3 ms·
It seems like the legislature and Governor tried to skirt the intention of the electorate and in practice prevent people with convictions from voting.
by ch4s3 7y ago
It seems like the legislature and Governor tried to skirt the intention of the electorate and in practice prevent people with convictions from voting.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoI'm not sure how the law is actually skirting the constitutional amendment. It seems to actively conflicting with it. I updated my post to be more clear.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoIt's using a technicality (fees which are not tracked are "part of the parole") that is BS on its face, but taking it to court would take so long and be so not worth it, that the desired effect would occur anyways- which is continuing to deny felons who finish their sentences voting rights.
- crooked-v 7y agoA factor here most people aren't aware of is that it's common for probation and parole to include 'supervision fees' charged to the probationer or parolee. These can supposedly be waived in the case of someone not being able to afford them, but it's not unusual for judges to decide that any living situation short of literally living on the street (and sometimes even then) means the fees are 'affordable'.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoIf parole is tracked and the felons are not on the list, then I'm not sure it even counts as a technicality. I agree the desired effect is likely the same.
- ch4s3 7y agoLike my sibling point mentions, it's using a technicality and probably in bad faith to engage in voter suppression.