carts before horses

I saw this yesterday, and it really bothered me: Federal judges say felons should be able to vote in Washington.

The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities.

I guess I have to ask whether minorities who aren't in jail, and whose "clout" is supposely being diluted, have more interests in common with their fellow law-abiding citizens on the outside or with fellow minority members who are also felons.

To put it another way, doesn't this ruling threaten to dilute the electoral clout of all honest, law-abiding citizens by opening the vote to all felons?  Which should be of greater concern to the government?

The original purpose of government is to protect honest citizens from predators.  Now, I realize government's been branching out; taking on additional responsibilities like "social injustice."  But with this decision we're no longer just covering extra bases -- we're actually giving up on government's original charter, its raison d'etre, in favor of some other cause it assumed later on.

Plus, isn't the perspective of the Voting Rights Act, and other anti-discrimination measures, really about whether minorities are being incarcerated to keep them from voting?  And does anyone believe that if the incarcerated population of Washington was predominately white, for example, that Washington would be more inclined to let felons vote?

I can tolerate idiocy.  But it really hurts to see it wearing black robes and sitting on federal benches.  Washington announced that it will be appealing this, so we'll have to see how it goes.

Comments

[Robert (Bob) Johnson]

To me, it's not a matter of:

To put it another way, doesn't this ruling threaten to dilute the electoral clout of all honest, law-abiding citizens by opening the vote to all felons? Which should be of greater concern to the government?

...It's a matter of constitutionality, which is addressed in quite a balanced manner at:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=000705

[Jimmy]

From that link shared by Mr. Johnson

"By denying the vote to those who have not paid their LFOs [Legal Financial Obligations], the State of Washington distributes this findamental right [to vote] on the constitutionally impermissible basis of wealth.

Washington's re-enfranchisement scheme creates two classes of ex-felons in Washington: those ex-felons who are able to pay their LFOs and regain the right to vote, and those ex-felons who are unable to pay their LFOs and remain permanently disenfranchised.

By requiring payment of all LFOs as a condition for reenfranchisement, the State effectively imposes a poll tax upon Plaintiffs and all other ex-felons. This violates both the Federal and State Constitutions."

Now, I apologize for the wall of text but John, what do you think of this? It's a compelling argument for me, someone who doesn't want to see felons "diluting the political clout" any more than you do. I have to say though, I don't believe that once disenfranchised people should always remain so. The only argument I can think of is that these felons ought to do their best to get to work and pay those LFOs, instead of asking the government to round their teeth off because they "can't" pay them. Thoughts?