Florida: 30,000 Felons on voter rosters

[BillCA]

This popped up on my radar...

Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation
Thousands who should be ineligible are registered to vote

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story

More than 30,000 Florida felons who by law should have been stripped of their right to vote remain registered to cast ballots in this presidential battleground state, a Sun Sentinel investigation has found.

Many are faithful voters, with at least 4,900 turning out in past elections.

Another 5,600 are not likely to vote Nov. 4 — they're still in prison.

Of the felons who registered with a party, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new registrations in this critical swing state.

Browning said he was not surprised by the newspaper's findings. "I'm kind of shocked that the number is as low as it is," he said.

Asked how many ineligible felons may be on Florida's rolls, Browning said, "We don't know."

See the full story for more details.

Now, my opinion is that not having sufficient staff or funding to weed out these ineligible voters negatively affects my civil rights as well as yours. This is especially true given the political demographics of most felons and likely many illegals.

Have we gone too far in making voter registration too easy? Shouldn't it require answering a few important questions kind of like the 4473 form?

The recent abuses of ACORN tell me that if you can sign someone up to vote more than 20 times, we probably have a huge voter fraud problem in quite a few states. The question is, how do we limit the problem?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

In the article they explain that when one fills out a voter card they are automatically added to the voter list and it is then the responsibility of the state/county to identify those that are ineligible and remove them. There is the problem. Why don't we have the same ID requirements to get a voter card as we do to get a driver's license or even a state CCW? For some reason, any attempt to fix the system is equated to having a "poll tax" or some other method of keeping select groups from voting. As the democrats generally benefit from these errors, they are the first ones to yell when someone wants to change the registration process.

 

[Webleymkv]

Similar instances of voter fraud are appearing all over the country. I was suprised to see a big one here in Indiana. The city of Indianapolis has approximately 30,000 more people registered to vote that elidgable voters living in the city. If this election is already over as some in the media like to suggest, then why does an organization with ties to the winner have to cheat I wonder

 

[Socrates]

I must be living under a rock.
First I miss the chance for a 110% house loan, with bad credit.
Now, I find I've missed the chance to vote 30 or 40 times.

 

[BillCA]

One would think that with most states now having a mag-stripe on your D/L or ID, that scanning the card could perform an electronic check of your citizenship status. At the polls, this could help reduce voter fraud.

In fact, using a card-scan plus a thumbprint scan could seriously elminate voter fraud. Even if you held several fake ID's, your thumbprint won't match the one on file and/or it might be able to detect that your thumbprint was already used with another ID.

Opinion: Voter fraud should be taken very seriously. If caught, the person should be detained for police to arrest. The penalty should also be serious - 12 years on the first offense. Conspiracy to violate election laws by fraudulent voting or use of false ID's, should be a 20 year sentence. Adding a $250,000 fine for each illegal vote cast may never be paid back, but would also be a deterrent.
Exemptions would be made for those assisting a disabled person in voting, such as the blind, stroke or paralysis victims, etc.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

They current penalty is 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.

 

[Socrates]

Is that a Federal or state statute?

 

[grymster2007]

One would think that with most states now having a mag-stripe on your D/L or ID, that scanning the card could perform an electronic check of your citizenship status.

For the past few elections, I've presented my CA DL to the elections folks when they look up my name in the books they use. This act invariably prompts them to tell me to "put it away" or say "we don't use photo ID to validate registrations". To which I usually respond "I want you to know my vote is legitimate" or "you should be using photo ID in validating registrations".

Probably nothing to do with the millions of potential illegal voters here in sunny California. Nah... must be just some short-sightedness or insensitivity on my part.

 

[Bogie]

St. Louis City, with about 250,000 population (or less...), waits until dead last before turning its vote tallies in state and federal ballots... Why? So they know how many dead people have to vote.

They've also kept polls open WELL past established deadlines in order to properly stuff the boxes...

 

[MD_Willington]

IIRC 24,000 or so over here in WA State too...

Fraudoire and ACORN

 

[blume357]

On the face of it, most folks would think;

Felon = criminal who deserves to lose their rights.. I may be politically incorrect here but a lot of our current released felons are political prisoners who have been let out of the box. We put more folks in jail and convict them of a felony than any other country.... I believe our government has evolved to the point it is refusing a large segment of society its rights. It should take more than one felony to cause a person to lose the rights our founding fathers claimed all folks have a right to.

 

[44 AMP]

Is the right to vote a natural right?

Or is it a privilege conferred on us by our system of govt? Certainly it is a legal right under our Constitution today, but is it one of our "natural rights" as envisioned by the founding fathers? Blacks, women, and at one time the poor in our nation did not have the "right" to vote. This was changed by Constitutional Amendment, with women being the last, in 1920.

But of our natural rights, life, liberty, the right to arms, etc., we deprive felons of these as a matter or course as their just punishment for crimes committed. And at one time, this applied only to real crimes, crimes which directly harmed fellow citizens, like murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

But over the years, things have changed somewhat. Many, many things that were once misdemeanors, or were not even crimes at all are now felonies. And along the way, felons right to vote and right to arms after release is now denied automatically. They can petition a court for restoration of their right to vote, and get it restored, but it is a cumbersome process which most do not bother with.

Technically they can also petition the govt for the restoration of their firearms rights, but since Congress consistantly refuses to fund that portion of the govt that is a key feature in getting their rights restored, it cannot happen.

You are right, there are many people walking the streets of our nation who's terrible threat to society was to posess too much of a prohibited plant or chemical. Or who as a youth engaged in vandalism againt church property and recieved a conviction for felony trespass. Or who committed any number of other small offenses which in previous generations would not have merited a felony conviction, but do now. It is a game of words, and felon for having some dope is the same as felon for killing someone, a felon. And of course, we don't want felons voting or having guns, now do we? Just as someone with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is a wife beater, and we don't want them having guns either, do we?

Unfortunately, perception creates its own reality, and the words used to describe something or someone create a certain perception. "Assault Weapon" comes to mind, as do "Cop Killer Bullets" for recent examples. It is very difficult to get our elected officials to vote for repealing anything, let alone something that "sounds" bad. And frankly, "felon" sounds bad.

I know some people that are felons, now and forever more, because they did something stupid in their youth. Minor things that injured no one except themselves, but under our system they are felons and denied the rights non-felons have, for the rest of their lives. It isn't fair, but unless and until we change it, it is what we have to live with.

 

[Al Norris]

To answer the simple question then: Voting is a political right, known back at the time of the founding as a "privilege." Immunities are those things that are considered "natural rights."

 

[BillCA]

44AMP - well said.

Many people refer to certain drug crimes as "victimless" crimes, but that is, unfortunately a misnomer. It is victimless only when the user of drugs acts in a manner that does not endanger others. Driving while intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) is not victimless. Nor are homicides that occur because the perpetrator was delusional under drugs or neglected the baby in the bathtub.

I once said that I'd be in favor of allowing felons to get their rights back, but only after their first imprisonment or sentencing (with exceptions). They would have to serve the full sentence* and remain free from further felonies or violent crimes for some period - 5 years - before getting back any rights. Any subsequent felony conviction strips them of their voting rights, right to hold office and 2A rights permanently. We give you one chance to redeem yourself. At the same time, some crimes must be lowered to misdemeanors OR the limitations on misdemeanor fines increased.

* A full sentence may include up to 1 year of parole with a clean prison record to get the person back into a normal societial role.

 

[divemedic]

Many people refer to certain drug crimes as "victimless" crimes, but that is, unfortunately a misnomer. It is victimless only when the user of drugs acts in a manner that does not endanger others. Driving while intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) is not victimless. Nor are homicides that occur because the perpetrator was delusional under drugs or neglected the baby in the bathtub.

But the drug is not the cause of the crime, and blaming the drug for what the person did is no different than blaming the gun for the actions of the shooter.

Driving while intoxicated IS victimless, as long as I do not hit anyone. Running your vehicle into another person or another person's property does have a victim, but it should not matter WHY you hit the vehicle, because whether you hit me because you were too fatigued, drunk, stoned, or just distracted by talking to your passenger, you still hit me. There are studies showing that a 30 year old man with a BAC of .12 has faster and better reactions than a sober 80 year old, but the old man is legal to drive while the young drunk man is not. Similarly, cell phone use while driving has been shown to be more dangerous than DUI.

A homicide is similarly wrong- the homicide is the crime, and it shouldn't matter if you are drunk, or hate me because of my race, sex, or clothing choice. The murder is the crime, the motor vehicle collision is the crime, not the reason behind it.

A 15 year old girl willingly has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend, and is the initiator in the act. In fact, she lies and tells him she is 18- even to the point of showing the lad a fake ID supporting her statement. Guess who becomes the convicted felony sex offender when the cops find out?

With all that said, we use the above actions to deny people their rights. This is wrong and ridiculous.

 

[Musketeer]

Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new registrations in this critical swing state.

In other words, "We cannot eliminate the fraudulent voter registrations because we have been too busy processing fraudulent voter registrations."

 

[44 AMP]

We have shifted our focus in recent decades

And I do agree, in principle, that it has been in the wrong direction. We have, as a rule, become entirely too focused on why the crime is committed, and not on the crime itself. Other than as an object of intellectual curiosity, once you get past the point of discovering justification (self defense), why should the reason matter? It doesn't change what happened to the victim one bit.

As to the voter issue, who is most at fault, those deliberately signing up ineledgible voters, or the state for failing in their responsibility to provide adequate resources to meet their obligation?

 

[divemedic]

Why can't we do like Iraq does, and dye the index finger of those who have voted?

 

[Musketeer]

The law says those felons cannot vote and I disagree wit the law not being followed.

At the same time:

"No Taxation Without Representation."

I fail to see how you can tax a felon and then deny them the right to vote on their representation.

 

[Al Norris]

"No Taxation Without Representation."

I fail to see how you can tax a felon and then deny them the right to vote on their representation.

Um, because the law states that if you violate the law and are convicted of that violation, one of the consequences are that you lose certain rights. Voting being the right we are discussing.

I would agree that way too many felonies have been created by legislative acts. But, there has always been a way to change this. The fact that it has not been changed, means that, on its face, the populace agree with the law, as it is written and applied.

Therefore, one who knowingly violates the law, does so knowing that if caught and convicted, they will loose certain civil rights as punishment for their actions (see below).

As to the voter issue, who is most at fault, those deliberately signing up ineligible voters, or the state for failing in their responsibility to provide adequate resources to meet their obligation?

As a matter of justice, I would think both are equally at fault.

Those who are deliberately violating voter registration laws should be prosecuted. The problem here, is that the State would have to prove that the person doing the registrations knew the registrant was ineligible. That may be difficult at best. It might be easier to prove that registrant knew they were ineligible.

This would be easier to do, if all courts were required to tell the person at the time of sentencing, what rights they have lost because of their conviction. Currently, many courts do not do this. If it were done, then the convict would have no "excuse" for their actions, as they knew they were now a proscribed person.

The other side of the coin is the State itself. The only reason the State could have for not making the proper correlation would be if the Legislature did not require the various databases to be queried (and give authority to do so) and/or not provide for the proper funding of such correlation.

Here, many legislatures do pass such laws, but without proper funding. Funding would require more taxation and many legislatures are loath to tax their constituents. So "feel-good" laws are passed that can't be enforced.