Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont submitted the legislation, named the Inclusive Democracy Act, on Tuesday which would guarantee the right to vote in federal elections for all citizens regardless of their criminal record.

In a statement, Pressley said the legislation was necessary due to policies and court rulings that “continue to disenfranchise voters from all walks of life — including by gutting the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering, cuts to early voting, and more.” Welch called the bill necessary due to “antiquated state felony disenfranchisement laws.”

In late 2022, approximately 4.6 million people were unable to vote due to a felony conviction, according to a study by the Sentencing Project, a nonpartisan research group. The same study found that Black and Hispanic citizens are disproportionately likely to be disenfranchised due to felony

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 63 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Convicted of drug crime? Should never lose right to vote.

Convicted of violent crime? Should regain right to vote upon release.

Convicted of trying to overturn an election? Never get to vote again.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    They should all be able to vote. From prison, too. The punishment never needs to be to take their voting rights away. If they commit fraud, stop them from committing fraud again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think if you're overthrowing the government, you're basically tapping out of the democracy. That's literally the only crime I could see not being allowed to vote. I also think they should be removed from the country they tried to destroy. But then I have no idea how would they remain detained in that situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If they are not allowed to vote then by all rights they shouldn't be taxed as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    So we just make them legitimate sovereign citizens?

    What happens when they start to organize and try to create a new country within the United States?

    Edit: weird downvotes, I'm asking questions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Make a new permanent US penal colony, call it New Australia, located in Texas. TX as been wanting to secede anyway, let's give them a helping hand. Deport all seditionists there with all visa/passport privileges being revoked.

    And the final chef's-kiss: Enact all of the cruel immigration laws against New Australia that they've been wanting so bad, see how they like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    What's your understanding of "sovereign citizen"? Asking in good faith.

    I mean, we have Amish in the US. That's a kind of sovereign citizen, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The Amish are just members of a fairly extreme religion. They don't reject the existence of government itself. Sovereign citizens are people that believe they aren't subject to the laws of the country the reside in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well I'm basing it off of the google definition..

    Sovereign citizens believe they are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government and consider themselves exempt from U.S. law. They use a variety of conspiracy theories and falsehoods to justify their beliefs and their activities, some of which are illegal and violent.

    I mean we'd basically be making them the same thing, no? Only legitimate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'd prefer compulsory voting from all able people of voting age. Prisons should have full in-person voting locations with private voting booths. Mail-in ballots should be a freely available option for all.

    It doesn't guarantee good results, but I feel it is the most straightforward way to rid ourselves of voter suppression campaigns, which I think are fundamentally evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What's the punishment for failing to vote? It would just end up being a poor tax.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's not much of a tax when it can be "paid" by sending a piece of paper through the mail, postage-paid.

    Australia does this. It works out very well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hey, you're talking to the country that has you actively apply to get a right to vote. The US is seemingly incapable of keeping track of their own citizens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Homeless people will rejoice for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Homeless people get counted on the census.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They don't consistently receive mail and are often on drugs. Fines for not voting are absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you think that's how it works in Australia, where voting is compulsory? Or do you think they've found ways to accommodate for that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'd hope they accommodate for it. I don't trust the US government to not fuck it up.

    Personally I hate the concept of compulsory almost anything. If you have a right to vote you have a right to protest elections as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Compulsory voting doesn't mean you literally have to vote for something. You can cast a blank ballot in protest. Sales tax is compulsory. Gas tax is compulsory. There are lots of things that are already compulsory.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I disagree with this approach without even touching the morality aspect.

    There should be no way to lose your voting rights once you are of age and a citizen of the US for the very simple reason of limiting the bureaucratic overhead of elections. If every citizen above the age of 18 can vote, you can just completely remove the ridiculous notion of "voter registration".

    Just register everyone based on their legal address (which the government should have anyway because taxes). Just like a real democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I agree with this.

    Even people who make mistakes should be entitled to vote. Even while paying for their mistakes frankly. They may have lost their freedom, but they are still citizens of the Republic.

    The only compelling argument I know of is that voting in local elections is a mess because there would be counties that'd suffer from the over representation due to the location of the prisons. I would just consider those to be absentee voters myself, and they just keep the last address they had before going in or next if kin instead.

    Just my thoughts

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I disagree with violent crime, they should entirely lose the right to vote. There's no room in our society for behavior like that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    I got a felony 14 years ago for running from a cop. He got a scratch on his hand and charged me with aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Bogus public defender didn't even help try to fight for me and their charges stuck like glue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If the number of violent criminals in your society is enough to affect the outcome of an election, you've got much bigger problems. And if you take away the right to vote for violent crimes, politicians will attempt to redefine what "violent" means to disenfranchise more people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments