Want your voting rights back in Florida? Update! Ammendment #4 has passed! Suck it Rick Scott!

Ammendment number 4 passed tonight with about 65% of the vote.

You guys really need to listen to this podcast, at least the first 4-5 minutes. In Florida, if you get a felony on your record, the only way to get your voting rights back, after serving your time, is to ask the governor directly.

Notes from listening, these do not include the personal stories of the podcast, just general information about the process of getting the right to vote back.

• Charlie Crist made the process easier in 2007.
• Christ gave more than 150,000 people got their right to vote back.
• Rick Scott came into office made it far more restrictive by making it so people had to wait 5-7 years before they could even apply to get their voting rights back.
• Scott has only given back 3000, and he's been in office twice as long.
• Most of people's convictions are decades old.
• There are no clear guidelines or written standards, this is not a court of law, but a situation where the governor makes, as Scott calls it, "judgements of conscience ."
  
• Rick Scott has admitted publicly that there are no standards for his decision making.
• People on have 5 minutes to make their case to the governor.
• An average wait time is about a decade, after applying. They give 100 people a chance to make their case at a time, and they only do 4 of these hearings a year.
• If you are denied you have to wait 2 years before you can re-apply

• 3 times as many white men got their right to vote back as black men.
• There's an ammendment that people are going to vote on, Ammendment 4, that will essentially do away this process, and restore everyone's right to vote who doesn't have it. That's about 1.5 million people. The polls look good for it.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/01/663195571/the-hearing

Honestly, I had no idea about this deal in Florida, and listening to this podcast about it really sickened me.

If it involved somebody dying, they should never get their votiing rights back, unless they can bring that person back to life so they can vote.

I have a big problem with taking away voting rights from felons who have served their time. We like to use phrases such as, "all men are created equal," and, "no taxation without representation," with one hand but then create a large group of second class citizens to which these principles don't apply with the other.

And that's what's astounding to me, these aren't people who are still serving time. It's people who have paid their debt to society and have essentially beg for their voting rights back.

There's no requirements that must be met to earn them back, its just a matter of whether governor, in this case a highly partisan governor, chooses to give it back to you or not. If he doesn't, wait two more years to re-apply, and go through the decade long process (due to all the backlog) all over again.

Actually the people committing the crimes are choosing not to vote by committing a crime.

Didn't Oliver cover this or something like it in another state on Last Week Tonight?

Anyway, pretty damn scary. I get taking people's rights away when they're in prison, but once they've served their sentence I feel it's time to restore those rights.

Right, while they are in prison.

I just don't see the logic in taking someone's basic democratic right away for the rest of their life because they, idunno, stole a TV when they were 18 or sold a little bit of weed to pay for college. As far as I am concerned, they are still US citizens and still have (or should have) the right to vote.

Not hiring felons to be teachers in schools? Not hiring a felon to work on sensitive government jobs? I get that. But not letting them vote? That makes no sense, unless you're trying to suppress votes.

@mrbojangles25: "But not letting them vote? That makes no sense, unless you're trying to suppress votes."

And of course, republicans have made it exceedingly clear that they are all about that. It's very much a goal for them.

If you commit a crime you clearly show that you have no interest in living in our society so I 100% back up taking away voting rights and also having a grace period after their release.

Also who really want morally corrupt people who break the laws to vote?

(imagine if they vote to the right instead of the left........ /sarcasm)

The grand irony is that Rick Scott is the worst white collar criminal in US history. He stole billions from taxpayers as head of HCA and commited medicare/medicaid fraud on a massive scale.

So to get your voting rights back, you have to appeal to arguably the biggest thief in US history. Amazing.

I guess the moral of the story is if you are going to steal, steal big. Steal so big you can buy your way into the governor's mansion like Rick Scott.

Serving time is either paying back their debt to society, or it isn't. If you have served your time/paid your debt, then you should be able to vote period. The right can't have it both ways.

At that point that is taxation without representation, isn't the right supposed to be against that. Atheist also have no real representation in office despite being one of the fastest growing minorities in the country. Yet, both Atheists, and criminals, are still fully expected/forced to pay their taxes.

If you think criminals give up their right to vote when they commit a crime even though they did their time, then YOU shouldn't vote. Because every single adult in this country commits crimes almost daily, and your ignorant (or lying to yourself) if you think that doesn't include you. The only difference is they were caught largely due to focussed targeting.

It is simply yet another form of voter suppression from the right. The right wing apologists are blatantly hypocritical. The so called party of freedom is the first to try, and take it from you.

Even if you agree with this system, having one of the worst white collar criminals of all time be the one you have to appeal to is ridiculous beyond comprehension. Rick Scott belongs in prison himself. If he had done what he did in any other developed country that isn't ridiculously corrupt he would have gone away to prison for a long time.

The hypocrisy of a guy who stole at least 3 billion from taxpayers deciding some dude who got caught smoking weed should never vote again is beyond ridiculous. It fills me with rage.

Also why the **** did this scumbag get to keep so much stolen money? Why weren't all of his assets seized? Someone needs to take a hard look at why Rick Scott got let off with just a fine. He probably bribed someone high up.

And now this absolute piece of shit who stole from you and me is running for senate.

This is wrong for one simple issue: Hundreds of people are falsely accused of crimes and have their voting rights taken away. How is that fair in life? Of course republicans the christian party of compassion love to see blacks denied their rights - the party of sexism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia.

@bigfootpart2: "Why" you ask?

It should be painfully obvious at this point that if you have over a certain amount of money, then you abide by different laws than most citizens even though we live in the same nation.

@blackballs: Hundreds? You mean that like daily, or weekly? Cause if you mean "period" that number has crept easily over a million a while back. Even if you just mean Florida, that is still a way too conservative estimate.

It's double punishment taking it away for life though.

they don't vote while in prison. why should they lose that right after they're released? they've served their lawful punishment. if you didn't want them voting longer, the sentence should have been longer.

Because they committed a crime and we need to make sure they have no intention of doing it again which the grace period is for.

Criminals are morally corrupt people and have decided to live outside societies norms and therefore lose the privileges that come from that as to voting.

Sure, but they should also not be barred for life.

A simple grace period of a few years is enough to show they are serious in their desire to live within the normal society.

Atm it also needs the grace of Scott Riley. A year or two grace period perhaps, but I think it shouldn't be any once they are released from prison.

Of course, it should be after they are released, especially also considering most are released before they have served all the time and there is a normal period after release where if they re-offend they go back and have to serve the rest. Voting rights should follow that.

Also while I find it a bit on the line that Governor Rick Scott has the final say, it´s part of the power the office has and if people don´t like his views, they can always vote him out and get a person with views more to their liking.

Aren't most prison years just 9 months? If you have served your sentence, I think you should get it back.

Isn't rehabilitation the goal? Or are you warm wrapped in your hate.

If they released they should of course get the right to vote back. Unless we are willing to excuse them paying taxes.

the sentence IS the grace period...

Yeah he did. About Scott Riley.

Not really.

The sentence is only part of the penalty for being someone who can´t abide by the laws.

in your opinion

Considering Florida and a majority of other states has this practice, it´s a fact of life

You may not like it but that is a problem for you.

Fully agree. A felon who has served their time, has by the law, paid their due to society.

it seems florida's practices here are fairly unique

https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/

Not really, the last count was 10 states that remove the rights permanently (Florida it´s possible to regain them)

source?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

In 13 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored. These states are listed in the fourth category on Table 1. Details on these states are found in Table 2 below.

@Jacanuk: But they still need to pay taxes to the society they choose to live outside of though right?

We absolutely should restore voting rights to people who have done their time. The system in place effectively gives people the power to define what a felony is, and because of this, we can arbitrarily keep them from voting.

I have yet to hear a solid argument to keep people form voting once they are released. Florida alone has a million people that can't vote because of it.

And what is the connection you make to that? Taxes cover the use of a lot of common resources like Police, Medics, schools, and also their halfway house and other resources which are put there to help them when they get out.

But sure we can let them avoid paying taxes if they pay for their own food and resources used in jail and after they are released.

It's taxation without representation, period.

Doesn't make it right that some states remove that right. Not privilege........right. Out of 50 states ONLY 13 have strict roadblocks. They are the minority and should be in line with the rest of the country.

Not only 13 states. It´s just 13 states have a more severe removal than simply while they are incarcerated,

No it's 13. The other states eventually give the voting right back. Don't you read your links?

@Jacanuk: Because our entire country was founded on the idea that taxation without representation is tyrany.

Add to the fact that you have selective enforcement of laws that seemingly are designed to disenfranchise minorities at a higher rate than whites. Blacks and whites do drugs ar similar rates but blacks are 2.5X more likely to be incarcerated for it.

This is of course all part of the plan, and why so many conservatives support racial profiling and stop and frisk in black neighborhoods. Also why we considered crack part of the war on drugs and why we consider the largely white opioid epidemic a “national health crisis”. Just more evidence of the racist bedrock this country was laid on.

You are talking complete nonsense here.

There is no logical reasoning that can get you from removing voting rights from morally corrupt individuals who have decided to live outside the societies norms and to taxation.

Try not to read to much far-left nonsense where arguments are just thrown against the wall without any intelligent reasoning behind.

Uh no. Once someone has paid their debt to society they start over with a clean slate. IE they should be allowed to participate in their countries politics. They are affected with it too. You really have some hate filled ideas.

Hate? First of all, a huge majority is released before they have served the full term of their sentence so by that, your argument fails on the first premise.

If they do not serve the term limit they have not paid their debt to society.

But having a grace period after release is nothing new, it´s actually a pretty common thing.

No no it doesn't. If the penal system says they are free to go then they are free to go. They are no longer in prison. You fail on that presmise.

Yes they have paid their debt to society.

Except for 13 states. The other states restore voting rights. Stop whining about it. They should all get that right back.

Holy cow, this ban's 10% of Florida's voting age population from voting? That's insane.

Suppress the vote man........

You seem to be confused here when you think they have paid their debts is completely irrelevant.

Society says that they have not paid their debt, what they have is earned early parole, they still have to follow strict rules.

I definitely didn't realize that when I was typing it last night. Just took notes on a podcast I figured was too long to reasonably expect most people to listen to.

Republican logic:

- don't let the ex felons vote, because they might the leftists,

- a convicted Republican is running for office? That's fine, my kinda guy, lol, eat it libtards.

Yeah, it's indefensible to me. At this point they're shifting their argument from 'We're not suppressing the vote', to 'They don't deserve to vote'.

They can't deny what they're doing so they can only justify it now.