Santorum’s stance on felon voting is extremely troubling. He is wrong to racialize this issue — to suggest that one’s stance on this issue should be affected by the racial makeup of the felons. He was also wrong to federalize this issue — to have voted for federal intervention in this area that is committed by the Constitution to the states — and wrong not just as a matter of policy, but wrong because the bill he supported exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. And he is wrong on the merits — to say that the right to vote should be restored automatically to someone once he walks out of prison (and has no more probation or parole). The right to vote should be restored on a case-by-case basis, looking at the seriousness of the crime committed, how recently it was committed, and whether it was one of a series of crimes.
I explain why Congress lacks authority to require states to let felons vote (in the context of a different bill from the one Sen. Santorum voted before, but similar in that regard) in my testimony here.
BTW, I take no position on Sen. Santorum’s claim that Gov. Romney is hypocritical not to have urged Massachusetts to have tightened its even more liberal law, but Gov. Romney is correct that changing the law might have been difficult in Massachusetts — indeed, he might have understated the difficulty, since it would have required a constitutional amendment (and in fact the state constitution had just been tightened up from allowing felons in prison to vote).
Well said Mr Clegg, we see a few who have such a misguided bias against Mr. Romney, they simply more excited to see Romney repeatedly interrupted.
But what Rick Santorum said, just like he did in the recent interview with Wallace on FOX last Sunday, was embarrassing. Rick was like a typical Washington Politician who claimed he was wrongly charged supporting giving Felons an opportunity to vote again, then in the next few sentences he told us he does indeed support giving a Felon the opportunity to vote again after they finish their incarceration, probation, etc..
Rick reveals again, on this stage tonight, he does embrace giving a Felon the right to vote again. He will say anything to spin it, but the charges were accurate.
Even this evening, when confronted about his vote and support for the Prescription Drug effort, Rick simply abandoned it. He did the typical Washington Politician dance, running away from his prior offering.
Not very attractive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStrange position for Santorum to take. This is social conservatism? Anyhoo, Roger, you better be careful about criticizing Santorum around here. K-Lo, Lisa and Quin will pounce on anybody who questions their beloved Rick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is social conservatism?"
Well, most social conservatives are Christians. I believe Christianity preaches some crazy nonsense about forgiveness, redemption, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Well, most social conservatives are Christians. I believe Christianity preaches some crazy nonsense about forgiveness, redemption, etc."
Okay, do voting rights for convicted felons case-by-case and very, VERY carefully. Don't understand why Santy is going left on the issue. He's not getting any votes there and it messes up his pure-conservative pitch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I was saying, I don't think it's a purely liberal issue. Bible Belt governors seem to have a great propensity for pardoning felons under the auspices of forgiveness (Huckabee, Barbour, etc.).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we forgive someone without giving them the right to vote back?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously, people who are sentenced to life in prison can be forgiven but will never again have the right to vote. But if we truly believe in redemption, how are we justified in withholding rights from a person who has served his or her time? Does it make sense to forever restrict the voting rights of someone who lifts a car at age 18? Is there some public safety concern associated with voting I'm unware of?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all I think this is something that is not something in need of federal action. States have their own laws on this, and I think that is fine. Many states have a system that allows felons to apply to have their voting rights restored after some time, that is what I would support at the state level in my state, and would not try to impose that on other states. I certainly don't support giving the 18 year old felon his voting rights back the minute he steps out of prison or the half-way house. That is something he has to earn back and I don't think sitting in a prison for a few years lifting weights, playing basketball, reading law books, and watching TV is enough proof that you are now a citizen whose say in an election contributes positively to the outcome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure that your say in an election, Richard, contributes positively to the outcome. Then again, I realize that you're an autonomous human being entitled to all the rights commensurate with personhood, so my opinion is immaterial. You, in contrast, seem to feel that a person who has committed a crime and paid his or her debt to society is more or less your property until you to relinquish your claim -- predicated, of course, on whether he or she is the 'right' kind of person. What other fundamental rights do you feel empowered to restrict, Richard, and on what basis?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure that your say in an election, Richard, contributes positively to the outcome. Then again, I realize that you're an autonomous human being entitled to all the rights commensurate with personhood, so my opinion is immaterial. You, in contrast, seem to feel that a person who has committed a crime and paid his or her debt to society is more or less your property until you to relinquish your claim -- predicated, of course, on whether he or she is the 'right' kind of person. What other fundamental rights do you feel empowered to restrict, Richard, and on what basis?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> Does it make sense to forever restrict the voting rights of someone
> who lifts a car at age 18?
Sigh.
Of course it does, since a significant percentage of ex-felons are African American from urban areas ... how many of these folks vote for Republican candidates?
MARCU$
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, mlindroos, we both know what's really going on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And he is wrong on the merits — to say that the right to vote should be restored automatically to someone once he walks out of prison (and has no more probation or parole)."
What other rights should we continue to withhold from someone who has served his or her time? Once someone has committed a felony, do we have carte blanche to restrict his or her rights indefinitely and to any degree we so choose? As a matter of public safety, voting is a pretty innocuous activity; it's not as if there's a powerful interest group of felons lobbying to enable criminality. So why not do something that would actually improve public safety? Is there any reason, Mr. Clegg, why we shouldn't permanently implant a tracking device in the body of every felon?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm willing to be proven wrong, but I believe the bill in question restored voting rights for felons who committed federal crimes, and would not be a usurpation of the states' ability to choose to restore to felons who completed their sentences the right to vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse