Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wash Times tells us Sotomayor wants to let prisoners vote?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 12:44 PM
Original message
Wash Times tells us Sotomayor wants to let prisoners vote?
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state's refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote. Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision. In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Judge Jose Cabranes, who like Ms. Sotomayor was appointed by President Bill Clinton, didn't find the matter to be so clear. His majority decision against the criminal felons, in favor of the state, comprised 36 tightly reasoned pages. Particularly compelling is the fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed to help further the aims of the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments. The 14th Amendment specifically allows states to deny the vote to those convicted of crimes.

Ms. Sotomayor is thus in the position of asserting that Congress can prohibit New York from doing something the Constitution itself specifically endorses. It's as if she thinks black and Hispanic felons are convicted in order to deny them the vote, rather than that they are denied the vote as a result of being duly convicted. Her position ignores the fact that it is the convicts' own actions, their crimes - not any state-based racial discrimination - that make those felons ineligible to vote.

As almost every state has done since the United States was founded, New York forbids currently incarcerated or paroled prisoners from voting. Some states go even farther by prohibiting some felons from voting even after they have served their sentences. New York's law is not so stringent. It only applies to felons still under criminal sentences. It equally applies to all felons, black or white.

There is growing evidence that Judge Sotomayor believes some races are more equal than others. She said in a 2001 speech that she would expect a Latina judge to reach the right decision more often than would a white male judge. Her dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki is another example of her taking racial grievance-mongering to absurd new depths. They are depths unbefitting a Supreme Court justice.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/the-franchise-for-felons/

They come with something everyday



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Diamonique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but...
... I've always thought prisoners should be able to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Me, too.
We need to do what it takes to allow those incarcerated to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Me too (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. I agree fully, every single adult citizens should be allowed to vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Other countries do it.
http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/vote0604.html

Stark Raven News
June 21, 2004

About one-third of prisoners registered to vote in the June 28 federal election. This is the first time that prisoners in the federal system have been able to vote.

In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on voting was unconstitutional.

Voting day for prisoners was on June 18th. Of those registered, it was not certain how many actually came out to vote.

More than twelve thousand prisoners in Canada's 53 federal prisons were eligible to vote.

There are 4 ways a prisoner can vote. They can vote in the riding where they last resided or the current address of their spouse or common-law. They can choose the address that appears on file for their place of arrest or the courthouse in which they were convicted. They are not permitted to vote in the riding of the prison, unless it is the same as one that falls within one of the 4 criteria.

This was done as the authorities wanted to prevent a bloc of prisoners from influencing the outcome of the prison's riding. Many see this as a problem and argue that prisoners should be allowed to vote in the region where they are living. The decisions made in the riding of the prison are the ones that most affect their lives.

In the past, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he would strip prisoners of the right to vote by using the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution.

Related Articles on prisonjustice.ca: Federal Prisoners To Vote in Upcoming Election
Source: cbc.ca
winnipeg.cbc.ca

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Google search:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=prisoners+voting+in+canada&aq=1&oq=prisoners+voting&aqi=g2&=Google+Search&=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky&fp=1mZ_-PL2Zjc

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=prisoners+voting+rights&aq=f&oq=prisoners+voting+in+canada&aqi=&aq=0&oq=prisoners+voting+&aqi=g2&fp=1mZ_-PL2Zjc


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Me too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. so will the GOP bring this up during the hearings?
will there be a debate about Hayden v. Pataki and voting rights? Obama must have known this could be an issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Of course it will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brooklyns_Finest Donating Member (747 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't
I don't think prisoners should be allowed to vote, but once they are released, they should have their full voting rights reinstated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Polling places are installed in jails here...
but then again, this is not the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-30-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. I haven't read her ruling, but that article doesn't match the headline.
... she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.


"Allowing a claim to go forward" doesn't mean she "endorses" voting by felons. What that "bit" says to me is that she thinks there are plausible holes in the VRA that, looked at from another angle, show an avenue for dissent about what the VRA says and means. What legislators want to do with that (patch the law up so the holes are no longer there, for example) is another issue entirely.

They may not like the way she arrived at her opinion, but her opinion isn't quite saying what they are saying it is saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC