Denying felons the right to vote is
discriminatory
Editor:
Recently, Sharon Browne and Roger Clegg of the Los Angeles Times argued that discriminatory laws are constitutional under the 15th Amendment if "there is no ... discriminatory intent," no matter what the actual effect of those laws.
Thus, they say, laws denying convicted felons the right to vote for their entire lives are not discriminatory — even if the conviction is reversed — although by vastly disproportionate numbers, such laws deny only African-Americans and Native Americans the right to vote.
This article says such discrimination is legal despite the words of the 15th Amendment, which say, "The right of citizens ... to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race."
The authors' own bias is revealed when they argue no intentional discrimination enters into the passage of such laws. Obviously, they are unable to cite supportive data to this effect.
Let's consider the general principle that the intent of a law is all we should consider in judging that law, no matter what its actual effect.
Less than 100 years ago, the intent of the law was to elect the best people to office. Yet one of the effects of this principle across the nation was to deny women the right to vote. Applying this same intent less than 200 years ago, the entire minority Indian and black populations of the country were denied the right to vote.
The effect of the discriminatory felony law is precisely the same as these earlier bigoted laws, no matter what benign intent advocates may claim. It's time such racist prejudicial practices are ended once and for all.
Lest one feel that the felony-voter statutes have no significant effect on elections, consider that most experts feel the Florida vote in the Al Gore-George Bush election would have gone to Gore except for the onerous effects of the felony-voter laws in Florida. Thus Gore would have avoided the gratuitous, unlawful war in Iraq. And by concentrating our efforts in Afghanistan, we would have long-since prevailed in that war.
Bill Thackeray
Havre
Editor:
Recently, Sharon Browne and Roger Clegg of the Los Angeles Times argued that discriminatory laws are constitutional under the 15th Amendment if "there is no ... discriminatory intent," no matter what the actual effect of those laws.
Thus, they say, laws denying convicted felons the right to vote for their entire lives are not discriminatory — even if the conviction is reversed — although by vastly disproportionate numbers, such laws deny only African-Americans and Native Americans the right to vote.
This article says such discrimination is legal despite the words of the 15th Amendment, which say, "The right of citizens ... to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race."
The authors' own bias is revealed when they argue no intentional discrimination enters into the passage of such laws. Obviously, they are unable to cite supportive data to this effect.
Let's consider the general principle that the intent of a law is all we should consider in judging that law, no matter what its actual effect.
Less than 100 years ago, the intent of the law was to elect the best people to office. Yet one of the effects of this principle across the nation was to deny women the right to vote. Applying this same intent less than 200 years ago, the entire minority Indian and black populations of the country were denied the right to vote.
The effect of the discriminatory felony law is precisely the same as these earlier bigoted laws, no matter what benign intent advocates may claim. It's time such racist prejudicial practices are ended once and for all.
Lest one feel that the felony-voter statutes have no significant effect on elections, consider that most experts feel the Florida vote in the Al Gore-George Bush election would have gone to Gore except for the onerous effects of the felony-voter laws in Florida. Thus Gore would have avoided the gratuitous, unlawful war in Iraq. And by concentrating our efforts in Afghanistan, we would have long-since prevailed in that war.
Bill Thackeray
Havre
It was his idea that if he only prosecuted mostly the minorities(blacks, hispanic, and Native American) and not whites, that eventually the only voters left would be white, Republican voters. Guess what, it worked like a charm. It still does, doesn't it. Don't let 'em fool you, that's what the "war on drugs" is about. It's all about maintaining the ruling class. It never was about drugs.
Nixon's scheme resulted in a modern day "Jim Crow" society in which the ruling class would always be well off, white people. Does that sound like "benign intent"?
One look at the faces in the state prison in Shelby ought to be a good hint. You'd think the only criminals in the state were Native Americans if you saw the faces in there. They are not voting either. They never will, as it stands now.
It might be comforting to some, but it's an injustice to deny the vote to anyone. Injustice will always come back to haunt you. Or it'll haunt somebody. Our grandkids, maybe. But somebody, sometime.
There is a part of human nature that thirsts for justice. We won't ever stop trying to get a drink of it. You can slow down the search, but you can't stop it. People only get thirstier. We all know that.