Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he thinks every U.S. citizen, even the convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, should be allowed to vote in American elections.
Sanders offered his stance at a CNN town hall Monday when asked whether he thought felons should be allowed to vote while they're incarcerated, not just after their release.
"Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, 'Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,' you're running down a slippery slope," Sanders said in response to a question about restoring felons' voting rights.
California Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who appeared separately at St. Anslem on Monday night, were also posed questions about whether or not to allow convicted felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentences.Harris, a former prosecutor and state attorney general, was considerably more circumspect.
"I think we should have that conversation," Harris said, adding that voting rights should not be "stripped" needlessly.
I wouldn't say "circumspect." I would say "weaseling." Surely she has thought about it enough to have an opinion on it. Why not tell us what it is? It's not a hard question. Forty-eight states bar felons from voting while in prison.
Buttigieg didn't hesitate when asked whether felons should be allowed to vote white serving their sentences.
"No," he said. "I do believe that when you are, when you have served your sentence, then part of being restored to society is that you are part of the political life of this nation again and one of the things that needs to be restored is your right to vote."
Okay, given the audience, I can see throwing it that extra bit. But at least he gave a straightforward, and correct IMHO, answer to the main question.
What do you see, Kent, as the logical stopping point for disenfranchisement based on past bad acts?
I think Bernie's slippery slope point is that the rationale/logic that supports denying prisoners the right to vote also supports denying probationers the right to vote and supports denying the right to vote to both groups indefinitely. And the rationale/logic for denying the right to felons also can readily support denying the right to misdemeanants and even those who speed and anyone who breaks any criminal law (and maybe even those who break civil laws).
It is logical, and I think consistent with a commitment to democracy, to say that all competent citizens get a right to vote (perhaps maybe with a capital punishment/voter fraud exception). I am not sure of the logic that supports a claim that "serious" criminals should not get to vote, but less serious ones do. If you can provide a sound rationale for drawing voting distinctions here, I will better understand your criticism of "Crazy (but consistent) Bernie." (As you know, other rules that limit prisoner rights relative to non-prisoners are generally justified by prison safety concerns or other like institutional interests, but I do not see those applicable here.)
If you allow slippery slope arguments that broad to preclude a rule of law, then few rules would not be precluded.
A logical stopping point is that conviction of a felony removes the right to vote for the duration of the sentence.
I think we can call BS on Bernie being “consistent”, when he has stated to do away with the organizations that help the incarcerated and those released from prison the most, charities.
Do you agree that those are two inconsistent positions? He and the rest of the rabble rousers want one thing, to expand the Democratic base.
In reverse order:
Tarls: Doing away with charities is a terrible idea for lots of reasons, but allowing prisoners to vote is not for me an issue of "helping" the incarcerated. Rather, allowing the governed citizenry to vote seems to be an essential element of a functioning democracy --- especially given that we count prisoners for census/apportionment purposes AND they are as citizens part of the polity subject to being governed and all the consequences of the laws and decisions made by representatives. If one wants to make the claim that, by virtue of a crime, persons render themselves incompetent to exercise the franchise, then I do not understand why completing their sentence quite matters. (And, on your last point, Jared Kushner has said to Laura Ingraham recently that re-enfranchised felons in Florida are registering R more than D.)
Kent: Your logic suggests misdemeanants should get to vote even while serving an extended period in jail BUT felons serving long terms of probation or supervised release do not get to vote over that time. Do I have that right? For you, it seems, conviction for a felony is key and that the right to vote is extinguished for the entirety of the sentence even when a person is subject only to community supervision. I presume you also would say that defendants accused, but not yet convicted, serving time in pretrial custody also should be allowed to vote.
Put other way, your suggested principle actually says a lot of current incarcerated persons should have the right to vote (roughly 500,000, I think) and a lot of non-incarcerated persons should not (roughly 4 or 5 million). Also, I am not sure what you have in mind for the roughly 1 million registered sex offenders subject to various restrictions that some courts (but not all) consider punishment --- dare we call this the Anthony Weiner question (though he is still on supervised release).
Am I wrong to consider it illogical this rule would deny the franchise to a non-violent felon that a judge thinks needs only a five-year term of probation sentence, while it would safeguard the right to vote for the repeat domestic abuser given 360 days in jail for misdemeanor DV?
Democracy, as I see it, is defined by allowing all competent citizens to vote. Committing various crimes call for various punishment, but absent an argument for making revocation of citizenship a form of punishment again, it seems to me that prisoners retain their status as citizens and thus should have a right to vote.
A state could include felony probationers in its disenfranchisement law or not. Either one would be a clear line in answer to your original point. (California does not.) I lean toward including them but don't feel strongly one way or the other.
No, I don't think it is illogical to draw the line at felonies versus misdemeanors. If you think a given misdemeanor is more serious than a given felony, you are disagreeing with the classification of those particular crimes.
I think the importance of this issue to the defendants is vastly overstated. Seriously, how many people charged with a crime, when discussing the possible consequences with their lawyer, really ask about voting as one of their primary concerns. I suspect that a defense lawyer could go through his whole career without having a single client ask that.
Finally, I do not think that democracy requires extending the vote to all citizens. Children are citizens, but they can't vote. Excluding felons from the franchise is fully compatible with democracy as demonstrated by long-standing and almost universal laws.
I’m not sure how allowing tens of thousands of people to vote for politicians who share their law enforcement policies is not being helpful.
Let’s assume you are right. Do you believe that Sanders will be “consistent” by having the same opinion regarding felons, rapists, DV abusers and the 2A? Kamala? Castro?
Out of curiosity, are you consistent? After all, it is no less a foundational element of our republic.
TARLS: I try to be consistent, but I welcome input on how I can be more consistent. And speaking of consistent, a whole lot of GOP leaders, including Prez Trump, now consistently favor reducing some prison sentences and providing more rehabilitative services to prisoners. Indeed, GOP leaders were key to getting the FIRST STEP Act passed when both houses of Congress and the Prez were in GOP hands. There is a reasonable basis for a person now interest in CJ reform to back the "Right on Crime" politicians.
I think you are right that Ds want to limit gun rights, but not only for felons but for everyone. Indeed, if consistency is important, why do folks who see gun rights based in the inalienable right of self defense think anyone should lose that right based on any crime? I see less consistency on the gun-rights side (since they selectively pick who gets these rights), than on the gun-grabber side (since they say nobody should have a gun).
KENT: I think you are indirectly making Bernie's point. If it makes sense to deny the franchise to prisoners, why not also probationers, why not also misdemeanants (in or out of jail), and why not forever. Bernie's point is, once you decide "some people" do not deserve to vote (prisoners), then it becomes easier to say other people (probationers), and other people (misdemeanants) should not get to vote either. If you believe a robust democracy is that much stronger with a broad franchise, one should resist claims that certain groups can and should be precluded from voting. (Kids are unique in that we deny them lots of rights that demand some maturity (e.g., contracting), though I personally would like to set the voting age at 16 or even lower.)
You are right, of course, that clear lines can be drawn and always have been in this arena. But was it a good line to exclude blacks and women and 20 year olds from voting (all long-standing exclusions until constitutional amendments)? Or do you think we now have a better, stronger democracy now that blacks and women and 20 year olds have the right to vote?
Of course, lots and lots of people do not care about voting rights --- in fact, the vast majority of Americans fail to vote in most elections --- and I agree that prisoners likely do not care much. But again, this is not really about prisoners; it is about our conception of democracy. I think democracy is better/stronger when more people have a right to vote, even if they squander or do not care about this right.
And, your suggestion that democracies universally exclude felons is flat wrong now. Here is some info on this front as summarized by Wikipedia:
"most European states, including most of those outside the European Union, have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, and thereby agreed to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In the case Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) the Court in 2005 found that general rules for automatic disenfranchisements resulting from convictions to be against human rights. This ruling applied equally for prisoners and for ex-convicts....
"In Germany the law calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the 'democratic order', such as treason, are barred from voting while in prison....
"Most democracies give convicted criminals the same voting rights as other citizens.
"In Taiwan the abrogation of political rights is a form of punishment used in sentencing, available only for some crimes or along with a sentence of death or imprisonment for life....
"In New Zealand, people who are in prison are not entitled to enroll while they are in prison. Persons who are convicted of electoral offenses in the past 3 years cannot vote or stand for office. In November 2018, the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions are inconsistent with the nation's Bill of Rights.
"Many countries allow inmates to vote, including Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, and Zimbabwe."
I cannot vouch for all these particular, but it certainly suggests that disenfranchisement is the exception, not the rule, in many democracies.
Douglas,
It looks like you are doing yoga to avoid the actual issues.
1) My question to you was clearly not about your general consistency. I was speaking about one specific issue, restoring fundamental rights to felons and others guilty of DV, forcible rape, etc.
2) Items such as First Step are not fundamental rights but are mere policy issues. Irrelevant to this discussion.
3) Again, I was clearly not judging consistency based on their gun control positions. Where they are inconsistent is in the issue of reinstating fundamental rights to criminals. If you read the constitution, it is clear that the right to own guns is at least as much of a fundamental right as the right to vote. To want one right reinstated but not the other is illogical (and inconsistent).
"Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, 'Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,' you're running down a slippery slope,'"
NON-SEQUITUR
~~ The decreasing of felon voting rights is nowhere to be found.
The only slippery slope here is in his mind. Thus, this stinks of a
straw-man argument, and 'virtue signaling'. Simply because one
disallows a mass-murderer from voting, means not that a petty
thief who completed his time will not be allowed to vote.
Perhaps this Marxist is unfamiliar with the concept of proportion.
ADAMAKIS: A person convicted of their of more than $500 in Kentucky is permanently barred from voting in that state. Florida has a similar law until a recent voter initiative. Felon disenfranchisement remains broad throughout the US, and Govs in states like Kentucky and Virginia in recent years have rolled back efforts to re-enfranchise lots of lower level offenders. This is reality, though one that could be change quickly if all folks on the right started to support voting rights for everyone except mass murderers. Will you join me in efforts to ensure everyone other than mass murderers have voting rights in the US (as they do throughout much of the world)?
TARLS:
1. I favor restoring gun rights and all other rights and all other civil rights to all persons ASAP subject to restrictions based on clear established public safety concerns --- e.g., I do not want a serial child abuser to have full parental rights, and I would not want a serial gun criminal to have full gun rights. Voting rights, unlike some others, present no risk of being used to hurt others AND there is some empirical evidence that former offenders who vote have a lower recidivism rate (though selection bias is surely part of this story). If you check out my Second Amendment issues link on my blog (https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/second_amendment_issues/), you will see I often praise Justice Thomas for complaining about the second-class status too often given to 2A right by folks on both sides of the aisle.
2. In my view, liberty is the most fundamental of all rights for the living, and thus laws (like FIRST STEP) which impact how much liberty will be deprived and the conditions of that deprivation are not "mere policy issues." I surmise you may think access to arms is more "fundamental" than how government deprives basic liberty, but I presume you would not claim that prisoners should have access to guns while in prison (even though they are often subject to attacks and might well reasonably need to defend themselves). Unless you are going to argue prisoners should have access to guns in prison, we all have to acknowledge that gun rights are distinctive. Notably, prisoners have a right to sustenance, basic medical care, religious accommodation, and other matters related to life and liberty. That nobody argues gun right should be in the mix (even for non-violent offenders in prison) reveals gun rights are different. This obviously related to public safety, as discussed in point 1, but then I return to the reality that it could be quick consistent in the name of public safety to say various people (like prisoners or thieves) should have broad voting rights but not broad gun rights.
3. I think most folks on the left still resist Heller and the modern jurisprudence treating individual gun rights as fundamental (or as fundamental as other rights). That seems to be where folks on the left dispute your logic and can claim not be in inconsistent. I get you think they are wrong, but I would like to hear if you think that everyone given the right to vote in any state should necessarily also have the right to own a gun. Right now, as you know, federal law criminalizes all felon possession of guns for life and even gun possession by some misdemeanants. Do you think this federal law is unconstitutional when applied to any and everyone in the states given voting rights?
I acknowledge that my use of the word "universal" in yesterday's 3:20 was poor phrasing. I intended only to refer back to my earlier comment that 48 of 50 states have felon disenfranchisement laws, but I can easily see how that could be interpreted to be an assertion about other countries' practices, for which I apologize.
On the merits of international practice, as to Europe I take the Rhett Butler position. Frankly, I don't give a damn. Europe is so consistently wrong about so many things, especially criminal justice, that the persuasive value of European practice is close to zero and possibly negative. According to the quote you posted, in two of the three other English-law-based democracies mentioned the enfranchisement of incarcerated felons came from judicial activism rather than democratic choice; it does not state the source of the third.
On the slippery slope argument, I thought my first comment, "If you allow slippery slope arguments that broad to preclude a rule of law, then few rules would not be precluded," would have disposed of the point, but apparently not.
On a road that I often drive home, the speed limit is 55 mph. It is set there, rather than the 70 that many people prefer to drive, to reduce accidents. By the same logic, one might say, it would make sense to lower it further, maybe down to 10. To avoid this slippery slope we should have no speed limit at all. That would be a silly argument, but not much sillier than Bernie's.
Drawing lines always involves weighing competing interests. It often happens that the further you move the line the less benefit and more cost you get. Reducing the speed limit reduces the utility of the road and increases the time wasted in travel rather than on productive activities. At some point it is not worth it. Bernie's "by the same logic" argument is obviously fallacious for ignoring this inherent characteristic of line-drawing.
In order to play the race card, you conflate the slippery slope issue with the merits issue. Yes, past exclusions from the franchise based on demographic characteristics beyond a person's control were clear but bad rules. I do not believe that anything I have said can reasonably be interpreted to assert that merely because a rule is clear it is also good. The clarity point was in response to your question as to whether I saw a logical stopping point. That is all.
On the merits, there is no comparison between (1) denying the vote based on a person's voluntary choice to commit a major violation of the rights of another person or an act gravely detrimental to society and (2) denying it based on inherent characteristics beyond the person's control such as race or sex.
Sorry, Kent, if you thought I was suggested any improper views on your part. I am not. I used the race, gender and age examples because the US has a long history of limiting the franchise and then, after expansion, concluding that we are a better and stronger democracy as a result for allowing more people to vote.
The use of speed limits as your parallel point provides a good example of how this ultimately comes down to fundamental values. If you think voting rights are of no greater importance than how fast people can drive (and also if you think the "wrong people" voting is as dangerous as speeding), then you likely see more benefits than harms from restricting the franchise. But if you think the very legitimacy of laws in a society turns on how truly democratic our system is (and if you do not see any valid concern with the "wrong people" voting), then you see only harms and no real benefits in restricting the franchise.
Put simply, if you primary governing value is democracy (and you know the history of the denial of the franchise in this setting and others), you should see Bernie's point (even if you do not agree with it). If you prioritize other values or do not think there is any modern relevance to the ugly history of disenfranchisement in the US and elsewhere (which Bernie is old enough to remember first-hand), then Bernie's point will perhaps be off-putting.
Last but not least, I view voting not only as a right but as a responsibility of the citizenry. So viewed, I especially want to urge persons who commit crimes to become more responsible citizens.
You are again conflating the merits argument with the slippery slope argument. My use of the speed limit example says nothing about fundamental values. It is a point of logic.
On the merits argument, you seem to be committing the fallacy of assuming the conclusion. You believe that allowing a multiple-murdering terrorist to retain his vote makes our society "truly democratic," but I do not.
This thread is long in the tooth, and I will drop it here. You can have the last word if you like.
I appreciate the engagement, Kent, and I will conclude by saying simply that I think a society is more democratic when more of its citizens are allowed to vote, and so as a fan of democracy I am a fan of letting more citizens vote. Thanks again.