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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
Under Texas law, felons can possess a firearm five years after they have completed their sentence.
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.
Did the judge say racially motivated, or was that the editorializing and thus identity politicking done by the writer?
Well, it matters to me since the entire premise of this thread is "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.
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.”
I also would be interested in how something is unconstitutional simply because it has disparate impact?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?
Yes, he/it does make that ruling: at pg. 56Well, 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"
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.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?
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 willOK, but what was used as evidence of “Intent”?
How does a law that states felons cannot own a firearm get applied differently?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.
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
How does a law that states felons cannot own a firearm get applied differently?
It was in the OP. Click on "Monday's Ruling"Why not include the link?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?