Va. high court invalidates McAuliffe’s order restoring felon voting rights

christiefan915 said:
In that case there shouldn't be any reason why people who paid their debt to society can't vote. I thinks it's a crazy law or rule, whatever you call it. No universal suffrage.

The United States is among the most punitive nations in the world when it comes to denying the vote to those who have been convicted of a felony offence.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Click to expand...

Do you know who makes most of the laws related to voting?

Again, if you don't like it here, get the fuck out. Didn't you say "me, me, me" when the question of who would want to go to Europe was asked? What's stopping you?
 
Celticguy said:
It's state controlled. Don't like how your state does it then talk to your representative.
Click to expand...

christiefan likely isn't aware that STATES control most aspects of who can vote, when they have to and what is required to register, and most other things related to individuals voting. That's obvious by the fact that when the Democrats raised hell about voter ID laws, they weren't complaining about federal laws but laws of each of the STATES that made them for their STATE.

Looking at the Constitution, it says very little about regulating voting and elections. It does say a significant amount about electoral votes and how they are to be determined and divided among the states. However, it says absolutely nothing about how a state has to distribute the ones that have been given to it. For example, the Constitutional calculation dictates Maine has 4 electoral votes. 1 representing each of its 2 House districts plus 2 for the Senators. Maine chooses to divide it electoral votes by a winner take all within each House district boundary rather than statewide then award the 2 representing the Senators as a bonus for the overall statewide popular vote winner. Nebraska does the same thing. All other states and D.C. do a statewide winner take all. The point being that while federal law determines how many, each STATE determines how they're divided.

When it comes to the expansion of voting rights, the 15th and 19th Amendments didn't specifically grant blacks and women the right to vote. An amendment can't favor one group over another although the intention was to expand voting to those groups. The federal government can't tell the States to do that. What those Amendments did was uphold that STATES can still set the requirements of who can vote in their state but they can no longer use race or gender as a way to disqualify people from voting. With Jim Crow laws, while the result was prohibiting blacks from voting, it didn't do it based on race, therefore not violating the 15th, because those laws didn't address race. With the 19th, women couldn't have been granted the right to vote because in some states, women were already voting.

STATES control who can vote within their STATE. Outside of the federal/Constitutional regulation, STATES still make those decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top