It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should voting rights be taken away from a person?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 01:40 PM
Sterilize em all while locked up. What's wrong with that?

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 02:50 PM
Depending on the state, you do get your voting rights back after being serving your time & being released. The way it works is one of three routes -- you get your voting rights reinstated immediately, or after a period of time post-release, or you must petition for them.

For the longest time, the swing states of Iowa and Florida (SWING STATES, think about that one & vote meddling) prohibited ever getting them back, but I think FL changed that recently to having to petition for them back, leaving Iowa the lone hold-out for never getting voting rights back.

That being said, it should be a federal blanket (rather than a state variation) of getting them back after waiting a period of time post-release to see who can get their s# together & be a functional member of society, and who's still a f# up. If you can't make it keeping your nose clean til the auto-reinstatement time (be it 3 months or 6) then obviously you're not going to be using them anytime soon anyway, so why bother out the gate.
edit on 4/9/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 02:57 PM
a reply to: Blaine91555

Huh, i do see Iowa listed there, when did that change? Or is it just that their process is so convoluted and hoop-laden that it's effectively like never getting voting rights back?

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 03:00 PM
Everyone should have that right...
Except liberals

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 03:02 PM
a reply to: JAGStorm

If you violate the rights of others, why should you vote on laws that may or may not remove the rights of your fellow citizens the same way you violated those rights through your actions?

A prisoner is in prison because he or she had no respect for the personal, unalienable rights of the rest of the humans in society in some way.

But, hey, they should be able to vote on laws that abridge a concept they have demonstrated no respect or understanding of. /sarcasm

I get that the wheels of justice are not perfect and some are put there for the wrong reasons, but allowing the rest to vote just out of fear for the few? No.
edit on 9-4-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 03:06 PM
a reply to: Nyiah


November 7, 2018

Iowa is one of only two states – alongside Kentucky – to impose permanent disenfranchisement for all people with felony convictions, unless the government approves individual rights restoration. On June 30, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the state’s disenfranchisement law in a 4-3 split decision in a case called Griffin v. Pate.

Rights Restoration Process

The only way to regain the right to vote is by applying to the Office of the Governor. Under Iowa’s constitution, the Governor has the discretion to restore voting rights or not. A state-maintained webpage with information regarding Iowa’s rights restoration process can be accessed here.

Executive Actions

For the six years between 2005 and 2011, under a policy established through an executive order, Iowa did not permanently disenfranchise its citizens and instead restored voting rights to people who had completed their sentences. In 2011, Gov. Terry Branstad reversed that progress, returning the state to its status as a national outlier on disenfranchisement.

In April 2016, Gov. Branstad announced a simplification to the rights restoration application form. However, the state’s rights restoration process remains one of the most onerous in the country with only 17 applications in 2015.

From a Google search.

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:28 PM
According to the constitution we are to be given our rights back after we serve our time as well as the right to bear arms again.

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:09 PM

originally posted by: JAGStorm

Bernie Sanders supports letting jailed felons vote in elections. “In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” he said. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”

Bernie might be onto something here. If someone did their time, why are they still being punished?
The older I get the more I realize that people are also being imprisoned unjustly. Are they being punished twice?

How crazy is it that we have some of the strictest voting laws in the world. I also think it is weird that all states have different rules regarding voting. I understand states rights, but if we are voting for a president that would affect everyone.

Maybe if society turned into the movie like "Idiocracy" -- only as an education lesson ... but then those rights have to be given back ... maybe that's what the elites did with Trump -- although maybe not ()

posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:53 PM
It's cute that anyone in the modern day thinks our "voting rights" mean anything at all anymore.

posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 02:18 AM
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think that while in jail it's reasonable to deny the vote, once back in society, that same denial is anathema.
This whole civic death thing is very 19th century and what moral argument can there be for denying a free person the right to take part in choosing who governs their country?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in