Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 27 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Felons, free or incarcerated, have no vote
Published Thursday, May 29, 2008
TUPELO, Miss. (AP) — When asked about his favorite candidate in this year's presidential race, 31-year-old Steven Hubbard didn't hesitate to say, "Obama's my man."
That's where his political voice ends. Hubbard, a convicted felon from Tupelo, is one of nearly 150,000 inmates and convicted felons in Mississippi who've lost their right to vote, nearly 7 percent of the state's adult population.
Even though he doesn't deny guilt for the forgery conviction that caused him to lose his right to vote, Hubbard said stripping him of his right to vote while he was in prison was un-American.
"I committed a crime and I paid my debt to society for that crime by serving time in prison," said Hubbard. "But when I was released, my punishment didn't end. Being stripped of the right to vote is not fair to convicted felons who pay their debt to society and serve the time given to them by the courts. It's almost like I was exiled from the country. If I can't vote, then I can't be an American, right?"
Mississippi has a procedure that would allow Hubbard to have his rights restored. But with the presidential election less than six months away, some people have begun to wonder about the effect of having so many voting-age Americans disenfranchised, particularly black voters.
According to the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit criminal justice organization engaged in research and advocacy, 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated on felony offenses. Only Maine and Vermont permit these inmates to vote. Thirty-five states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole.
Of the 5 million disenfranchised felons, 1.4 million are black men — 13 percent of the U.S. black male population. More than 2 million whites and Hispanics are disenfranchised for committing crimes.
"Black voters are disproportionately affected by disenfranchisement policies," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the national organization the Sentencing Project. "The racial disproportions in the criminal justice system translate into higher rates of disenfranchisement for African-Americans.
"But black communities as a whole are affected by these policies since they have relatively fewer voters than other communities, and therefore their community interests receive less representation."
Mauer said even though some 5 million people are disenfranchised in the United States because they are felons, it's hard to say how that affects voting. Regardless, Mauer said their vote loss is not fair.
"It's difficult to say how elections would be affected if these felons were allowed to vote because we can't necessarily predict how many would vote and who they would vote for.
"But we believe this issue should be decided on the basis of principle, not voting patterns. That is similar to women and African-Americans gaining the right to vote, it was the right thing to do regardless of voting patterns," Mauer said.
Not everyone shares Mauer's viewpoint. Roger Clegg, director of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Virginia and longtime proponent of not letting felons vote, disagrees.
"You don't have a right to make the laws if you aren't willing to follow them yourself," said Clegg. "To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law.
"We don't let everyone vote — not children, not non-citizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don't meet those standards."
Even after a felon has served his or her time and "paid their debt to society," Clegg said voting still shouldn't be an automatic right.
"Felons who have served their prison time have paid enough of their debt to be allowed out of prison, but that doesn't mean there aren't continuing consequences. We don't let felons possess firearms or serve on juries, for instance.
"By the way, most of the groups that want felons to be able to vote want them to be able to vote when they are still in prison, so this paid their debt to society' argument is a red herring," Clegg said.
The good news for Hubbard and others in his position is most voting bans aren't permanent.
In Mississippi, after completion of a sentence, an individual must go to his or her legislator and persuade the lawmaker to author a bill re-enfranchising that individual. Both houses of the Legislature must then pass the bill, and the governor must sign it.
Each year about 10-12 people are re-enfranchised in Mississippi. It isn't automatic — some bills are rejected. All felons stripped of voting rights must go through this procedure to have them restored.
Sen. Gray Tollison, D-Oxford, is chairman of the Judiciary B committee which considers the suffrage bills. Tollison said he didn't present a suffrage bill this past session to the full Senate, and at least three were submitted.
"Once a person completes their sentence and pays all fines owed, they can start the process of regaining voting rights," said Tollison. "We usually like them to wait at least a year before we consider granting their right to vote."
Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann pushed a bill that would re-enfranchise most felons who lose their voting rights under state law, according to the Sentencing Project. With the exception of those convicted of rape and murder, Hosemann's proposal would allow convicted felons to have their voting rights restored two years after serving their sentence, including probation.
The bill died.
Hubbard said he plans to go through the proper procedures to get his voting rights restored, but still feels stripping them was not the right thing to do in the first place.
"I know what I did was wrong and like I said, I paid for it," said Hubbard. "I just want the simple rights that every other free American has and voting is one of those rights. I don't think that's asking for too much."
Comments
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is asking too much.
I don't care what color you are. If you are a felon, you should not be able to vote. Your felony conviction stays with your for the rest of your life. This also means you can not possess firearms. This is not a racial thing and we should not turn it into one. If you want to be treated like an upstanding member of society, then you must be an upstanding member of society.
I am sorry if some disagree, but those who stayed out of trouble should not feel sorry for those that did not.
Posted by Mucasplug (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree Pro, its just part of the price you pay for being a thug. Be a productive member of society and you can enjoy the honor of voting for the ones to make law.
Posted by rocketman (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He should have thought of that before he committed the crime!
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What if the guy who served time was truly rehabilitated and upon release went on to be a contributing member of society, i.e...volunteer work, a viable job, etc.? Can no one make up for past sins? Our Lord says we can in HIs eyes. Only man, in his wondrous way, can choose to hold a grudge and be unforgiving, thus ensuring the sinner stays a sinner and the self-righteous forever right.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Convicted felons also lose their right to bear arms. Is that what they will be asking for next?
Sex offenders have to register wherever they move and many of them have paid their debt to society. Will they start asking not to register?
So I think that ALL felons get what they deserve. Their actions impeded on the right of others. So it is fair that their rights are taken from them.
Posted by USMBOY (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with "kpage". We can drop down on our knees and ask GOD to forgive us, but when we get up, we can't forgive our fellow man.
Posted by Username (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In LA a felon can own a gun 10 years after the date the felony sentence ends. They can even have a concealed weapon perment.
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If one chooses to commit a crime, then one pays the consequences. Plain and simple. God can forgive them if he wants. I don't have to. If they don't like it, then they can move to some place that allows them to vote.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no debt to society. Crimes are committed against individuals, not whole societies. The concept of paying debt to society denies the right of the individual victim to be repaid.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just can't help it people...if a crime was committed against me (and it has been), why shouldn't I forgive? Refusing to forgive doesn't "get back" at the criminal...and I would have to live with sad, sad unforgiveness in MY heart. I sure don't want to carry such a heavy load because of someone else...it just isn't worth it. Who am I to feel my actions or decisions are better than God's? When I choose to NOT forgive, I'm saying my idea is better than His.
Today, my heart is not grieveous...I choose to carry no one else's heavy load except my own...I am free of other's mistakes.
Posted by ElGoodo (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The government is not in the forgiveness business. Why should time even be a factor for "forgiveness", anyway? The criminals don't voluntarily incarcerate themselves, they are incarcerated by force. Most often this "debt to society" is not so much paid by a criminal as it is taken from them by law enforcement and the courts.
This is not about "forgiveness", anyway. It's about crime and punishment. Whatever the various states choose to do about this is their business.
Moral of story: DON'T COMMIT FELONIES!
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kpage, you are free to forgive them. No one is saying otherwise.
Even if forgiven, they still don't deserve or need to vote. Voting is not a right. It is a privilege that they gave up.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
14th amendment says it is a right
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crimes ARE committed against whole societies...a deliberate lie by someone who is trusted and higher up which leads that country into a war is a crime against the whole society and humanity. Child sexual abuse by a those in trusted positions (teachers, ministers, law enforcement, military) are crimes against the whole society, because of the mistrust it causes. Rape, murder and burgulary are crimes against the whole society, because of the fear those acts cause the whole community. Consider a serial killer and how much fear he causes. Consider the burgularies recently in Natchez which had the whole town in a panic and even caused one man to accidentally shoot and kill his wife. Acts of terrorism are crimes against whole societies. The criminal act itself may be committed against only one individual but that act can result in a domino effect which can cripple a whole society. Plus, the whole society pays financially when a crime occurs in order to solve the crime and then house the criminal.
Whether or not a felon should be allowed his right to vote returned to him should be done on an individual basis. The felon should have to go in front of a parolee review board, who could then determine whether or not he has satisfactorily become rehabilitated.
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
O.K., then it is a right to vote, but only for those of us who did not commit crimes. The felons gave up that right.
Why does it matter who they committed their crime against? That is just splitting hairs.
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is my belief, that the type of crime (felony) the person committed should be considered as well as how has this person handled themself, since their debt was paid. About 5 years maximum, after their punishment, if this person has proven they are a productive member of society, I don't see why the right to vote should be taken. For gun crimes, I have no problem with the felon not being able to be in possession of a gun, but voting is another thing altogether, for me.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What about politicians who commit felonious crimes while being elected...should they be allowed to vote...ever again? What about politicians who are running for public office and are found guilty of misusing donated campaign funds to gamble? What if a public official while in office is found guilty of stealing the town's money? What if they committed some type of voter fraud like allowing dead people to vote?
What about felons who are found guilty of an act of treason against his country...should they be allowed to vote?
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the criminal should earn his/her rights to vote. If they show they are consistently productive in society, then by all means, allow him/her to vote. I believe this should be done on an individual basis...and according to the crime committed. Anyone can make mistakes, but should they be forever ostracized and denied the right to participate in government? Why even try to be productive in a society so against them? Why even try? We want these people to be rehabilitated...why keep them down when they are trying to make up for past mistakes? The nation would be full of folk staying down in the scunge because the entire world shuns them. How awful.
Look at Dog the Bounty Hunter...everyone roots for him getting the bad guy...but used to he WAS the bad guy...what a way to make up for past mistakes! Should he be ostracized forever?
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't have a problem with Dog becoming a star. I don't have any problem with him or any ex-con earning a living and supporting his family. I don't have a problem with him having a driver's license. I just wouldn't want him voting.
Not being allowed to vote is not the end of the world for him. He is still allow to do what it takes to support his family. He is not being told he can not buy groceries or eat in a restaurant, or go to church, or a movie. You act like he is not allowed to live in freedom, but he is.
Some of you seem to feel so sorry for them. Do you want to forgive them and let them carry guns? Do you want them to be able to get a job as a police officer? A school teacher? Just how sorry for them do you feel?
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe that most felons start out small time. It is not something they just up and did one day - commit a felony crime. They worked up to it, and they deserve the penality for it. Probably many of them were let off very easily the first few times, but they knew if they kept on the road of crime what the punishment would be. I think we can forgive the individual person for their crime, and try and help them come out a better person. But so many criminals come out of prison and go right back to a life of crime. No, I don't think they should be allowed to vote, hold office, own guns, or serve in the military. Those are rights they knew would be taken away if they were caught and convicted. It is just punishment.
Posted by doubled (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IF A PERSON PAYS TAXES THEY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT 2 VOTE!THEY'VE SERVED THEIR TIME.
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxation without representation....
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So let's get this straight, you trust them enough to let them out of prison, when they are supposed to be locked up, to take jobs that law abiding citizens could be doing, because that helps you financially. But, you won't consider ever allowing them to vote under any circumstances? I guess we all take the cake now and then, huh?
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess we do, Peace. I don't believe owning guns should be allowed for ANY convicted felons (or serve in the military, for that matter). I wonder how many fine upstanding citizens we have here in our area who WOULD have been convicted of a felony but because of their name or position, it's been expunged? I can give you a few names but that's a moot point (and everybody still hoots and hollers about how wonderful they are...yes, they get to vote).
I get what ProNatchez and freedom are saying and I understand their point. I don't feel sorry for any felon, period. No, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, be a teacher, cop, etc. But some, and I say only some (first time offenders with no criminal history), should maybe EARN that right back (if it means that much to them) after they have proven themselves in society.
Of course we want felons to suffer...they committed a crime! But for first-time offenders with no criminal history...EARNING ONLY THE VOTING RIGHTS should be considered. If my mama never gave me a second chance to "get it right", I might feel she was only punishing me for the sheer sake of it....the feeling of holding power over me or feeling "better than"...you know the Becky Thatcher type... "I'm good and you're always bad".
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kpage, I think you've made some excellent points. Although, I'm not familiar with Becky Thatcher, I still get your point.
In my humble opinion, it should also depend on the type of crime the felon committed as to whether or not he should or shouldn't ever be allowed to own guns again, as well. What if he only wrote a bunch of fraudulent checks or embezzled money, should he be considered too dangerous to vote or own a weapon? Murder crimes, armed robbery, or felons convicted of any violent crime should never be allowed gun ownership after serving their time, but what about involuntary manslaughter and those convicted of non-violent crimes...shouldn't they be treated differently than one whom intentionally took a life?
There are too many different crimes to list, and each convict's rights should be considered on an individual basis, after he is released from serving his time and a certain amount of time has passed. If he keeps his record clean after being released and shows that he is rehabilitated and able to live as any other law abiding citizen, why shouldn't he be given another chance to have the same rights as any one else?
According to some folks...votes don't always count, anyway, and only about half of the US citizens take advantage of their right to vote, lol...so, I have to wonder do parolees really desire that right? Or is that something that some activist group dreamed up to make people scratch thier heads over? I'd imagine that gun ownership would be a more worthy goal to achieve than voting rights. Or, is that the fear of allowing convicted felons to vote, because they would vote for gun ownership rights to be reinstated to parolees? I would imagine that if a war were to break-out in the US, every able bodied person would need to have access to a gun, and with food prices going up higher and higher each day, more people may need to start hunting game for food (or may need to defend their food supply).
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on June 2, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kpage - Becky Thacher? Tom Sawyer? Good reading still!
Posted by Allykat (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To anyone reading this comment, being convicted of a felony means to be convicted of a crime, but what about all of you risk takers who broke the law but were never caught, even if it's just running a red light or stop sign it was still against the law. There are a lot of crimes that go without punishment, and who other than the people should say , because I committed a crime, by the way, writing bad checks, that my family should not be protected by my right to bear arms, or that I should have a low end paying job, or not have the right to choose, lawmakers, because I broke the law? There's never a correct answer only the opinions of people like you reading this comment.. Even if you have a record expunged , what does that mean, you had the money to hire a lawyer. Maybe you got a break and good... job. Maybe someone gave you a second chance. Which by the way only happens to a few, so excuse me if I sound bitter or harsh, but I can guarantee everyone who is on the internet right now has committed some type of crime, even if it was only downloading music, it's still a crime. Don't be so quick to judge a person (ex-con) because of title. Not everyone convicted of a crime are as stupid as you think, and not everyone not convicted, as smart or law-abiding as you think. You Do the math!!!!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)