Denying Felons the Right to Vote: Raaaaaaacist
So says some civil rights attorney:
Today Congress is listening to 4 million silenced Americans. Leaders of the House Judiciary Committee are holding a hearing on the Democracy Restoration Act, legislation that seeks to restore the right to vote to people with a criminal records who are out of prison, living in the community. This bill would eliminate the last blanket barrier to the franchise, and reverse decade of discrimination create by laws firmly rooted in our country’s Jim Crow history.
Today 5.3 million American citizens are denied the right to vote because of a criminal conviction in their past. Four million are people who are out of prison, living in the community. States vary on whether, when and how they restore voting rights to people with criminal conviction, but all told 35 states continue to disenfranchise people who are out of prison, often for decades and sometimes for life.
Criminal disenfranchisement laws trace directly back to Jim Crow and were part of a concerted effort to maintain white control over access to the polls. Enacted alongside poll taxes and literacy tests, criminal disenfranchisement laws were part of a larger backlash against the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments. At the same time states enacted these disenfranchisement provisions, they began to expand the criminal codes to punish offense they believed freed slaves were most likely to commit. The result: suppressed African-American political power for decades. Today, 13% of African-American men in our country have lost the right to vote.
It wouldn’t shock me to find support among Americans for restoring the right to vote to people whose only felony is simple possession of narcotics with no intent to sell. We could have that debate, and if the side favoring voting rights for felons were to win, I could easily live with that.
But the suggestion that it is raaaaaaacist to deny voting rights to all felons strikes me as quite a reach. The underlying principle is laudable: once you have “paid your debt to society” you should not be treated differently. And yet, you are — and in many contexts this is necessary and proper.
It’s obviously absurd to label as “racist” anyone who treats felons differently. For example, many employers want to know whether potential employees have felony records. If you are hiring someone who handles large sums of money and/or is in a position of trust with respect to finances, you will want to know whether that person has a history of theft. If you are hiring a police officer, you would want to know whether that person has a felony record. Prosecutors considering a current felony will want to know the person’s criminal history to see if the new offense is isolated or part of a pattern.
None of this is racist.
As for voting, it is certainly rational for a state to take the position that convicted felons do not have the same interests in a stable, law-abiding society as the rest of us do. There may be exceptions, as there are with any generalization, but this particular generalization is quite rational and not racist.
To the extent that laws and attitudes regarding felons have a differential impact on particular races or ethnicities, that results from societal problems that affect the rates at which those races and/or ethnicities commit crimes. We can debate what those problems are all day long; the problems can include a history of discrimination and its afteraffects, cultural issues regarding the raising of children and the absent father syndrome, differential economic opportunities, the negative effects of government welfare programs, and countless others.
It would be better to identify and attack those problems, rather than pretending that they do not exist, and simply treating criminals the same as everyone else. They are not.
Ray-Sizzum, pure & simple.
Racism, not so much.
faxhorn (42b595) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:19 amCalifornia allows convicted felons to vote. The only bar is if you are currently in prison (this is a place serious felons serve a sentence) or on parole (this is what you get after release from prison but the length is no more than three years).
According to the Secretary of State, you can vote if you:
“Are in a local jail as a result of a misdemeanor conviction;
” Are awaiting trial or are currently on trial and have not yet been convicted of a crim
“Have completed parole for a felony conviction; or
“Are on probation.”
So if you are currently on felony probation, you can vote.
God I love this country.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:28 amCertainly it’s not racism in any way, shape, or form. But the life-time ban on voting by anyone convicted of a felony, ever, is probably unnecessary, as a matter of policy.
While there are certainly plenty of criminals who maintain that mentality for most of their life, there are also plenty of individuals for whom the system actually works more or less as intended… they get caught, convicted, serve some time in jail or on probation, and find the whole thing so unappealing that they work hard to stay straight from then on.
In Louisiana, convicted felons can vote so long as they are not under any government supervision at all. Once their sentence is COMPLETELY up, they aren’t in jail, on probation, or on parole, then they can vote, just as all their other rights which were taken away with the conviction are restored to them. This has worked ok for us here, and seems in keeping with the general concept that you do your time, and then when it’s done, you’re legally accepted back into society.
PatHMV (e894d4) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:33 amCriminal disenfranchisement laws trace directly back to Jim Crow and were part of a concerted effort to maintain white control over access to the polls. Enacted alongside poll taxes and literacy tests, criminal disenfranchisement laws were part of a larger backlash against the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments. At the same time states enacted these disenfranchisement provisions, they began to expand the criminal codes to punish offense they believed freed slaves were most likely to commit. The result: suppressed African-American political power for decades. Today, 13% of African-American men in our country have lost the right to vote
This illustrates what I’ve said before: what people learn is law school is how to make half-way plausible sounding arguments in support of absurd ideas.
In this case the big logical leap occurs between the second-to-last and last sentences. Regardless of what happened during Reconstruction, the 13% of African-American men who cannot vote are not in that state as a result of “crimes freed slaves [are] most likely to commit”.
Subotai (1b0d34) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:48 amBut your arguments, Pat, don’t address the issue raised by the post and the piece to which it links: namely, is denying voting rights to felons racist?
Patterico (c46daa) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:54 amSorry, but I have to insert this tangent to the discussion. Back in 2000, Bob Beckel and Bob Mulholland tried to blackmail individual Electoral College Electors into voting for Gore or have embarrassing information about them releases.
In my mind both men should have been tried and convicted of felonies. These felonies should also be punishable by losing their voting rights permanently.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:02 amYour racisty racisms are showing.
JD (06eeff) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:06 am“in a stable law-abiding society”…..
Where’s that?
yes that was my weak (week?) attempt at humor
EricPWJohnson (44bba4) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:13 amthat was my weak (week?) attempt at humor
Tell us again about how you’re a conservative. That’s always good for some laughs.
Subotai (1b0d34) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:18 amWell, let’s go to the bill:
So according to the findings of those proposing and promoting the bill, it is discriminatory because it has disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. I think it is pretty much a slam dunk that if you compare the numbers of people disenfranchised due to felony convictions, minorities are represented out of proportion to their proportion in society at large. But has Pat addressed it?
So in short there is non-racist rational basis for the law, but there are also many other reasons why one could disagree with felon disenfranchisement? It is no more racist than state laws against murder, which also have disparate impact?
DOuglas2 (62fec6) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:22 amHmm. Do different ethnicities have the same likelihood of being charged and convicted for similar crimes? There might be more to this than than the rate at which those races and/or ethnicities commit crimes, if the investigation and prosecution is also different for different ethnicities.
If you can’t be trusted as to how you’re going to vote, you can’t be trusted out on the street. There is no rational basis for disenfranchising released prisoners.
nk (db4a41) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:28 amAnd I agree, Patterico, the racism charge is a distraction and a very weak argument.
nk (db4a41) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:29 amI have a brother with a rap sheet. He is not eligible to vote. He is also not eligible to own or possess a firearm. I don’t know his views on the firearm issue but he thinks felons should be allowed to vote. I disagree.
Every time he has said something about the topic, I was glad there were multiple other topics of discussion going on. I let him say his piece and then I switched topics to something completely unrelated to the issue and completely unrelated to politics.
As far as economic factors being contributing factors for felonies, I call bovine byproduct. If that were the case, we would have seen a mushroom-cloud explosion in felonies nation-wide in the 1930s. But the 1930s were still during the time when people who didn’t take personal responsibility for their actions were pariahs. Today, not so much. Economic factors may well be key in showing your true character but they are not contributing factors for felonious activities.
John Hitchcock (550195) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:29 amMany of us, otherwise sympathetic to the idea of tough penalties, life long stigmatization and loss of civil rights are troubled by the increasing stupidity and complexities of the law. Today, nearly everyone is a felon all the time, and only escapes the disaster of prosecution and conviction by good luck, a good suit and polished shoes, a conservative haircut or ‘connections’.
Fred Z (0411be) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:31 amI think it is made because the Fourteenth Amendment does allow attainder and you have to go to the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twentyfourth, and Twentysixth Amendments for a counterargument.
nk (db4a41) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:37 amIf people argue with a straight face that gun control laws are racist, the least they can do is recognize that other laws also can have their roots in jim crow.
I don’t think there’s any doubt about the disparate impact of felony disenfranchisement laws. Is there? The question is whether that impact is currently or was back then then the intent.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (364e06) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:39 amMight as well call it Democratic Registration legislation.
Hope and Change.
Jim (0c993b) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:40 amThe racism argument is bogus, but it is still a violation of their civil liberties of ex-criminals to deny them the vote. The government should have a compelling interest to deny someone their civil liberties. I can understand how many may feel that denying ex-criminals their 2nd amendment rights is reasonable. But, I have never heard a reasonable argument for preventing ex-criminals the opportunity to more completely rejoin society by taking seriously their responsibility to participate in the political process through voting.
The idea that all the criminals are going to get together and vote in those who would undermine our legal system is laughable.
Anon Y. Mous (76f3cc) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:42 amThere is no rational basis for disenfranchising released prisoners.
The government should have a compelling interest to deny someone their civil liberties.
“Rational basis”. “Compelling interest”. These are the magic incantations by which the legal clerisy seeks to end representative democracy.
Rational and compelling in whose eyes? Not the people making the laws, it would seem. Instead the legal clerisy claims for itself the sole prerogative to decide what is or is not “rational” and “compelling”.
Subotai (1b0d34) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:53 amThe idea that all the criminals are going to get together and vote in those who would undermine our legal system is laughable.
The legal system has not been undermined by the sort of people who are voted in.
Subotai (1b0d34) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:55 amUsing the race card on an issue like this only serves to further divide people on an issue that needn’t have it.
Prison, fines, loss of voting right, etc. are the debt paid. Once paid, the right to vote should be restored (except unusual circumstances). We can disagree on who gets the right restored and who doesn’t; but that would be based on our differences on the degree of their transgression and/or debt paid and/or repentance; not on their skin color (or lack thereof for this Midwesterner at Winter’s end).
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:00 amSo felons are non-white? I did not know that. Sounds … Klannish to me.
And Fred Z, I kinda doubt that most of us are felons all the time. Heck, I think I’m a felon less than once a month, or so. Felon – as in commits a felony. Yup, pretty sure I’m not a a felon. Misdemeanors, maybe, but not daily. The only misdemeanor that people commit daily might be a traffic violation.
Scott (8a1404) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:27 amSince most criminals are stupid(Prof Moriarity not withstanding), and the most stupid are the most likely to be convicted: it follows that prohibiting convicted felons from voting is a great way to reduce the number of stupid people who vote. That works for me.
Bar Sinister (4e07cf) — 3/17/2010 @ 8:37 amA convicted felon loses – permanently – the right to own or possess a firearm, or ammunition for same.
Considering current political trends, what is more dangerous:
Allowing felons to vote; or,
Allowing felons access to firearms?
“… just as all their other rights which were taken away with the conviction are restored to them…”
Except their right to a firearm!
AD - RtR/OS! (bdaa22) — 3/17/2010 @ 9:18 amIf you’re going to let politicians vote, might as well let felons vote too.
Dave Surls (271386) — 3/17/2010 @ 9:32 am#24 Dave Surls:
You don’t usually repeat yourself like that…
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/17/2010 @ 9:44 amMy comment, posted at The Hill:
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 3/17/2010 @ 10:23 amIt doesn’t have to be “all the criminals,” it just has to be enough. One word: ACORN.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 3/17/2010 @ 10:25 am“… I am a 45-year-old black man who has not only never been arrested, but who has never been cited for any offense more serious than speeding…”
An obvious race-traitor/sarc.
AD - RtR/OS! (bdaa22) — 3/17/2010 @ 10:32 amIf a man is convicted of a first-time non-violent drug felony and then goes on to become a productive citizen with no subsequent brush-ups with the law, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be treated the same as everyone else.
AJB (4ebc84) — 3/17/2010 @ 11:10 am“If a man is convicted of a first-time non-violent drug felony and then goes on to become a productive citizen with no subsequent brush-ups with the law, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be treated the same as everyone else.”
Yes, but where do you draw the line, and who gets to make that decision? Then, once the line is drawn who argues how thick that line is? And so on. Some people like that there is black and white.
FWIW, I support the original property owners restriction, but that also begs the same questions.
Thomas (4d15b9) — 3/17/2010 @ 12:52 pmPeople convicted of a non violent felony (excluding sex crimes, voting fraud and a few others) and released should be allowed to petition for restoration of voting rights after three years of a clean sheet.
The petition idea is to have the person buy in to the restoration of a privilege. I don’t think it should be automatic.
Steve G (909b57) — 3/17/2010 @ 12:53 pmAJB – so when he is treated the same as everyone else in his classification – those who have been convicted of committing a felony – you are in favour of that ?
Good !
I’m glad you are thinking rationally …
L N Smithee – see what happens when you are rational ?
Isn’t it ironic that this is coming out at the same time as the Speaker of the House is fighting for the right NOT to vote ?
Perhaps we need to restore to felons the right to deem ?
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/17/2010 @ 12:59 pmThis same issue is discussed at The Corner.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmYwODdmZmVjMTFlZTgxYTgxOTY3ZWFlZmYyNjBlZDQ=
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Subotai (a1b58a) — 3/17/2010 @ 1:20 pmOf course, the solution of minorities to just not commit felonies does not occur to civil rights lawyers because civil rights lawyers don’t seem to realize that the victims of minority criminals is other minorities.
And for some strange reason, “civil rights” lawyers have no interest in the victims of criminals.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/17/2010 @ 3:25 pmPeople who have served their sentences – including probation/parole – should be allowed to petition to have their voting rights restored. It’s the American way.
GeneralMalaise (d2bf14) — 3/17/2010 @ 3:54 pmFrom Subotai’s link:
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/17/2010 @ 4:07 pmPersonally, before giving the right to vote back to a “mala in se” criminal (someone who did something wrong in and of itself, as opposed to, say, a drug convict) I’d apply the Test of the Axe. In this test, we put the criminal’s neck on a block, take a motherin’ big axe, and swing it at his neck. If he’s ready to vote, God will protect him and the axe will bounce off. Otherwise…the axe will do what axes are designed to do.
Technomad (e2c0f2) — 3/17/2010 @ 5:31 pmYep, DRJ, certainly reinforces a stereotype I believe …
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:03 pmLook:
Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wyoming permanently prohibit voting rights for felons.
Arizona and Maryland permanently disenfranchise felons after the conviction of a second offense.
You want to be able to vote despite your felony conviction?
The answer it really quite simple: Don’t live in one of those states.
Even if you’re on probation, you’re allowed to move to a different state as long as you arrange it ahead of time.
At what point does “Duh” not seem adequate?
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:22 pmIgotBupkis, I kinda prefer the don’t-commit-a-felony solution. Even simpler.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:28 pmEmphasis added:
> In Louisiana, convicted felons can vote so long as …(snip)… This has worked ok for us here.
Oh, really? Violent crime rate rank is #5.
The top 10:
State/Region———Pop.——-Violent Crime/100k
DC———————–588292—-1414.3
South Carolina—4407709——788.3
Tennessee———–6156719——-753.3
Nevada————–2565382——-750.6
Louisiana———–4293204——-729.5
Florida————–18251243——-722.6
Delaware————-864764——–689.2
New Mexico———1969915——-664.2
Alaska——————683478——-661.2
Maryland————5618344——-641.9
Source: DOJ 2007 statistics
That’s one definition of “works for me”.
Not a typical one, but it’s “a” definition.
Maybe the only reason it’s allowed in the Bayou state is because y’all wouldn’t be able to muster a quorum without it…
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:52 pm😀
> IgotBupkis, I kinda prefer the don’t-commit-a-felony solution. Even simpler.
Oh, I more than amply concur, but it’s getting so “picking your nose within 100 feet of a police officer” is a felony nowadays.
Time was, “don’t make a federal case out of it” actually meant something.
Not any more…
Since the CFR has gotten to be the size of a small library in the last 50 years, it’s getting harder and harder to NOT commit a felony. And the DAs LOVE to charge with federal crimes (many of which are felonies) because it’s easier to get a plea bargain with them as a threat.
Many years ago (>2 decades), I encountered this truism:
“Under any conditions, anywhere, whatever you are doing, there is some
ordinance under which you can be booked.”
– Robert D. Sprecht, Rand Corp. –
I think in the last few decades, that can be safely amended to:
“Under any conditions, anywhere, whatever you are doing, there is some
felony for which you can be booked.”
In both cases, of course, that’s not convicted, mind you, just arrested and charged.
It’s a free country, ain’t it?
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:03 pm😉
> which leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where a person lives;
SFW? This is where the term “vote with your feet” comes from. In this case, you’re doing it literally.
With the high degree of mobility in this country, you can move somewhere else if you don’t like the laws where you are.
Again: DUH.
Hell: Double-DUH.
Creeping Federalism ISN’T a GOOD thing.
Restricting Federalism is one of the prime notions on which this nation is founded, allowing states to actually compete for citizens by writing appropriate laws and by NOT writing bad ones.
We shouldn’t WANT a uniform set of laws across the entire nation. It encourages legislative experimentation and as relaxed a set of laws as possible across the nation, as well as allowing areas to cater to different personal preferences.
If Cali wants to create a socialist paradise for marijuana smoking potheads, they can do it, and the rest of us don’t have to follow suit. If Texas wants to be a gun-totin’ haven for Free Market libertarians, they can do that without the rest of the nation kowtowing to their will.
It’s a good system, let’s not F*** with it.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:39 pm“Congress obviously does not have the authority to abrogate that power unless it passes a constitutional amendment.”
You mean like the 15th amendment?
imdw (1b4b28) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:56 pmLN:
Well said.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:59 pmWell, someone has to point out ina-mada-da-wida’s silliness; so, here goes:
16.If people argue with a straight face that gun control laws are racist, the least they can do is recognize that other laws also can have their roots in jim crow.
— Yet another non sequitur? Really? Ahem . . . Who is it that argues “with a straight face” that gun control laws are racist?
I don’t think there’s any doubt about the disparate impact of felony disenfranchisement laws. Is there? The question is whether that impact is currently or was back then then the intent.
— Of course. It’s always about intent, isn’t it. Denying felons the right to vote was intended to be racist, therefore it must go! Just as the gay marriage ban in CA was intended to be homophobic; right? As for the “disparate impact”, should we fix that by instituting a quota system on felony convictions? If 12% of the US population is black, should we stop convicting black defendents as soon as the black prison population reaches 12%?
You mean like the 15th amendment?
Icy Texan (89b4d9) — 3/18/2010 @ 3:32 am— Well, this should be good for a laugh. What is your interpretation of the 15th Amendment?
“Who is it that argues “with a straight face” that gun control laws are racist? ”
You’ve never heard people point to how gun control is something that came up during jim crow, or was otherwise used to keep black people from having guns? Check it out. The argument is out there. And there is some evidence for it. For example, look into Reagan’s gun control in CA how it was a reaction to the Black Panthers.
“What is your interpretation of the 15th Amendment?”
Mine? The text is pretty simple: a state can’t deny the vote on account of race, and congress has the power to enforce that.
“Denying felons the right to vote was intended to be racist, therefore it must go! ”
If it was intended that way, I agree, it must go.
“As for the “disparate impact”, should we fix that by instituting a quota system on felony convictions?”
Or we could not disenfranchise them.
imdw (89430f) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:06 amRe: Voting with feet. I did, and moved from a state where felons vote, even while incarcerated (Massachusetts, where the last three Speakers of the State House have been indicted for felonies, with two convicted and one still pretrial) to one where they do not.
And while MA, outside its political nomenklatura, is not a high-crime state (oddly enough, it has very-low-crime areas and a few high-crime urban zip codes, the demographics of which I leave as an exercise for the reader), the state I moved to is significantly better in all normal measures of crime.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (82fba3) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:13 amIf we accept “disparate impact” statistical theories, does that mean we need to release more criminals from “impacted” minorities, or perhaps randomly incarcerate more law-abiding folks from groups that have a disparate tendency to colour within the lines?
Why, there’s hardly any Indian or Korean immigrants in the can for violent crimes, how is that fair if they’re not committing their fair share? If we just instituted a criminal draft in the interests of fairness, why, we could probably bring any underperforming race’s criminality up to standard in a few short decades!
So we can dive into social engineering… or maybe we can arrest, try, convict and punish those who actually do harm to others, and let the racial chips fall where they may. Only one of those paths leads to a safer and less skintone-obsessed society.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (82fba3) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:19 am“If we accept “disparate impact” statistical theories, does that mean we need to release more criminals from “impacted” minorities, or perhaps randomly incarcerate more law-abiding folks from groups that have a disparate tendency to colour within the lines?”
The other option is that we don’t have to accept disparate impact for all things. So for example: for incarceration purposes, we don’t use disparate impact, but for voting exclusion, we do. We don’t have to do it that way, but it is an option that avoids the problems you are raising.
imdw (2d0308) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:35 am“If 12% of the US population is black, should we stop convicting black defendents as soon as the black prison population reaches 12%?”
Icy – Obama proposed a law to mandate that the racial composition of police traffic stops conform to the racial composition of the local population while he was a state senator in Illinois, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility. The police were not happy.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/18/2010 @ 4:36 amPatHMV: “Cold Cash” Jefferson. Kathleen Blanco. The Landrieu family. David Vitter. Edwin Edwards. Ray Nagin.
(…wait for it…)
David Duke.
If I were you, I wouldn’t use Louisiana as an example of how felon voting “works.”
L.N. Smithee (eb3307) — 3/18/2010 @ 5:44 amThe Fifteenth Amendment is not the best argument. There has has been a lot of law since then, including three Constitutional Amendments, on the right to vote, as we have seen in the ID requirement recently. There is a general right to vote in citizens now and the question is the burden on the state in trying to limit it. I.e. what is the test, compelling interest, balancing, rational basis …?
nk (db4a41) — 3/18/2010 @ 6:21 amScott, I’m a retired lawyer and I stand behind what I said. Every day, every one of us commits what the law considers felonies. Everything from lying to a copper to driving without a seat belt.
Use your cell phone in your car? Felony – dangerous driving, if some copper thinks so. Open liquor in your home? Felony if under age kids can possibly get at it. Tax returns? Oh my.
Fred Z (0411be) — 3/18/2010 @ 6:43 amNo, Fred Z, none of those are felonies, not even tax evasion unless it’s 20% or more of your income and even then the prosecutor will charge you with a misdemeanor because the civil penalties are so much more severe than the criminal fines.
nk (db4a41) — 3/18/2010 @ 6:47 amAnd as a lawyer you should know you are not guilty of anything until convicted.
nk (db4a41) — 3/18/2010 @ 6:52 amRe: #48
You’ve never heard people point to how gun control is something that came up during jim crow, or was otherwise used to keep black people from having guns? Check it out. The argument is out there. And there is some evidence for it. For example, look into Reagan’s gun control in CA how it was a reaction to the Black Panthers.
— So the answer to my question, which was “Who is it that argues with a straight face that gun control laws are racist?” is YOU.
The text [of the 15th Amendment] is pretty simple: a state can’t deny the vote on account of race, and congress has the power to enforce that.
— And that would have some bearing on this question IF only minority felons were being denied the right to vote.
If it was intended that way, I agree, it must go.
— Did I really need to include a sarc/ tag in my sentence? How could anyone possibly ever prove that any of the various laws that deny the vote to convicted felons were crafted with the intent of denying the vote to minorities? Is somebody gonna unearth a document wherein someone said, “Hey, I’ve got a brilliant idea: we’ll cast a large net & deny the vote to a lot of minorities by denying the vote to all convicted felons”?
Or we could not disenfranchise them.
Icy Texan (89b4d9) — 3/18/2010 @ 7:07 am— Meaning that we take yet another right away from the states. Great.
I learn something new every day here. For instance, I always thought that driving without my seat belt buckled was an infraction, and it didn’t even rise to the level of misdemeanor. But Fred tells us it’s a felony!
Some chump (050674) — 3/18/2010 @ 7:26 am“– So the answer to my question, which was “Who is it that argues with a straight face that gun control laws are racist?” is YOU.”
You’ve never seen the pro-gun propaganda on this?
“And that would have some bearing on this question IF only minority felons were being denied the right to vote. ”
No it doesn’t require that only minorities get impacted.
imdw (8222e7) — 3/18/2010 @ 7:55 amOkay, here is what you and the pro-gun propogandists have in common: you’re both wrong.
And what exactly is the requirement for the 15th Amendment to apply to our discussion?
Icy Texan (89b4d9) — 3/18/2010 @ 8:09 am“…The other option is that we don’t have to accept disparate impact for all things…”
There is that inconvenient “Equal Protection of the Laws” thingie…
Of course, it would be easier if someone could actually prove that “disparate impact” has some scientific validity, rather than “feelings”.
AD - RtR/OS! (7a1f69) — 3/18/2010 @ 8:29 amThere is a perfect correlation between restrictions on gun ownership and number of black people, in a municipality or a state, imdw. It’s very easy to check. The more black people, the less the right to keep and bear arms.
nk (db4a41) — 3/18/2010 @ 8:51 am“An armed n****r is a dangerous n****r and that’s a fact.”
nk channeling Mayor Daley (db4a41) — 3/18/2010 @ 8:54 amHere’s the investigatory study. Start with Vermont and Alaska, and with Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. Then work to the middle.
nk the trained scientific researcher (db4a41) — 3/18/2010 @ 9:05 amMaybe it’s percentage of black people in the population, nk. I would almost guarantee there are more black people in Texas than there are in Rhode Island, and the gun laws are less restrictive in Texas.
Some chump (050674) — 3/18/2010 @ 9:33 amnk…why waste your time, imadickwad is incapable of anything other than spewing the usual Leftist pablum that it finds on the tray attached to its’ high-chair.
Reason is above its’ paygrade!
AD - RtR/OS! (7a1f69) — 3/18/2010 @ 9:36 amIIRC, RI passed its’ restrictive gun-laws not becuase of Blacks, but because there were too many people with vowels in their names (a despised minority is still stepped on, no matter their color).
AD - RtR/OS! (7a1f69) — 3/18/2010 @ 9:38 am“There is that inconvenient “Equal Protection of the Laws” thingie…”
Like we could have some laws that we apply a discriminatory intent standard to, and some we apply a disparate impact standard to.
“Of course, it would be easier if someone could actually prove that “disparate impact” has some scientific validity, rather than “feelings”.”
It would seem to me that disparate impact is all about the numbers, not feelings. But what the hell do I know? I’m arguing with people on the internet.
imdw (b40b74) — 3/18/2010 @ 9:54 amNo, you’re arguing with the voices in your head – and always have.
AD - RtR/OS! (7a1f69) — 3/18/2010 @ 10:04 am“…disparate impact is all about the numbers…”
“Lies, Damn Lies, and then there are Statistics!”
AD - RtR/OS! (7a1f69) — 3/18/2010 @ 10:06 amStatistics show that something happens, they don’t show that it happens at different rates because of racism.
But then, imdw pretending not to get the point … that’s a dog bites man story.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/18/2010 @ 10:10 am“Statistics show that something happens, they don’t show that it happens at different rates because of racism.”
Indeed. That’s why disparate impact can be shown by numbers. Disparate impact is just the happening. The why is something different.
imdw (c5488f) — 3/18/2010 @ 10:38 am“Disparate Impact” is just another example of the corruption of reasoned thought by socialistic/psychiatric mumbo-jumbo.
AD - RtR/OS! (7a1f69) — 3/18/2010 @ 10:59 amNumbers are meaningless without the “why”!
> and it didn’t even rise to the level of misdemeanor. But Fred tells us it’s a felony!
Give it time, me boyo, give it time.
There’s just too many other laws which can be made into felonies.
NBretagna (79d71d) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:44 amSo many laws… and they keep passing more and more every day!!
> It would seem to me that disparate impact is all about the numbers, not feelings.
I feel you are off your rocker. Do I have to get numbers to prove it?
Which numbers? Is a show of hands around here sufficient, or do I have to use numbers you select for the purpose?
“Equal treatment” does not mean “Equal results“. That’s where your numbers are idiotic to apply.
Example: Men are convicted of rape far more than women are. Rape laws clearly have a “disparate impact on men” by your argument. Shall we invalidate rape laws until they represent “equal numbers”, or do you want to concede that your argument is just flat out obviously and blatantly moronic?
Unless black men are expressly targeted for arrest and prosecution in numbers NOT REPRESENTING their commission of crimes as a percentage of the populace, there is no “unequal treatment” going on.
QED — not only are you not right, you aren’t even wrong. You’re just an idiot claiming the relevance and applicability of something blatantly irrelevant and inapplicable.
NBretagna (79d71d) — 3/21/2010 @ 1:53 am