Comments on: Clinton Proposes Election Holiday and Ex-Felon Voting

By: Iceman_1955

Iceman_1955 — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:18:25 +0000

Yet another Federal holiday??
Who gets these holidays off anyway? Federal employees, students, banks, Post Office.
Now you are asking employers to pay the price yet again. An employer should demand proof that the person actually voted. If you cant make it to the polls because of your job I have 2 words VOTE ABSENTEE

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:11:57 +0000

And by the way, unless one has been pardoned or his conviction expunged, one does not become an "ex-felon" by virtue of finishing one's sentence, any more than one becomes an "ex-murderer."

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:08:41 +0000

Disability from voting rights is an ancient consequence of a felony conviction -- indeed, it's a consequence that (like the possibility of imprisonment for a year or more) has historically distinguished felonies from misdemeanors. Many states have provisions to allow for restoration of voting rights on a case-by-case basis; others don't deny felons voting rights at all, once they've completed their sentences and probationary periods. What good reason is there for taking this out of state government hands? (Unless by "good reason" you mean "It will create more votes for Democrats," which I presume is Sen. Clinton's rationale.)

By: oldtom

oldtom — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:36:45 +0000

How about an ammendment to the bill requiring proof of citizenship?

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:24:41 +0000

"I think theyâd be more likely to consider compulsory voting to fall under that definition."

Depends on which box they check.

By: John

John — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:57:54 +0000

My experience with Florida's "early voting" was excellent. With polling places open, for several weeks before elections day including Saturdays (at least in part), there is no insuperable obstacle to voting--by anyone.

Florida is one of the numerous states which prohibit felons (ex- or current) from voting, though ex-felons can petition to have their voting rights restored. That, in principal, is fine with me. The Constitutions says each state sets up its own rules about who votes.

But bureaucratic ineptitude in keeping records straight does result in unfairness and the improper restriction of voting rights. If the bureaucracy can be fixed, then loss of franchise is not unreasonable or unfair. If the bureaucracy continues to fumble, maybe the best result could be obtained by voiding those laws. But I still want it done on a state-by-state basis, not through federal dictat.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:25:50 +0000

LJD, considering the typical election turnout in all but the most recent election cycles, I hardly think that keeping felons and ex-felons (and I have no doubt you know the difference) from voting can seriously be dubbed "cruel and unusual punishment." I think they'd be more likely to consider compulsory voting to fall under that definition.

By: Scott_T

Scott_T — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:00:28 +0000

California worker laws allows upto 2 hours of time off before or after work (without losss of pay), its printed clearly on the worker laws that every employer must post for their workers to be aware of.

Of course if you are an hourly employee, you'll get no pay for those hours, but if you are salaried, you won't forfeit anything.

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:50:07 +0000

What's an ex-felon? Some one convicted of a felony crime, is a felon. The term doesn't differentiate pot growers from child rapists.

Does this group include those currently incarcerated who wish to vote by absentee ballot? After all, they're paying their debt to society, right? You mention taxation without representation. I can't wait to hear about cruel and unusual punishment.