What I infer from the poll is that some people think that felons shouldn't lose those privileges, some thing that felons should get them back after a period of time, and some think it should be based on paying back the victim.
I imagine all this varies from state to state now.
I googled up a few interesting things. They are interesting mainly because anything is interesting when you are totally ignorant. Please pardon the POVs. They were just the first items that came up that answered my questions.
---------------
"Analysis: Impact of the felon vote?
By Michael Kirkland
UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent
Washington, DC, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- A case before the Supreme Court of the United States could tip the balance of the closely divided electorate.
A group of current and former prison inmates are challenging a Washington state law that deprives them of the right to vote, saying it is racially discriminatory.
About 1.4 million black men across the country have lost the franchise because of such laws in the 48 states that take the vote away, at least temporarily, from convicted felons.
Combine that figure with the estimated 1.9 million "tainted" black votes that were not counted for one reason or another in the 2000 election -- votes that Democrats are working hard to make sure are counted this time round -- and you have a formidable addition to the electorate.
Though Democrats may not want to be associated with the votes of felons, the party would be the clear beneficiary if the Supreme Court eventually found that denying the vote to convicts is racially motivated.
For instance, in one key state, Democrats contend that tens of thousands of innocent people have been included on lists in Florida that are supposed to purge felons from the voter rolls, and that such lists overwhelmingly consist of minorities.
Any shift in the election equation would have a profound impact this year. Zogby International estimates that incumbent President George W. Bush and his principal challenger, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., are fighting over 2.6 million undecided voters as the rest of the electorate has committed solidly to one candidate or the other.
But the Supreme Court won't even decide whether to take the felon voter case until the justices' "long conference" in late September. And even if the justices decide to take the case, they would not hear it until sometime this winter, probably handing down a ruling a couple of months later.
The odds of the high court taking the case are good.
The inmate group has essentially won its case before a U.S. appellate panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. If the justices left the lower-court ruling intact, such state laws in the entire circuit -- which besides Washington state includes California, Oregon, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam -- would be undermined.
On the other hand, the odds of the inmates winning their case at the Supreme Court level are long. The panels in the 9th Circuit are the most reversed of the 12 geographical federal circuits overseen by the justices.
A group of six current and former prison inmates -- four blacks, one American Indian and one Hispanic -- challenged a provision of the Washington state Constitution that denies the vote to all persons "convicted of an infamous crime." An "infamous crime" is defined as one in which the penalty is death or imprisonment.
However, a section of the state code also allows felons to regain the franchise after they have served their time. The re-enfranchisement is left up to the state, and none of the inmate group regained his vote.
In their suit, the inmate group said the state disenfranchisement constitutes an illegal race-based action under a provision of the Voting Rights Act. But a federal judge ruled that although the state law disenfranchised a disproportionate number of minorities, that effect was separate from the disenfranchising law itself.
The judge said the disproportionate effect on minority voting was due to "discriminatory activity" in Washington state's criminal justice system, and that the challengers' evidence proving this was "compelling."
Still, the judge ruled in dismissing the suit, there was no evidence that the disenfranchisement law itself was discriminatory.
A three-judge federal appeals panel reversed, saying it disagreed with the judge's analysis. Supreme Court precedent and circuit case law required judges to consider how a challenged voting practice interacts with external factors so that the result is a "denial of the right to vote on account of race and color," the panel said.
Because the judge found the evidence of discrimination "compelling," the panel sent the case back to the trial level for a new ruling.
When the full circuit court refused to rehear the case on a closely divided vote, Washington state asked the Supreme Court for review.
Congress didn't intend the Voting Rights Act to apply to the disenfranchisement of felons, the state said in a petition, though the U.S. circuit appeals courts are divided on that issue. Using the Voting Rights Act to review a state's criminal justice system, the state said, "could significantly affect the relationship between the states and the federal government."
The state also cited the second provision of the 14th Amendment which deals with apportionment of representatives in Congress, though it is not part of the state's core argument.
The provision says state representation is modified and reduced "when the right to vote ... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state ... or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime ... "
An opposing brief from the challengers' lawyers argues that intervention by the Supreme Court at this time would be premature, and that the case should be allowed to resolve itself naturally first.
They also argue that "the plain meaning" of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "is unambiguous on its face."
The section bans any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting" applied "in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right ... to vote on account of race and color ... "
State officials "ignore entirely the plain meaning of section 2, which on its face clearly encompasses any voter disqualification, including one based on a felony conviction," the challengers' brief said.
--"
72.14.209.104
----------------------
"Clinton/Kerry Bill for Felon Voting Rights Opposed by Americans
Sierra Times ^ | 5/27/2006 | Jim Kouri
Posted on 05/27/2006 4:17:34 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
While Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Kerry (D-MA) attempt to push a bill through the Senate that would restore voting rights for felons -- including killers, rapists and child predators -- such a law would receive a cold reception by most Americans, according to a just-released poll.
A new poll conducted by Zogby Interactive for Associated Television News and The O'Leary Report shows that a clear majority of Americans, including blacks and Hispanics, are opposed to the restoration of voting rights for former felons.
The Zogby/Associated Television News poll findings show that Americans oppose aspects of the Count Every Vote Act sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry that would restore the voting rights of former convicted felons. Fifty-three percent of the American public believes that such a law giving back the right to vote to felons is bad for the country.
Another 71% of the country feels that the motive for such legislation is to help win elections. Both Clinton and Kerry are expected to run for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States.
Twenty-three percent of the American public believes that felons, as a class, who are released from prison should get their voting rights back while 70% of Americans believe the vote should be restored on an individual basis and not as a class.
Between 79% and 90% of the American public believes that anyone who has used a gun in a crime or guilty of a sex crime or a violent crime should face tougher standards in having their voting rights restored than those individuals convicted of a non-violent crime.
Vermont and Maine are the only two states in the country that allow felons to vote while incarcerated. Depending on the severity of the crime, between 70% and 80% of the American public opposes such provisions in the law.
One reason given for the introduction of the Clinton/Kerry bill was to return a racial balance to the disproportionate number of blacks serving time in our prison system for felonies. Yet, 61% of blacks and 66% of Hispanics believe voting rights for felons should be returned on an individual basis and not as a class as the Clinton/Kerry bill would do.
One political strategist believes the push to give amnesty for illegal aliens and for felons is driven by the desire to increase the Democrat Party base.
"Whether they admit it or not, the Democrats need lawbreakers such as illegal aliens -- who are being illegally registered as Democrats -- and killers, rapists and robbers in order to increase their base of far-left voters," says Mike Baker, political strategist and pollster.
"While most clear thinking Americans reject their [Democrats] agenda, criminals and people who don't understand English, who number in the millions, is an immense bump in the numbers of their party's base. And should such a bill be made law, look for them to pander to criminals and oppose law enforcement," he added."
209.157.64.201
------------------------------ |
