In a decision that could give momentum to other efforts to expand voting to inmates, a federal appeals court ruled that incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington state. Because if you're a murderous rape-happy arsonist, your vote should count.
Currently only Maine and Vermont allow those behind bars to cast ballots, and it is imperative that the same people who are incarcerated for aggravated assault and robbery lend their important opinion to who leads the country, and determine how tax dollars they're not contributing get spent.
The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane., and shows there are a pair of unqualified magistrates on the bench. That district judge had ruled that Washington state's felon disenfranchisement law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.
The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways," which means they made their decision based on the fact that they took race into consideration. We'll come back to that in a second.
While the ruling only currently covers Washington state, if it stands, it could be the basis for litigation in any area covered by the 9th Circuit — Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California (which is why I care), Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas (which is why you should care). The state Attorney General is weighing the state's next step - they could either ask a larger group of judges from the 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. If appealed, it's likely that the state would seek a stay on inmate's ability to vote until the case is resolved.
Of the more than 18,000 felons currently in state custody who could get their right to vote back under this ruling, 37.1% are minorities. Of that group, blacks make up the largest percentage, at 19.2%. In favor of this is Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, who says the issues the ruling raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington state. "They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state," he said, adding that an estimated 5.3 million people nationwide are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction.
So exactly how does this have any racial bias if more than 60% of the people are not minorities? I don't give a fuck who has a felony, and making - or taking exception to the population of disenfranchised felons based on race is as relevant as complaining that jail is scary and not fun. I hate to see conservative think tanks fall on the same side as me, but I have to agree with Trent England, a policy director at Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Washington state. "Not only is felon disenfranchisement constitutional but it's good policy. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be deprived of their voice in our system of government at least for a time." Yes, you don't get to shape and determine law if you can't abide by them.
The mess stems from a lawsuit was filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan (makes sense now), who was serving a three-year sentence for a series of felony-theft convictions when he sued the state in 1996. Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs. The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. That was a violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.
The state contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities. And based on the figures, clearly doesn't - even though it is a totally irrelevant connection they're trying to make. It would be the same as women under 21 claiming sexual discrimination against them in the alcohol laws - even though their gender is an indirect subset of the effected populous, and the provisions of the law has no specificity at all to gender.
And you thought all bad policy came out of the eastern Washington...
Currently only Maine and Vermont allow those behind bars to cast ballots, and it is imperative that the same people who are incarcerated for aggravated assault and robbery lend their important opinion to who leads the country, and determine how tax dollars they're not contributing get spent.The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane., and shows there are a pair of unqualified magistrates on the bench. That district judge had ruled that Washington state's felon disenfranchisement law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.
The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways," which means they made their decision based on the fact that they took race into consideration. We'll come back to that in a second.
While the ruling only currently covers Washington state, if it stands, it could be the basis for litigation in any area covered by the 9th Circuit — Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California (which is why I care), Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas (which is why you should care). The state Attorney General is weighing the state's next step - they could either ask a larger group of judges from the 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. If appealed, it's likely that the state would seek a stay on inmate's ability to vote until the case is resolved.
Of the more than 18,000 felons currently in state custody who could get their right to vote back under this ruling, 37.1% are minorities. Of that group, blacks make up the largest percentage, at 19.2%. In favor of this is Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, who says the issues the ruling raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington state. "They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state," he said, adding that an estimated 5.3 million people nationwide are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction.
So exactly how does this have any racial bias if more than 60% of the people are not minorities? I don't give a fuck who has a felony, and making - or taking exception to the population of disenfranchised felons based on race is as relevant as complaining that jail is scary and not fun. I hate to see conservative think tanks fall on the same side as me, but I have to agree with Trent England, a policy director at Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Washington state. "Not only is felon disenfranchisement constitutional but it's good policy. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be deprived of their voice in our system of government at least for a time." Yes, you don't get to shape and determine law if you can't abide by them.
The mess stems from a lawsuit was filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan (makes sense now), who was serving a three-year sentence for a series of felony-theft convictions when he sued the state in 1996. Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs. The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. That was a violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.
The state contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities. And based on the figures, clearly doesn't - even though it is a totally irrelevant connection they're trying to make. It would be the same as women under 21 claiming sexual discrimination against them in the alcohol laws - even though their gender is an indirect subset of the effected populous, and the provisions of the law has no specificity at all to gender.
And you thought all bad policy came out of the eastern Washington...
No comments:
Post a Comment