3 ms·

I have a bit of a different take. I don't necessarily believe it's about suppressing votes from a demographic. I think this is just a classic example of gover

I have a bit of a different take. I don't necessarily believe it's about suppressing votes from a demographic. I think this is just a classic example of government mismanagement. They create a Catch-22 style set of circumstances that create a big problem but don't care enough to fix it because there's no obvious downside to just saying "meh, fuck it" since they aren't in a competitive business and don't really risk losing customers. Sure, it's possible that some elected officials don't get re-elected but the people in charge of running these systems don't really face getting fired for doing a shit job here. Also, it's not clear from your comment if the evil but logical act is the passing of the law or creating the system in which one is unable to prove they can vote once convicted of a felony. Which did you mean?

Steltek 7y ago
Viewed in a vacuum with no context or history, one could believe this is a bureaucratic oopsie. However, the long and clear history of the South and Republican disenfranchisement makes it pretty clear the origin and intent of this law. To ignore that would be very naive. The evilness is using loopholes (poor bookkeeping and a strained reading of the ballot measure) to suppress the vote and tyrannically hold on to power. Referendums get tampered with by legislatures all the time but most measures aren't concerned with voting rights.