As reported here, the lawsuit filed by the state chapter of the ACLU on behalf of three convicted felons to get their voting rights restored - even though they have not repaid all of their court mandated fines and/or fees, as required by the State Constitution - is now before the State Supreme Court.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington sued the state on behalf of three people who can't vote because they have not -- and may never be able to -- pay fines and restitutions levied as part of their sentences." I wonder why these people aren't smart enough to be able to get a job, and then budget their expenses, to be able to pay off their remaining debt? Oh, wait - they're convicted felons! They were stupid enough to commit a crime, and get caught, so apparently they are too stupid to get a job now, so the ACLU has to step up for them, and hold their hand, while they sing the blues about not being able to vote.
"In March, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman struck down the state law that denies the vote to thousands of ex-felons solely because they owe court-imposed fines." Another example of a judge legislating from the bench. If Judge Spearman thinks the law is unconstitutional, amounting to a poll-tax, why wasn't this addressed before now, so that the state legislature could have "corrected the problem" (an obviously manufactured "problem")?
"McKenna argued that state law requires felons to complete all the terms of their sentences, including fines and victims restitution, before their right to vote can be reinstated. " He is correct, and it is up to the state legislature to determine the laws regarding who can, and who cannot, vote, and what the requirements for voting are, not a county judge.
"ACLU lawyer Peter Danelo argued that the right to vote can never be tied to the ability to pay, echoing what Spearman wrote in his decision.
"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights," Spearman wrote. "There is no logic in the assumption that a person in possession of sufficient resources to pay the (legal financial) obligation immediately is the more law-abiding citizen."" It is also widely recognized that those who are convicted of a crime, or crimes, give up certain rights as a result of said conviction, while law abiding citizens remain free to exercise all of their rights as they see fit. If you can't afford to do the time - or pay the fine - don't do the crime!
"McKenna argued that there is a compelling state interest in requiring a felon to complete payments of fines and restitution before voting rights are restored. He said it provided an incentive for felons to repay some of the damages their illegal actions have caused.
And he said the U.S. Constitution allows states to disenfranchise felons and establish their own criteria for disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement -- including requiring felons to complete the terms of their sentences." What is so hard about this to understand? Is this beyond Judge Spearman's ability to comprehend, or is it a case of Judge Spearman wanting to re-write part of the US Constitution? It may be both.
No comments:
Post a Comment