It doesn't really need to be said here because I think we're all on the same page, but felons and excons should both have full enfranchisement. On the level of what constitutes a felony, about half of people serving a felony sentence were only convicted for a drug or property crime and were not violent. Regardless of that, the state of capitalism right now drives people to desperation - desperation all the way up to murder or robbery in an attempt to make a living in an increasingly desperate society. None of that should mean stripping people of the right to vote - if we're going to disenfranchise people for the harm they cause, then strip the right to vote from billionaires, landlords and cops before you disenfranchise a homeless person or a drug dealer.

Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1366824014145064964

  • drhead [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I think there's value in having it as an easy sell, but I think we can easily go further:

    What is a felony isn't absolute, it changes over time with our laws. There are a number of people serving felony sentences (or who have completed felony sentences) for non-violent marijuana offenses, for example, but largely, people today don't think marijuana should be illegal at all -- let alone strip you of your voting rights. And because these people are disenfranchised, they aren't getting a say in this matter, and they are the group most affected by this policy -- they're literally the ones who have had their rights stripped away because of it. And if people largely think marijuana shouldn't be illegal, then if we're being consistent in our moral judgement, we should also be saying that being charged for it is wrong. And if we continue to be consistent, we should conclude that disenfranchising people for it is wrong.

    There is only one way to prevent this. End felony disenfranchisement, whether the person is serving a sentence or has already served. Anything less risks people being denied their political participation for wrong reasons.

    Personally, I'd go a step further and say "there is no valid reason why any adult citizen should be denied the right to vote", but that is a bit of a hard sell because people might say "well what if someone has severe dementia", and you'd probably have to supplement it with "we shouldn't trust the state to be the arbiter of who does and does not get to vote" which is just a better argument on its own.