Felons voting rights restored

[RealGun]

This sounds like a precedent that could apply to restoring the freedom to exercise the RKBA once a free man. As far as I know, the law(s) re RKBA says "felony". It does not say "a sentence of a year or less", treating a felony as if a misdemeanor.

**********

Court Restores Inmates' Voting Rights
From Associated Press
December 28, 2006 11:14 PM EST

SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals court is restoring the voting rights of about 100,000 local jail inmates across the state who are serving a year or less for felony convictions.

The state said it would not appeal the decision from the 1st District Court of Appeal. The affected inmates were eligible to vote until last year, when the state disenfranchised them.

For three decades, California's secretary of state had interpreted that the state Constitution barred voting by those in state prisons and those on parole.

(ed: note that this last and the preceding paragraph conflict. Either the inmates had been restricted for three decades or were eligible except for the most recent year. I believe what the first paragraph failed to mention was that, except for one year, only those with sentences of one year or more were previously disenfranchised. The Court is now incorrectly treating a felony as a misdemeanor according to length of sentence. The State was technically correct in regard to felons, but we'll take the break. One has to wonder if the sentence imposed was correct at less than one year. It is either a felony or not. - RealGun)

The appeals court said in it's decision last week that the state wrongly changed the policy last year to include people convicted of felonies but sentenced to a year or less in a local county jail.

The League of Women Voters brought the case on behalf of three San Francisco County jail inmates.

**********

Like the ACLU, the League would probably shudder to think that the case could have bearing on RKBA.

 

[Frog48]

Good deal.

Once a man is released from prison/parole/probation, he should regain all rights and privileges of free men. If a felon cannot be trusted to vote or own firearms, they shouldnt have been released from prison/supervision.

 

[bouis]

It's only those felons who the judge took pity on and sentenced to less than one year and a day.

This is a very strange result since IIRC, on 99% of matters, it's a felony if you could have been sentenced to more than a year.

 

[Shipwreck]

I'm sorry - I disagree. If they made that decision (to commit a crime), then that's one of the consequences.

 

[GRIZ22]

Federal law still says if you get more than a year is a felony so this would not allow them to buy guns. You don't havbe to do 10 minutes in jail just be found guilty of a crime that could get you more than a year. The federal goverment has no say in how the state sets up election laws unless they are discriminatory. There could be no appeal to this voting issue to the SCOTUS. I can guess who these criminals would vote for.

While it sounds good they should be locked up if they can't be trusted with a gun but we know it doesn't work this way. I have no objection to felons being barred from firearms ownership.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Court is now incorrectly treating a felony as a misdemeanor according to length of sentence.

No, the court is apparently reading the law. The way I read the original post, the law disenfranchises those in state prison. This ruling applies to inmates of county jails. Thus, the ruling isn't a function of the length of the sentence so much as where the sentence is served.

Regardless of whether you like the ruling or not, I personally find it refreshing when courts actually read the law and apply what it says to the case before them. If more judges would do that, perhaps legislatures would be forced to write laws that make sense.

I am currently involved in a situation in which my client is being held hostage (administratively and financially, not physically) because in adopting a new regulation last year, the agency that prepared it didn't understand what it wrote. My client read the regulation and set out to proceed in strict compliance therewith ... resulting in several officials at various levels telling him he couldn't do what he wanted to do. I arrived late to the party, and even then it took me six WEEKS to get the state agency's honcho to acknowledge that the real problem was, he now says that regulation means precisely the opposite of what it says. (What is says is "exempt.") This official has now issued a written interpretation, which I've been privately informed his own legal staff told him he can't do, saying that the portion of the regulation that the regulation specifically says my client is exempt from ... still applies, because he thinks it should now that he's had more time to think about it.

(Like the five years it took to write the regulation wasn't enough time to think about it?)

Yeah, please give us more judges who just read the laws and apply them, rather than "legislating from the bench."

 

[DWARREN123]

For one time after they have paid for their crime in full. The second time they screw up they should not get them back.

 

[Bunkster]

The acid test ought to be:

If you aren't allowed to have firearms, you aren't allowed to vote.

Never should anyone be allowed to vote, yet not be allowed to own firearms.

 

[RealGun]

No, the court is apparently reading the law. The way I read the original post, the law disenfranchises those in state prison. This ruling applies to inmates of county jails. Thus, the ruling isn't a function of the length of the sentence so much as where the sentence is served.

Regardless of whether you like the ruling or not, I personally find it refreshing when courts actually read the law and apply what it says to the case before them. If more judges would do that, perhaps legislatures would be forced to write laws that make sense. - Aquila Blanca

Why is the distinction between state and local jails important? Why are the inmates in local jails instead of state prisons? Is that simply a function of sentence term? What if the convictions were for violations of state law?

 

[Firethorn]

It's only those felons who the judge took pity on and sentenced to less than one year and a day.

This is a very strange result since IIRC, on 99% of matters, it's a felony if you could have been sentenced to more than a year.

This is a bit strange to me, as so many things are felonies today because of 'tough on crime' initiatives.

I'd like to see misdemeanor versions of some felonies to handle the people who were more stupid or ignorant than criminal.

For example, in some areas simple discharge of a firearm is a felony, and somebody who has a ND/AD in that area just commited a felony. While I don't argue that there shouldn't be a potential punishment in that case, does it need to be of the level of a felony and do we need to take the guy's guns away, or do we sentence him to 40 hourse of community service and a gun safety refresher?

Why is the distinction between state and local jails important? Why are the inmates in local jails instead of state prisons? Is that simply a function of sentence term? What if the convictions were for violations of state law?

By default, only sentence > year go to prison. Why are they in local jails? Because either their total sentence is less than a year, or their sentence was short(but over a year) and the prison was full. Function of sentence term? Pretty much, though people with sentences greater than a year may serve in a jail due to occupancy levels in the prison. I'm willing to bet they're all for violations of state law, which is why the state court is deciding things.

 

[bouis]

Don't be so optimistic. The actual provision in the California constitution is:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that
affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of
electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for
the conviction of a felony.

The State Supreme Court decided that "or" really meant "and." This is judicial activism at its worst.

 

[bouis]

Well, okay, I realize what I said above doesn't quite make sense. One more time:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that
affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of
electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.

The way I read it is, as it is written: you are not allowed to vote if:

1) you are mentally incompetent; or
2) you are imprisoned; or
3) you are on parole for the conviction of a felony

The California Supreme Court reads it as: you are not allowed to vote if:

1) you are mentally incompetent; or
2) you are imprisoned for more than one year, for a felony; or
3) you are on parole, following imprisonment for more than one year for a felony