In 2011, when Matt Schultz took over as Secretary of State he convinced Governor Terry Branstad to rescind a previous executive order which restored the voting rights of felons who had served their time and paid for their crime. When Branstad rescinded the executive order, Iowa became one of only five states to require felons who have paid for their crimes and had served their time to petition the Governor to have their voting rights restored. While the topic of restoring voting rights to felons is often ignored and not popular it should be discussed in Iowa.
While there has been an attempt to pass voter photo ID laws in Iowa and the issue gets much attention about how many Iowans would be disenfranchised, the major issue that often gets overlooked is the voting rights of felons in our state. Our voting laws in Iowa, since Branstad rescinded Vilsack’s executive order, have disenfranchised tens of thousands of hard working Iowans who are trying desperately to rejoin society. One of the ways people become part of society is to take part in their right guaranteed by the Constitution to get involved in government through the wonderful election process we have in America. I can certainly think of worse things people could do than to take part in our government. Once, I had a man walk up to me, shake my hand, and say “Jake I support you, but I can’t vote for you because I am a felon”. This was a man who wanted to be a part of society and was ready to do his part to become a responsible citizen, but he cannot because some of our elected officials unfortunately have not learned the benefits and importance of forgiveness.
Since Governor Branstad rescinded the executive order, Branstad has restored voting rights to fewer than 50 Iowans while over 25,000 Iowans who have paid for their crimes are currently denied the right to vote. Any person who has been convicted of a felony should receive their right to vote back as soon as their sentence and probation have been completed, with the exception only for those convicted of voter fraud.
As Secretary of State, you could count on me to be an advocate for restoring the rights of people who have long paid for their crimes and are trying desperately to become part of society to make a positive impact in our communities. One of the fundamental ways we do that as Americans is through voting and to not support that basic right is a slap in the face of our great state which has a motto of “our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain”.
_________________________________________________________________________
Jake Porter is a Libertarian candidate for Iowa Secretary of State and resides in Council Bluffs.
I like to tie it all in together under voting rights. It’s true, and it works.
“Republicans fighting voting rights…something we should rub their nose in as much as possible. It’s part of a sordid tradition.”
Notice that the duopoly likes to go on and on about voting rights & voter fraud, yet they never talk about the fraud of denying people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice via restrictive ballot access laws. THAT’S what I like to rub their nose in.
Republicans fighting voting rights…something we should rub their nose in as much as possible. It’s part of a sordid tradition.
I highly recommend a series on Animal Planet called “Pitbulls and Parolees”. It’s about a pitbull rescue in New Orleans that is staffed by parolees. It’s the only TV show EVER that makes me cry every single darn episode. Not every parolee hired by Tia Villalobos has taken the opportunity offered to do well, but most of them do.
I have witnessed similar scenarios play out in precisely the way you’ve described it.
Before the economy began to collapse in earnest, I managed a business in Reno; the drug abuse and theft was so bad there, that I was forced to fire every employee of the sector I was overseer to.
In the ensuing weeks, I hired only x-convicts. They proved to be the humblest, most hard-working and dedicated folk I had ever had the joy to work with. Through their efforts, honesty and forthrightness, the company realized extra-ordinary profits which the company had not experienced in its 25 years in play.
X-convicts know what is at stake, toward their bid to maintain their freedom, and a living wage to sustain that freedom. However, they have been so daemonized by a society that is conditioned to loathe and fear, that in almost every instance, an x-con is forced to commit a crime… just to eat.
On the issue of self defense, laws of extreme prejudice against x-cons being afforded the ability to defend themselves, has nothing to do with preventative measures designed to curtail violent crime; rather, these unnatural restrictions levied against the x-con is merely an methodology employed by governance to perpetuate recidivism.
An x-con has far more value to the State as a product of the prison industrial complex, than he or she does outside of it.
It has never been about controlling gun violence; all that we see on the internet are squeaky-clean citizens murdering their own. Not x-cons.
X-cons are not sub-human. They are people. And people with an healthy sense of self-preservation will never concede to the ” color of law.”
The color of law is a perversion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Because governance can enforce their version of the law upon those inadequately represented, counterfeit interpretations of the Constitution will prevail in this country.
America boasts the greatest prison population on the planet, which exceeds every other nation combined.
Business is good.
Criminals will have guns whether it’s legal or not. But someone coming out of being locked up who is trying to do right will usually find themselves living in dangerous neighborhoods due to economic reasons in most cases, especially since a record makes it hard to find legal work and they may not have much non-criminal work experience. Quite often the only recourse is to go back to the old neighborhood where former enemies can still hold a grudge and former friends may feel betrayed. Self-defense is an absolute must in those circumstances.
If someone is let out of prison they need to be able to defend themselves. If they are that dangerous they should not be released.
I totally agree. Plus, it’s not like denying them the right will make people any safer, as we all know that gun control laws, like all government prohibitions, are almost totally ineffective.
True, but that doesn’t say why those of us here should agree with them, which I thought was the intent of the question/discussion.
“Seems pretty petty and ridiculous as a means of punishment, counterproductive as a means of rehabilitation, and irrelevant in terms of keeping people off the streets unless you believe they will have the political clout to elect candidates who will empty the prisons.”
Well, that last part is presumably a concern of the Establishment. They don’t want people who don’t agree with their laws voting for candidates who might change those laws.
As George Phillies points out, one of the reasons Republicans are so against restoring felons’ voting rights is that Republicans believe that doing so would disproportionately benefit the Democrats, since blacks are over-represented in the “convicted felon” population and since blacks tend to vote Democrat.
Yeah…those people rarely ever get busted much less do time…but the ones that do are the ones deprived of rights. It’s completely backwards.
To the contrary, the halls of government are inundated by criminals perpetrating felonies against Americans every single second of every day, year in and year out.
Yet, because they are ” connected ” and wealthy criminals, whom have not been arrested, prosecuted and convicted for their crimes, they get a pass on judgement?
Your incredible arrogance and lack of depth, mightily suggests that your countenance reflects the mud puddle of your soul-less vessel.
Disgusting.
Voting is a total waste of time, a complete distraction and just legitimizes an illegitimate system. It’s also not those that vote that count, but those that count the votes. So, the more people get disenfranchised the better, since it makes the system seem less legitimate!
I’m surprised at FDS’s comment. What reasons do you have for saying that you oppose felons having the right to vote? I can’t think of one possible reason to keep someone disenfranchised like that.
Seems pretty petty and ridiculous as a means of punishment, counterproductive as a means of rehabilitation, and irrelevant in terms of keeping people off the streets unless you believe they will have the political clout to elect candidates who will empty the prisons.
To me, there are 3 reasons to incarcerate a person: protection (they’re off the streets), rehabilitation, and punishment. Removal of the right to vote (among other rights removed) should be part of the punishment aspect. You kill someone, rape someone, steal, commit fraud, etc., you don’t get to have your say in political elections until you finish your sentence.
That should go without question. But why not vote in prison?
The more I think about it the less sense it makes to disenfranchise people.
I’m not sure how I feel about allowing people in prison to vote, but once freed they get their rights back. Period.
Why?
Especially given that most felonies should not even be crimes at all and many are false convictions.
But even for rightful convictions for real crimes with real victims, why should that deprive anyone of voting rights, even while incarcerated, much less after being released?
I believe that the fear and loathing toward former felons, expressed and articulated by the intemperate and the unsympathetic, is as a result of their own self-loathing and lack of confidence in themselves or their fellowman. Thus, they catapult the articles borne of their psuedo-self righteousness into a crowd of the defenseless, whom require only the tenets of the Golden Rule to bridge the crevasse of prejudice, suspicion and hatred.
It is unreasonable and impractical for the merciless to demand that a fellow human being remain in bondage, once he or she have been released from the extent of their consequence.
A man I know, spent 20 years in prison for the crime of stealing bread. Once released, he said, ” Now the hard time really begins.”
You cannot find water within a rock, as you cannot find mercy in the heart of the proud.
I am completely opposed to allowing felons the right to vote, especially in the halls of government…
If someone is let out of prison they need to be able to defend themselves. If they are that dangerous they should not be released.
I support allowing even inmates to vote. It is in fact unconstitutional not to allow this; the Constitution says nothing about denying vote registration to inmates. Paulie, I know you’re a radical libertarian, but do you really support giving even the most violent criminals the right to firearms? Even if they’re just on parole?
Maine and Vermont.
Which states allow inmates to vote? I would guess NH is one (just a guess).
Both voting and self-defense are natural rights of ex-felons. As for voting, two US states and many foreign countries allow people to vote even while incarcerated, and I see no reason why not. It seems rather absurd to believe that criminals will overwhelm the vote. Voting should not be considered a privelege to take away based on whether someone has commited a crime. Unlike self-defense with weapons, the right of someone to vote while incarcerated does not pose a security threat to the institution, staff or other inmates.
Of course, I agree with you, friend.
Yet until former felons can be accepted into a society that condemns them eternally as lepers, the unblemished will forever devise a means to maintain separation, suppression and subjugation of their brethren through a collective default.
In essence, you are taking the proverbial bull by the horns…
If in any wise, I am able to lend either assistance or remedy to your unusual, yet albeit noble cause, please inform me as to how I might help you.
Respectfully,
Maleficus O’Dae
Agreed. And that absolutely also includes the Second Amendment!
Felons who have served their time and paid their “debt to society” should be granted all of their natural and constitutional rights. Especially those felons serving time for non-violent offences.
Denying felons the right to vote is a standard racist Republican ploy, namely they think that convicted felons are likely to be members of minority groups who will only vote for Democrats. People who have done their time should be allowed to return to society.
Why is the restoration of Constitutional Rights for former felons important to you?
Have you considered why it is that your governor rescinded the executive order, freeing felons to participate in society?
For me, the answer lies within the Constitution itself…
If former felons are granted one Constitutional Right, then it would follow that former felons would also regain all other Rights under the Constitution; Like the 2nd Amendment, for example.
I believe that ultimately, that is the reason why your governor wishes to maintain the premise that any man or woman convicted of a felony can never ever be a part of society, as it matters.
Nevertheless, I respect your efforts.
Sincerely,
Maleficus O’Dae