back into a normal societial role.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old October 20, 2008, 10:50 AM   #15
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Many people refer to certain drug crimes as "victimless" crimes, but that is, unfortunately a misnomer. It is victimless only when the user of drugs acts in a manner that does not endanger others. Driving while intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) is not victimless. Nor are homicides that occur because the perpetrator was delusional under drugs or neglected the baby in the bathtub.
But the drug is not the cause of the crime, and blaming the drug for what the person did is no different than blaming the gun for the actions of the shooter.

Driving while intoxicated IS victimless, as long as I do not hit anyone. Running your vehicle into another person or another person's property does have a victim, but it should not matter WHY you hit the vehicle, because whether you hit me because you were too fatigued, drunk, stoned, or just distracted by talking to your passenger, you still hit me. There are studies showing that a 30 year old man with a BAC of .12 has faster and better reactions than a sober 80 year old, but the old man is legal to drive while the young drunk man is not. Similarly, cell phone use while driving has been shown to be more dangerous than DUI.

A homicide is similarly wrong- the homicide is the crime, and it shouldn't matter if you are drunk, or hate me because of my race, sex, or clothing choice. The murder is the crime, the motor vehicle collision is the crime, not the reason behind it.

A 15 year old girl willingly has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend, and is the initiator in the act. In fact, she lies and tells him she is 18- even to the point of showing the lad a fake ID supporting her statement. Guess who becomes the convicted felony sex offender when the cops find out?

With all that said, we use the above actions to deny people their rights. This is wrong and ridiculous.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old October 20, 2008, 11:30 AM   #16
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new registrations in this critical swing state.
In other words, "We cannot eliminate the fraudulent voter registrations because we have been too busy processing fraudulent voter registrations."
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 12:19 AM   #17
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
We have shifted our focus in recent decades

And I do agree, in principle, that it has been in the wrong direction. We have, as a rule, become entirely too focused on why the crime is committed, and not on the crime itself. Other than as an object of intellectual curiosity, once you get past the point of discovering justification (self defense), why should the reason matter? It doesn't change what happened to the victim one bit.

As to the voter issue, who is most at fault, those deliberately signing up ineledgible voters, or the state for failing in their responsibility to provide adequate resources to meet their obligation?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 04:34 AM   #18
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Why can't we do like Iraq does, and dye the index finger of those who have voted?
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 08:59 AM   #19
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
The law says those felons cannot vote and I disagree wit the law not being followed.

At the same time:

"No Taxation Without Representation."

I fail to see how you can tax a felon and then deny them the right to vote on their representation.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 10:17 AM   #20
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musketeer
"No Taxation Without Representation."

I fail to see how you can tax a felon and then deny them the right to vote on their representation.
Um, because the law states that if you violate the law and are convicted of that violation, one of the consequences are that you lose certain rights. Voting being the right we are discussing.

I would agree that way too many felonies have been created by legislative acts. But, there has always been a way to change this. The fact that it has not been changed, means that, on its face, the populace agree with the law, as it is written and applied.

Therefore, one who knowingly violates the law, does so knowing that if caught and convicted, they will loose certain civil rights as punishment for their actions (see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
As to the voter issue, who is most at fault, those deliberately signing up ineligible voters, or the state for failing in their responsibility to provide adequate resources to meet their obligation?
As a matter of justice, I would think both are equally at fault.

Those who are deliberately violating voter registration laws should be prosecuted. The problem here, is that the State would have to prove that the person doing the registrations knew the registrant was ineligible. That may be difficult at best. It might be easier to prove that registrant knew they were ineligible.

This would be easier to do, if all courts were required to tell the person at the time of sentencing, what rights they have lost because of their conviction. Currently, many courts do not do this. If it were done, then the convict would have no "excuse" for their actions, as they knew they were now a proscribed person.

The other side of the coin is the State itself. The only reason the State could have for not making the proper correlation would be if the Legislature did not require the various databases to be queried (and give authority to do so) and/or not provide for the proper funding of such correlation.

Here, many legislatures do pass such laws, but without proper funding. Funding would require more taxation and many legislatures are loath to tax their constituents. So "feel-good" laws are passed that can't be enforced.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 11:54 AM   #21
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Um, because the law states that if you violate the law and are convicted of that violation, one of the consequences are that you lose certain rights. Voting being the right we are discussing.
Just being the law does not make it right. If you are going to tax someone, forcefully remove their income and livelihood from them under penalty of imprisonment, then it only seems just that they have a say in who represents them. Freed felon or not, they are depending on representatives to defend their rights. Those are representative though who have no incentive to even hear their voices because they are forced to fund a system for which they have no say.

Throw them in jail and ban their ability to vote while incarcerated and not paying taxes, fine. Free them, expect them to rejoin society, be a part of it and contribute to it while denying them any ability to participate in it... that sounds wrong.

It was lack of representation in Parliament which led to the Revolution. I just find something abhorrent about taxing a "free" man but then denying him a say in his gov't. If he is free he should be free, with everything that goes with it. If he is too dangerous not to be free he should not be free. It's that simple.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 12:50 PM   #22
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
The fact that it has not been changed, means that, on its face, the populace agree with the law, as it is written and applied.
I must disagree. There is a strong possibility that the voting public and their representatives simply do not care.
Who really wants to help out a criminal?
I think it is wrong to deny a "rehabilitated" person their right to vote, 2nd Amendment rights, etc. If the person is still considered dangerous enough to warrant a restriction on their Constitutional rights, why are they not in prison? If a person has been rehabilitated, why does the government continue to deny them the rights enjoyed by all other citizens?
raimius is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 01:16 PM   #23
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
I must disagree. There is a strong possibility that the voting public and their representatives simply do not care.
Who really wants to help out a criminal?
I think it is wrong to deny a "rehabilitated" person their right to vote, 2nd Amendment rights, etc. If the person is still considered dangerous enough to warrant a restriction on their Constitutional rights, why are they not in prison? If a person has been rehabilitated, why does the government continue to deny them the rights enjoyed by all other citizens?
I have to agree with raimius on this. Not caring is the key.

Why is the drinking age 21 and not 18 when at 18 you can be sent to die in a war and vote? Because there are not enough 18-20 year olds who can get it changed and the 21+ don't really care what is done "to someone else".

Bring it closer to home for many here, why was it relatively easy to get an Assault Weapons Ban passed along with laws against concealed carrying of weapons in all but ONE state (VT)? Because there were far more people who simply did not care and allowed the process to roll on than there were to stop it. If it wasn't for the Sunset Clause most of this nation would still be stuck with it. In NY we still are as there is no sunset clause. You are not going to convince most people to actually rise up and oppose something that they have nothing to do with and in places like NY the vast majority of people could care less about owning an "Assault Weapon."

That is the whole problem here with laws banning felons from voting. Since most people are NOT felons they could care less about what is done to them. The general American gives nice lip service to the principals this nation was founded on but generally cannot tell you the difference between the COTUS and the DoI or even the names of three branches of gov't. They are that complacent, they are that ignorant.

Those representatives put into office can pass legislation further restricting felons with no concern whatsoever about loosing their votes or troubling the majority of voters out there to do a thing against it. Most people could care less about felons and the felons targeted by such legislation cannot band together their votes to support a candidate who opposes such actions because... THEY CAN'T VOTE. Unless the courts address the issue (which they may or may not be able to do, I am not certain) they are subject to laws passed and enforced with their own tax dollars to which they have absolutely no say.

Locking one group out of the electoral process while at the same time binding them to support it is against the very principal the revolution was fought over "No Taxation Without Representation." Having representation might not fix all your problems but NOT having it enslaves you.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 05:55 PM   #24
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Musketeer and raimius, call it what you will. Makes no real difference whether it is right or wrong, as it is the law.

Don't like it? Then get active and convince enough people that it is wrong. Then with these people, lobby your Reps to change it.

That's called activism.

Ranting about it here, or other gun-boards, won't get you very far, as previous threads have shown.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 09:05 PM   #25
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,360
Good point.

Do you know of any organized groups which are advocating this? I might not be going on CNN about this, but if there is someone who is/did/would I'd be happy to support them.
raimius is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14585 seconds with 7 queries