Supreme court leaves intact Mississippi law disenfranchising Black voters

Yeah they snuck in that one to minimize the media coverage

 

Can you imagine if this court viewed voting rights the same as they view gun rights….

 

I cannot.

 

This list covers a lot of people, regardless of race. Maybe the issue is more charging and seeking convictions in a uniform way. Sounds like the state needs to consider affirmative action.

• Voter Fraud
• Murder
• Rape
• Bribery
• Theft
• Carjacking
• Arson
• Obtaining money or goods under false pretense
• Perjury
• Forgery
• Embezzlement
• Bigamy
• Armed Robbery
• Extortion
• Larceny
• Felony Bad Check
• Felony Shoplifting
• Receiving Stolen Goods
• Robbery
• Timber Larceny
• Unlawful taking of motor vehicle
• Statutory Rape
• Larceny under lease or rental agreement

 

Don't commit a felony crime and problem solved. That goes for any race. Because these laws affect criminals regardless of color.

 

So let me see if I understand the argument you’re making. A person voluntarily and knowingly, commits a crime, and loses their right to vote. The person committing those crimes could be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay, trans queer. Heck, let’s just be real, it could be anyone. And based upon this, you believe the state is disenfranchising only Black people? I have a rather bold idea here, maybe you can share with your friends in Mississippi. If you want to retain your right to vote, don’t commit crimes. Problem solved. Next.

racism is easily fixed if we just use common sense.

 

I consider it a somewhat “fair trade” to say *if* felons can be stripped of gun rights, they can also be stripped of voting rights. This court is so dishonest, it doesn’t likely consider these matters (voting vs. guns) on equal terms. If I were king for a day, I’d say most people should be able to see their rights restored. Disenfranchisement of constitutional right should be a very high bar. Limiting the permanent disenfranchisement only to more serious felonies that involved violence or a weapon is what I see as as passing scrutiny.

The issue here is the law was explicitly written to disenfranchise blacks. Like… it should obviously be absurd to have someone convicted at 18 years of age for “theft”, to then be disenfranchised from voting for life. Especially when we know for a fact justice is not enforced equally AND the law was explicitly written in 1890 to disenfranchise blacks, and the ultimate outcome still skews that way in 2023, so in Mississippi it seems not much has changed since 1890.

 

Do you have any evidence that black people commit more of these crimes than other races, proportionally to population? I might have sympathy for your position if that were true, but I’m likely stuck on the adage “actions have consequences.” The history, assuming what you posted is true, is very troubling, and tips the scale strongly in your favor. But the adage carries its own weight too. Not a simple answer here for sure.

 

To take it a step further, I suppose those racist Mississippi legislators in 1890 were prescient enough to know which specific felonies African-Americans would be most likely to commit 133 years into the future.

 

I think it is a very good idea to keep felons from voting. A person's vote affects everyone around them. If a person cannot live well in their own society, then that brings into question whether they can steward the power of voting in a way that does not harm their fellow citizen.

 

The stated purpose of the law seems relevant

 

So white felons can vote in Mississippi? Or does your title not fit the so called ruling... non-ruling?

Maybe your title/article is deceptive.

 

100% agree with your paragraph 2. Paragraph 1 doesn’t tell me anything unless you have the numbers of blacks committing all felonies. If that number is double too, then IMO the whole argument collapses. If not, then greater scrutiny is needed.

 

Troubling. They let members of the GOP vote and most are more disreputable these these poor singled out Mississippi ex felons.

 

I see the crackers got incest exempted.

 

That is way too judgmental IMHO and allows for no exceptions.

 

It sure does, but if SCOTUS had struck down the statute, it would have been easily fixable.

 

Well, at least you are acknowledging that the act of voting requires moral virtue. If you acknowledge that, then you at least acknowledge that the state is not wrong to draw a line somewhere. We often speak of voting as a right, but I believe it should be seen as a privilege. There are certain people who should not be allowed to vote because they have a proven track record of lacking character and virtue.