Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont submitted the legislation, named the Inclusive Democracy Act, on Tuesday which would guarantee the right to vote in federal elections for all citizens regardless of their criminal record.

In a statement, Pressley said the legislation was necessary due to policies and court rulings that “continue to disenfranchise voters from all walks of life — including by gutting the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering, cuts to early voting, and more.” Welch called the bill necessary due to “antiquated state felony disenfranchisement laws.”

In late 2022, approximately 4.6 million people were unable to vote due to a felony conviction, according to a study by the Sentencing Project, a nonpartisan research group. The same study found that Black and Hispanic citizens are disproportionately likely to be disenfranchised due to felony

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Convicted of drug crime? Should never lose right to vote.

    Convicted of violent crime? Should regain right to vote upon release.

    Convicted of trying to overturn an election? Never get to vote again.

    • query@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They should all be able to vote. From prison, too. The punishment never needs to be to take their voting rights away. If they commit fraud, stop them from committing fraud again.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think if you’re overthrowing the government, you’re basically tapping out of the democracy. That’s literally the only crime I could see not being allowed to vote. I also think they should be removed from the country they tried to destroy. But then I have no idea how would they remain detained in that situation.

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So we just make them legitimate sovereign citizens?

            What happens when they start to organize and try to create a new country within the United States?

            Edit: weird downvotes, I’m asking questions

            • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Make a new permanent US penal colony, call it New Australia, located in Texas. TX as been wanting to secede anyway, let’s give them a helping hand. Deport all seditionists there with all visa/passport privileges being revoked.

              And the final chef’s-kiss: Enact all of the cruel immigration laws against New Australia that they’ve been wanting so bad, see how they like it.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hmmm, the more I think about it the more I like this plan. I vote for New Australia. It fits U.S. naming conventions too!

            • Mobiuthuselah
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s your understanding of “sovereign citizen”? Asking in good faith.

              I mean, we have Amish in the US. That’s a kind of sovereign citizen, right?

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Amish are just members of a fairly extreme religion. They don’t reject the existence of government itself. Sovereign citizens are people that believe they aren’t subject to the laws of the country the reside in.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well I’m basing it off of the google definition…

                Sovereign citizens believe they are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government and consider themselves exempt from U.S. law. They use a variety of conspiracy theories and falsehoods to justify their beliefs and their activities, some of which are illegal and violent.

                I mean we’d basically be making them the same thing, no? Only legitimate?

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d prefer compulsory voting from all able people of voting age. Prisons should have full in-person voting locations with private voting booths. Mail-in ballots should be a freely available option for all.

        It doesn’t guarantee good results, but I feel it is the most straightforward way to rid ourselves of voter suppression campaigns, which I think are fundamentally evil.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not much of a tax when it can be “paid” by sending a piece of paper through the mail, postage-paid.

            Australia does this. It works out very well.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree with this approach without even touching the morality aspect.

      There should be no way to lose your voting rights once you are of age and a citizen of the US for the very simple reason of limiting the bureaucratic overhead of elections. If every citizen above the age of 18 can vote, you can just completely remove the ridiculous notion of “voter registration”.

      Just register everyone based on their legal address (which the government should have anyway because taxes). Just like a real democracy.

      • rushaction@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with this.

        Even people who make mistakes should be entitled to vote. Even while paying for their mistakes frankly. They may have lost their freedom, but they are still citizens of the Republic.

        The only compelling argument I know of is that voting in local elections is a mess because there would be counties that’d suffer from the over representation due to the location of the prisons. I would just consider those to be absentee voters myself, and they just keep the last address they had before going in or next if kin instead.

        Just my thoughts

    • Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree with violent crime, they should entirely lose the right to vote. There’s no room in our society for behavior like that

      • happilybitchycowboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        I got a felony 14 years ago for running from a cop. He got a scratch on his hand and charged me with aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Bogus public defender didn’t even help try to fight for me and their charges stuck like glue.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the number of violent criminals in your society is enough to affect the outcome of an election, you’ve got much bigger problems. And if you take away the right to vote for violent crimes, politicians will attempt to redefine what “violent” means to disenfranchise more people.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Keeping a person out of our society is not done by revoking the right to vote, it’s done by giving them a life sentence.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about white collars that steal so much money they literally ruin people’s lives?

        Please engage with me.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    What third world shit is that? You can’t vote if you’ve been convicted of a felony? That’s some medieval thinking right there, god the US is a hopeless barbaric mess only thinly disguised as a democracy.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It gets worse. Many of the felony disenfranchisement laws originate from the civil war era. Combine that with the 13th amendment still allowing slavery as a punishment for crime and you can take a guess who was overwhelmingly targeted.

    • Compactor9679
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well fucking yea! You lose your rights as soon as you do stupid things… Behave in the society if you dont want this to happen to you…

      • Cowbee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Removing the right to vote from felons means you create a class of society that can no longer represent themselves, and must trust non-felons to represent their interests. This is inherently anti-democratic thought and is fundamentally an abhorrent thought process, especially considering false convictions are more common than one would expect.

        • Compactor9679
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          “False convictions are more common that one would expect” that is a different problem that needs a different solution.

          “You create a class that can no longer represent themselves” you dont, they did it when they chose to break the law.

          • Cowbee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It is not a different problem, it’s one and the same.

            Breaking the law is a complicated situation, and focusing on punishment instead of rehabilitation is draconian and borderline fascist. Everyone should be able to represent themselves via voting, if they are of age.

              • Cowbee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Law itself isn’t good or bad. If it was legal to murder, would you do it?

                • Compactor9679
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  What do you mean?? Some people do already (murder I mean)

      • EatATaco
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the felon population is so high that it really is going to represent a threat that they might be able to band together and vote as a bloc to get some candidate elected…well your legal system is fucked up and this is probably good. If it isn’t that high, then it doesn’t matter.

        There is no good reason to remove the right to vote. It’s just meant as punishment, and I doubt it acts as much it a deterrence because who is going to be thinking about their right to vote when committing a crime?

        • Compactor9679
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sure there is, it promotes candidets to go for those votes. Making laws less severe and a broken society as consequence… But if that is what you want, why have laws at all? In the end the people who brake them can chose candidets who would remove them. Ask Portland OR how is their “every drug is legal” law working, zombie town if you go downtown. I guess that is what is important? Good luck

          • EatATaco
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Sure there is, it promotes candidets to go for those votes.

            My whole point is that this doesn’t matter unless the prison population is high enough. . .and if it’s so high that this is actually a large enough to actually really sway a politician, then that almost certainly means there is something wrong with the system that is imprisoning so many people. It’s like my point was just completely ignored.

            But if that is what you want, why have laws at all?

            Going from “they should retain the right to vote” to “no laws at all” is the most mindless logical jump I’ve heard in a bit. Well, not quite, I was recently arguing with someone who actually argued that someone who says “I don’t support Trump or Biden” means they are actually a Trump supporter and just lying when they say they don’t support Trump. That was dumber, but your jump is pretty close to that.

    • Texas_Hangover
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes you fucking can, in fact, voting rights is just about the easiest right to restore once your off paper and paid all your restitution and fines. (Which can be goddam hard. But it is doable.)

      Source; I’m an ex fucking convict lol. I’ll have my gun rights back next year if all goes well.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This depends on the state.

        Some states automatically let you vote.

        A few wouldn’t let you vote at all.

  • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the person has paid by doing their sentence and are in good faith trying to integrate into society, they should be able to vote.

    Except traitors and or domestic terrorists, they can go fuck themselves.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly even those should be able to vote. If there are enough to actually win an election, then the area in question has a problem regardless, and if not, then the only actually consequencential effect of forbidding it would be that unscrupulous political groups could try and declare their enemies traitorous to try to disenfranchise them.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Democracy is a social contract. If you break the terms of the contract by attempting to overthrow democracy, you lose the rights afforded by that contract, like voting.

        • just_change_it@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem with that reasoning is that the vast majority of felonies aren’t trying to overthrow a democracy. Punishments should fit the crime.

          A DUI shouldn’t stop you from voting, nor should a conviction for being a prostitute. Burglary shouldn’t either. The punishments for each of those felonies should be different and determined case by case. None of them have anything to do with voting.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            My friend got busted for an ounce of weed when he was 18 and got a felony (intent to distribute…as if the pothead wasn’t just gonna smoke it all himself).

            He’s very politically-conscious and always pushing people to vote. I wasn’t thinking and asked if he wanted to go with me and man…I’ve never seen a smile turn to a frown so fast.

          • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            My friend I’m talking about felons charged with trying to over throw the government, not just regular felons. I stated that I agree with felons voting once they paid their sentence. I support reintegration of people that are trying to change their lives.

            I’ve worked with 2 strikers and felons and have seen some giving back to the community more than someone that hasn’t done crime. Trying to prevent the youth from ending up the same way.

        • Armen12
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Was MLK a “domestic terrorist” now too because he criticized the US?

        • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Attempting to overthrow the democracy is a very specific crime that very few have actually attempted let alone charged for

  • Mobiuthuselah
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What rational argument is there for citizens to lose their right to vote?

    Say you lose your right to vote over possession of drugs. Why? You shouldn’t you have representation?

    While in prison you become slave labor. For profit prisons get money for housing and feeding you. They get money from the contracted work you do. They double and triple dip profits. There’s all kinds of under the table deals being done on your back. But why did you lose your right to vote? It all goes back to controlling certain groups of the population. That’s where it started, that’s where it still is. Sure, restrict gun ownership for felons, that’s a constitutional right that has long needed overhaul for so many reasons, but the right to vote, why??

    • Gargantu8@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Losing the right to vote is dangerous especially because then you could imprison people who vote against you and swing the vote. Wait…

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The cynic in me points to the demographic makeup of those who are in prison or have a criminal record. This is continued systemic racism and the cruelty is the point.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d point to the non-war-on-drugs felony charges as better examples of the kinds of crimes that make sense to take voting away over. CSAM, massive tax fraud, terrorism, mass violence, particularly heinous yet targeted violence, forcing an altered state of mind onto others via unknown substances,

      The kinda heinous sociopathic shit that marks a clear disregard for the social contract.

      Broadly I disagree with the notion of there being a crime you never finish atoning for, but I can understand why people might hesitate to bring the gates down for folks who’ve committed such acts even after long periods of reform.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Problem is, that would be for federal crimes ionly. But, the biggest problem is that states write the rules for all elections, not the feds

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Currently, no US state blanket bans the right to vote for felons. There are different variations of when you get the right back, but permanent removal is for specific felonies.

  • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In late 2022, approximately 4.6 million people were unable to vote due to a felony conviction

    Holy shit America! WTF??? That’s over 2% of the adult population!

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. It is unlikely that there would be enough criminals, guilty of any crime actually worthy of being such, to successfully legalize that crime even if they wanted to (and for any reasonable crime most probably wouldn’t even want such, even theives don’t want to be stolen from). As such, there isn’t any particular risk in letting felons vote. However, not letting them do so allows laws to be weaponized to disenfranchise people

  • Ibex0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m fine with incarcerated felons not voting. But they should have a pathway to voting when they’re released. Maybe immediately upon release, or after probation. Something.

      • neeeeDanke@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Esp. because if you have enough people in prison that the results of elections would regularly depend on their votes your main problem is not prisoners voting or not, its having too many prisoners.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree if only for the sake of avoiding the absolute deluge of “politicians are all criminals!” jokes that encouraging prisoner political engagement could bring about

  • kn0wmad1c@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Being forced to pay taxes while not having the right to vote is taxation without representation - the exact thing we created America over.

    • Cowbee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What part? The idea that citizens should be able to be represented, regardless of their circumstances, or that they can’t already do so?

      • Compactor9679
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The idea that citizens that have lost their rights want to chose who “represent” them. As soon as you lose your rights you lose that

        • Cowbee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Rights shouldn’t be able to be taken away.

          • Compactor9679
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            So no need for backround check on buying guns? (Just one simple example)

            • Cowbee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Not a simple example. Voting is representing yourself. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. The “right to bear arms” isn’t a right.

              • Compactor9679
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                The “right” to bear arms is not a right… Okay sure hehehheheh. Im glad prisoners cant vote :)

                • Cowbee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Glad you’re anti-democratic and draconian.

      • systemglitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, I’m just genuinely unable to tell and thus curious. But I guess a person can’t even question this stuff our society is so insane now.

        The bill itself means nothing to me.

          • systemglitch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you even talking about? You know what, I don’t care, I’m simply blocking your stupidity so I don’t have to see such nonesense again.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                ROFL You complain about other people being derisive while you yourself lash out and abuse others every chance you get. Because of course your fee-fees matter, but others’ do not.

                Sure. Please block me asshole, I’ll block you too

                Oh my god, I remember who you are now. You go and get 'em, tiger. I’m sure the broken blocking feature will work the 26th time your dumb ass uses it to try to assert power over others.

                You’re an asshole and a bully. You’re exactly like the right-wing anti-LGBTQ bible thumpers you think yourself superior to. You are exactly the arrogant, immature, emotionally weak sack of shit you accuse others of being.

                Now go ahead. Throw a temper tantrum and block me too. Let me get another laugh out of you. Or I’ll block you first; does that mean I’ll win something?