6 ms·

btw in florida the voters literally overwhelmingly voted for an amendment that re-enfranchised felons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4 ht

btw in florida the voters literally overwhelmingly voted for an amendment that re-enfranchised felons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4 and republicans are still trying to subvert it by sneaking in restitution as a prerequisite. it was challenged in the courts, overturned, and now appealed https://www.npr.org/2020/04/27/844297011/voting-rights-for-hundreds-of-thousands-of-felons-at-stake-in-florida-trial https://www.npr.org/2020/04/27/844297011/voting-rights-for-h... check out this tweet https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1264687609995026437 https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1264687609995026437 Edit: what exactly am I getting downvoted for? Did I post something that wasn't factually correct? Did I use foul language? Did I antagonize?

JarlUlvi 6y ago
You're not explaining the other side of the story. Many felons are convicted and owe fees to their victims, or to the govt. If you commit a violent crime, or a financial crime, there can be a financial penalty. Many of the felons that want to vote, never paid back their victims, or the state, for the crimes they were committed. The Florida proposition "restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation" Now, they want to vote, but still haven't compensated their victims, which was a part of the sentence, based on a lawful conviction.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  You haven't actually presented another side to the story, you've just cited a legitimate, but completely irrelevant, concern. If people aren't paying their debts, garnish their wages, seize their assets, or if they're flagrantly avoiding paying back debts, put them back in jail--you know, normal things that we already do which actually get people to pay back their debts. Failure to pay reparations is a legitimate concern, but it's not relevant to voting rights. Let's not pretend this is about reparations. It's about disfranchising people.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  False. I'm drawing attention to the amendment and what the will of the people was/is and efforts made to subvert that will. The amendment as on the ballot said nothing about requiring money as a prerequisite. That's what Florida voted for: returning freed felons their rights. To ascribe some other interpretation to "terms" is to subvert the will of the people of Florida. Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence. Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything. It's right there on wiki: >However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights" It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.
  - JarlUlvi 6y ago
    That sounds more like an interpretation issue, than a posto facto.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I still don’t understand why we deny felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentence, so extending this to nonpayment of fines seems even more arbitrary.
  - calpaterson 6y ago
    In the UK people in jail (so a subset of convicted people) are not allowed to vote. The argument is that while you are detained in jail you are being punished by loss of civil rights and that voting is one of these.
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      As far as I understand, in Florida even people with past felony convictions can't vote, even if they served their sentence.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      People might be interested in this which describes attempts to allow some prisoners in the UK to vote: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7461/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
  - luckylion 6y ago
    One obvious answer is that we've found them to be problematic with regards to living peacefully with other people, so much so that we feel the need to physically remove them so they cannot hurt others. Why would we allow them to vote under those circumstances?
    - kelnos 6y ago
      It's analogous to taxation without representation. Jailed felons are subject to the laws of the land, but have no say in what those laws are. I think that's unjust. It's especially nefarious when you consider all the people in jail for non-violent offenses.
      - 6y ago
- baddox 6y ago
  What does that have anything to do with whether someone ought to have representation in the very government that created and enforces the laws they were found to have violated?
- yardie 6y ago
  The state doesn't know how much they owe because they weren't all that concerned before. Also, the Florida DOC has a nasty habit of inventing fines and fees. According to you it should be simple. Whatever the sentencing judge has put in the sentence is the sentence. But that has proven not to be the case. The governor wants the DOC to find any and all unpaid fines and fees. And they want to be allowed years to resolve it. The judge looked at the excuses the DOCs counsel was offering and quickly swatted it down. An ex-convict that has satisfied the terms of his sentence as it is written on the sentencing docket has no reason not to have their rights restored.
chrisco255 6y ago
How dare they make felons pay restitution to victims of violent crimes before voting.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  How dare they indeed? It wasn't in the amendment. No one voted for that.
- geofft 6y ago
  Indeed. Really, felons currently serving their sentence should be able to vote. It's your only protection against the government throwing its political opponents in prison. If we had a magical, objective, 100% accurate way of determining whether judgments are fair and punishments are appropriate, then maybe it would make sense to suspend the voting rights of criminals. But we don't, and the only check on whether the criminal justice system is doing the right thing is the popular ballot. Allowing the criminal justice system to disenfranchise people is an obvious loophole. Besides, what are we worried about? That criminals would vote to legalize their own crimes? If more than half the population are criminals, it's not clear that any sort of government is going to work at all....
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > It's your only protection against the government throwing its political opponents in prison. Well, the second amendment may offer some protection as well.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      No it does not. The second amendment offers no realistic protection for a civilian in any sort of way. I have been part of a special forces raid to capture or kill and I can tell you the opponent has no realistic way to win that day. Sure you can win in the long run if you are fighting at home with the enemy fighting far away from theirs but not they you will suffer heavy losses and live in a condition far from what most of us can imagine or are prepared to do.

JarlUlvi 6y ago

You're not explaining the other side of the story. Many felons are convicted and owe fees to their victims, or to the govt. If you commit a violent crime, or a financial crime, there can be a financial penalty. Many of the felons that want to vote, never paid back their victims, or the state, for the crimes they were committed. The Florida proposition "restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation" Now, they want to vote, but still haven't compensated their victims, which was a part of the sentence, based on a lawful conviction.

kerkeslager 6y ago
You haven't actually presented another side to the story, you've just cited a legitimate, but completely irrelevant, concern. If people aren't paying their debts, garnish their wages, seize their assets, or if they're flagrantly avoiding paying back debts, put them back in jail--you know, normal things that we already do which actually get people to pay back their debts. Failure to pay reparations is a legitimate concern, but it's not relevant to voting rights. Let's not pretend this is about reparations. It's about disfranchising people.
throwlaplace 6y ago
False. I'm drawing attention to the amendment and what the will of the people was/is and efforts made to subvert that will. The amendment as on the ballot said nothing about requiring money as a prerequisite. That's what Florida voted for: returning freed felons their rights. To ascribe some other interpretation to "terms" is to subvert the will of the people of Florida. Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence. Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything. It's right there on wiki: >However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights" It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.
- JarlUlvi 6y ago
  That sounds more like an interpretation issue, than a posto facto.
saagarjha 6y ago
I still don’t understand why we deny felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentence, so extending this to nonpayment of fines seems even more arbitrary.
- calpaterson 6y ago
  In the UK people in jail (so a subset of convicted people) are not allowed to vote. The argument is that while you are detained in jail you are being punished by loss of civil rights and that voting is one of these.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    As far as I understand, in Florida even people with past felony convictions can't vote, even if they served their sentence.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    People might be interested in this which describes attempts to allow some prisoners in the UK to vote: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7461/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
- luckylion 6y ago
  One obvious answer is that we've found them to be problematic with regards to living peacefully with other people, so much so that we feel the need to physically remove them so they cannot hurt others. Why would we allow them to vote under those circumstances?
  - kelnos 6y ago
    It's analogous to taxation without representation. Jailed felons are subject to the laws of the land, but have no say in what those laws are. I think that's unjust. It's especially nefarious when you consider all the people in jail for non-violent offenses.
    - 6y ago
baddox 6y ago
What does that have anything to do with whether someone ought to have representation in the very government that created and enforces the laws they were found to have violated?
yardie 6y ago
The state doesn't know how much they owe because they weren't all that concerned before. Also, the Florida DOC has a nasty habit of inventing fines and fees. According to you it should be simple. Whatever the sentencing judge has put in the sentence is the sentence. But that has proven not to be the case. The governor wants the DOC to find any and all unpaid fines and fees. And they want to be allowed years to resolve it. The judge looked at the excuses the DOCs counsel was offering and quickly swatted it down. An ex-convict that has satisfied the terms of his sentence as it is written on the sentencing docket has no reason not to have their rights restored.

chrisco255 6y ago

How dare they make felons pay restitution to victims of violent crimes before voting.

throwlaplace 6y ago
How dare they indeed? It wasn't in the amendment. No one voted for that.
geofft 6y ago
Indeed. Really, felons currently serving their sentence should be able to vote. It's your only protection against the government throwing its political opponents in prison. If we had a magical, objective, 100% accurate way of determining whether judgments are fair and punishments are appropriate, then maybe it would make sense to suspend the voting rights of criminals. But we don't, and the only check on whether the criminal justice system is doing the right thing is the popular ballot. Allowing the criminal justice system to disenfranchise people is an obvious loophole. Besides, what are we worried about? That criminals would vote to legalize their own crimes? If more than half the population are criminals, it's not clear that any sort of government is going to work at all....
- mistermann 6y ago
  > It's your only protection against the government throwing its political opponents in prison. Well, the second amendment may offer some protection as well.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    No it does not. The second amendment offers no realistic protection for a civilian in any sort of way. I have been part of a special forces raid to capture or kill and I can tell you the opponent has no realistic way to win that day. Sure you can win in the long run if you are fighting at home with the enemy fighting far away from theirs but not they you will suffer heavy losses and live in a condition far from what most of us can imagine or are prepared to do.