Felon voting ban is racially motivated and unconstitutional, NC judges rule (1 Viewer)

[BlueTex]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

OK.
Just as long as they cant legally own guns.

 

[Slartibartfast]

One would think that if a person was on probation or parole, then giving them a chance to participate in all institutions of society would not only cause no harm, but potentially help them reintegrate.

 

[j brown's body]

Its a Jim Crow relic.

 

[ttwtt78640]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

That same (disparate impact) reasoning should be used to restore 2A rights along with voting rights. IMHO, the evidence for asserting race based intent was weak, but statistics to prove disparate impact are readily available. The idea that we should allow ‘prohibited persons’ to roam freely among us is the primary excuse for those demanding ever more ”gun control” laws.

 

[BlueTex]

That same (disparate impact) reasoning should be used to restore 2A rights along with voting rights. IMHO, the evidence for asserting race based intent was weak, but statistics to prove disparate impact are readily available. The idea that we should allow ‘prohibited persons’ to roam freely among us is the primary excuse for those demanding ever more ”gun control” laws.

Under Texas law, felons can possess a firearm five years after they have completed their sentence.

 

[AGENT J]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

Good, Unless one is a felon for voting fraud I see no reason to ban felonies from voting. Seems counterproductive and nonsensical to me.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

North Carolina just got 55,000 new voters...

North Carolina’s law banning many people with felony records from voting after they get out of prison is unconstitutional, a state court ruled Monday.

Until now, state law allowed people with felony convictions to vote only once they finish their sentence. That didn’t only include their prison sentence; it also included probation or parole, which sometimes can last for years after someone is released from prison.

Monday’s ruling, first reported by Carolina Public Press, changes that. Now — pending a potential appeal of the ruling — people with criminal records can vote once they have rejoined society and are no longer behind bars. The judges wrote that “if a person otherwise eligible to vote is not in jail or prison for a felony conviction, they may lawfully register and vote in North Carolina.”

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html

I never understood how the hell it could be allowed? they served their time, that's it. They should be able to vote. I don't get how there are lot of limits on people who served their time and are now free. And then expect people to enter society not continue to turn to criminal activity when you treat them like animals

One would think that if a person was on probation or parole, then giving them a chance to participate in all institutions of society would not only cause no harm, but potentially help them reintegrate.

Yup, but people are complete assholes and the US is just about punishment and no rehabilitation, and no addressing root cause of crimes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Under Texas law, felons can possess a firearm five years after they have completed their sentence.

Gun possession (after 5 years) is still limited to their residence.

Firearm rights are automatically restored 5 years after release from confinement or probation. However, the individual may only possess a firearm on the premises where the individual lives.

See If You Qualify for an Expungement | WipeRecord

Use our free, secure, and confidential questionnaire to see if you're eligible to expunge your record.

info.wiperecord.com

 

[Cope]

Did the judge say racially motivated, or was that the editorializing and thus identity politicking done by the writer?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Did the judge say racially motivated, or was that the editorializing and thus identity politicking done by the writer?

Does it really matter since the decision was also based on ‘disparate impact’ which is statistically provable?

 

[Cope]

Does it really matter since the decision was also based on ‘disparate impact’ which is statistically provable?

Well, it matters to me since the entire premise of this thread is "

Felon voting ban is racially motivated and unconstitutional, NC judges rule"​

Either that is what it is or they simply found it to be unconstitutional.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, it matters to me since the entire premise of this thread is "

Felon voting ban is racially motivated and unconstitutional, NC judges rule"​

Either that is what it is or they simply found it to be unconstitutional.

From the OP link.

Specifically, they wrote that the law “was enacted with the intent of discriminating against African American people and has a demonstrably disproportionate and discriminatory impact.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259878470.html#storylink=cpy

I agree that the ‘news’ story should have included a link to the actual court ruling, rather than linking to their own initial report and some advocacy group‘s opinion. This will likely be appealed, but not all appeals are ‘accepted’ by higher courts.

 

[Cope]

Does it really matter since the decision was also based on ‘disparate impact’ which is statistically provable?

I also would be interested in how something is unconstitutional simply because it has disparate impact?
Murders?
Rapes?
Violent Crime in general, all have 'disparate impact', does that make them unconstitutional?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I also would be interested in how something is unconstitutional simply because it has disparate impact?
Murders?
Rapes?
Violent Crime in general, all have 'disparate impact', does that make them unconstitutional?

Yep, things could quickly get very messy if judges decided to do that. There is no doubt that many racists helped to pass laws, but does that fact prove that the laws were passed with racist intent?

 

[Buckeyes85]

Well, it matters to me since the entire premise of this thread is "

Felon voting ban is racially motivated and unconstitutional, NC judges rule"​

Either that is what it is or they simply found it to be unconstitutional.

Yes, he/it does make that ruling: at pg. 56

"N.C.G.S. § 13-1 Impermissibly Discriminates Against African American People in Intent and Effect and Denies Substantially Equal Voting Power to African American People"

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, he/it does make that ruling: at pg. 56

"N.C.G.S. § 13-1 Impermissibly Discriminates Against African American People in Intent and Effect and Denies Substantially Equal Voting Power to African American People"

OK, but what was used as evidence of “Intent”?

 

[aociswundumho]

I also would be interested in how something is unconstitutional simply because it has disparate impact?
Murders?
Rapes?
Violent Crime in general, all have 'disparate impact', does that make them unconstitutional?

No, because rape and murder are actual crimes with real victims. However gun control laws and drug laws are victimless crimes and definitely have a disparate impact on minorities.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I also would be interested in how something is unconstitutional simply because it has disparate impact?
Murders?
Rapes?
Violent Crime in general, all have 'disparate impact', does that make them unconstitutional?

Sorry but that question really makes no sense. Not apples to oranges but more like apples to an elephant.
The issue of disparate impact relates to laws/regulations, not the crime itself.

 

[Buckeyes85]

OK, but what was used as evidence of “Intent”?

The ruling is 70 pages long. Sorry, I am not going to read the whole thing and summarize it for you. Unless of course you are willing to pay the going rate, then I will

 

[Cope]

Sorry but that question really makes no sense. Not apples to oranges but more like apples to an elephant.
The issue of disparate impact relates to laws/regulations, not the crime itself.

How does a law that states felons cannot own a firearm get applied differently?
Such as a law stating that it is illegal to murder someone. The law would have a disparate application as murders happen more among/by certain ethnic groupings than others.

How is the law, in this case, different than the crime?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The ruling is 70 pages long. Sorry, I am not going to read the whole thing and summarize it for you. Unless of course you are willing to pay the going rate, then I will

Why not include the link?

 

[Chillfolks]

As long as other right are restored I take no issue.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How does a law that states felons cannot own a firearm get applied differently?

It might not, but this case did not address that issue.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Why not include the link?

It was in the OP. Click on "Monday's Ruling"