On January 30, a cert petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Simmons v Galvin, 09-920. The issue is whether the federal Voting Rights Act was meant to apply to state laws that make it illegal for ex-felons or felons to register to vote. Here is the cert petition. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The case is from Massachusetts. The vote in Simmons v Galvin had been 2-1, when that case was in the First Circuit. The majority had ruled that Congress never meant the Voting Rights Act to apply to that issue. Another issue in Simmons v Galvin is whether Massachusetts violated the ex post facto part of the U.S. Constitution in 2000, when it changed its policy and banned felons from voting. The case argues that Massachusetts cannot do that retroactively. That all hinges on whether disenfranchisement is considered “punishment.”
Partly a brain dead case.
Punishment = loss of life, liberty or property.
Voting = an OBVIOUS part of liberty.
Since when can a Fed law subvert 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 —
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, [[[except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,]]] the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Such sentence took the direct work of about 15 Congress folks about 6 months in 1866.
The ex post facto punishment stuff is a separate matter — for which the Supremes should blast Mass.
I admit Demo has a point. When felons are denied the right to vote, a state’s population for representation should be reduced accordingly.
We could always count them as 2/3s of a person. That worked well before, right?
3/5 — but (heh) who’s counting? . . .
Next step from Obama and Eric Holder, granting Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other Islamic Terrorists the right to vote in US elections. I mean after all they’re “residents” of the United States, no?
Why’s it such a stretch to go from a convicted murderer in a US prison, giving him the right to vote, to a terrorist on American soil?
Because the terrorists usually aren’t US citizens, so they shouldn’t have the right to vote.
Also, terrorism by a US citizen could be defined as treason, which should be the only crime that takes away your right to vote.