November 1, 2010
"Convicted Felons Want The Right To Vote"
The title of this post is the headline of this timely Election Day eve story from National Public Radio. Here is the set up:
A new study by the Sentencing Project shows that some 800,000 people with felony convictions have been given the right to vote over the past decade, thanks to reforms to laws governing eligibility in 23 states. But at least 5.3 million felons of voting age remain disenfranchised.
That number includes nearly 4 million who live in 35 states which deny people — on probation, parole or those who have completed their sentence — voting rights. And critics say the ban has implications for the upcoming mid-term elections.
Host Michel Martin speaks with Mark Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, which promotes sentencing reform; and Susan Barton, who leads A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a program to help formerly incarcerated women in south central Los Angeles.
UPDATE: I am pleased and amused that a pretty good political debate has broken out in the comments to this post by two persons willing to use their (real?) full names with their comments. I am even more pleased that the debate appears to have resulted in challenges/promises of donations to the Association of the United States Army and Feeding America. Huzzah to my wonderful readers/commentors!
November 1, 2010 at 06:07 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Convicted Felons Want The Right To Vote":
Republicans have to be damned fools for agreeing to any restoration of the franchise to violent criminals.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 1, 2010 8:16:39 PM
personaly i thing the problem is all the idiots we have now and in the past that keep trying to TAKE AWAY A RIGHT! sorry a right is just that. IT'S YOURS! the govt is allowed to LIMIT those rights under certain very limited conditions. Sorry once your have served your time THOSE CONDITIONS ARE OVER!
Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 1, 2010 8:23:05 PM
Most of the former prisoners will vote Democrat. That is the real motivation, the rest is pretext. I do not appreciate the dishonesty.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 1, 2010 9:54:13 PM
As long as we're talking about voting, some of you might have noticed that we're having an election today.
There are a lot of smart people who comment here, and I wonder what their predictions are. Any takers?
Since I issued the call, I'll go first.
Net Republican gain in the House: 70 (most are saying mid-50's).
Net Republican gain in the Senate: 8 (most are saying 6-8).
Through all the head-scratching, this election is one of the easiest to figure out I've ever seen. Obama won by claiming to be a post-partisan and a level-headed moderate. He thus got a fat majority of the independent vote. He has governed, however, as a partisan and a doctrinaire leftist, certianly on domestic issues (which are now the whole ballgame). The independents, correctly figuring that they were sold a bill of goods, are striking back.
It's not the Tea Party and it's not that the country is stupid or angry or all that stuff. It's that people can recognize when they've been lied to and don't like it.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 1:52:16 AM
Why don't we read this line again and analize?
A new study by the Sentencing Project shows that some 800,000 people with felony convictions have been given the right to vote over the past decade, thanks to reforms to laws governing eligibility in 23 states. But at least 5.3 million felons of voting age remain disenfranchised.
Posted by: baby rocking horse | Nov 2, 2010 5:38:20 AM
federalist, who said anything about violent criminals? As you must know, not all felonies are violent crimes. These days, maybe not even most felony crimes involve violence.
SC, your pathological aversion to Democrats is palpable. Your paranoid obsession with crime is clear to anyone who reads this blog. But besides all that, what evidence do you have for asserting criminals favor Democrats?
Bill, Obama tried to be post-partisan even though Republicans in Congress vowed before he even took the oath to set a record for filibusters and negate his presidency.
Obama campaigned on "Obamacare" and then delivered it...in a package more suited to Mitt Romney and centrist Republicans (remember those?) than to folks like me.
Obama carried through on stimulus programs that hardly varied from those set in motion by Bush. Most of the rest of the indictments coughed up this campaign season by the right wing of your party (he's not an American, he is a socialist, his administration "took over" and "destroyed" health care, he nationalized the auto industry and so forth) are more fiction and bluster than fact.
I'm sure you'll have a joyous time watching the returns tonight as angry, fearful, distracted, low-information voters punish the Democrats for failing to fix in two years the historic mess Bush got us into.
And tomorrow you can celebrate the victories by the team promising yet again to give free-reign to the same magical-thinking, wonders-of-the-marketplace vampires who sucked the nation dry under Bush.
Under 50 in the house, 7 or less in the Senate.
Posted by: John K | Nov 2, 2010 9:09:18 AM
oops...make that "free rein"
Posted by: John K | Nov 2, 2010 9:37:49 AM
I am a registered Republican, but I support the right of all ex-felons to vote. The leading reason for crime is the feeling that you aren't a part of the community, and being barred from voting just contributes to that.
Posted by: NebraskaRSO | Nov 2, 2010 9:58:27 AM
In any country but this one, Obama would be center-right. Here, he's center-left. A market based health-care plan, without so much as a public option (let alone single-payer), could only be called "doctrinaire leftist" by someone who's never seen the real left.
50 to 60 in the House, 6 in the Senate.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 10:09:23 AM
Actually, Bill, I'll double down. Please name one "doctrinaire leftist" thing that Obama has done, and support it with a verifiable citation to a work of leftist doctrine. If you can come up with one, I promise to vote Republican for the House, Senate and Governor.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 10:13:40 AM
John K --
"Obama tried to be post-partisan even though Republicans in Congress vowed before he even took the oath to set a record for filibusters and negate his presidency."
His "post-partisanship" started off with his calling the Republican leadership into the White House. When they suggested things like tort reform for the health care bill (which is anathema to the Democrats' trial lawyer constituency), his reply was: Elections have consequences, and I won.
More recently, he has called Republicans the "enemy," denounced Boehner by name and in personal terms, said Republicans should go to the back of the bus, and noted (when speaking to an Hispanic audience) that we should "reward our friends and punish our enemies." When heckled at a rally this last weekend, he told the hecklers that they should go shout down his opponents (meaning Republicans).
This conduct is fine for a Chicago ward heeler. It is appalling for a man who claims to be President of all the people. And it is the opposite of being post-partisan.
Poor Barack! He only had some of the biggest Congressional majorities in history, including, for a consideralbe time, a fillibuster-proof Senate. But still, according to him, and you, it's somebody else's fault.
"Obama campaigned on "Obamacare" and then delivered it...in a package more suited to Mitt Romney and centrist Republicans (remember those?) than to folks like me."
What you neglect to mention is that he campaigned for health care as a BI-PARTISAN proposal. And in a cynically ironic sense, it was bi-partisan. The OPPOSITION was bi-partisan. But passage was done on a Democrats-only vote. He couldn't even get Olympia Snowe, nor even a single moderate House Republican. Of course it's no big surprise that is was a Democrats-only vote, since Pelosi locked Republicans out of the mark-ups and called it up for a vote without anything like adequate time to read it, much less study it.
On the other hand, there was, in the Democrats' view, no need to study it, since the crucial votes for its passage were not a result of study but of bribery (the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase). This from Mr. Pristine who pledged a new way of doing business in Washington.
"Obama carried through on stimulus programs that hardly varied from those set in motion by Bush."
You mean the irresponsible Bush spending that Obama ferociously (and correctly) campaigned against? That spending?
"Most of the rest of the indictments coughed up this campaign season by the right wing of your party (he's not an American, he is a socialist, his administration "took over" and "destroyed" health care, he nationalized the auto industry and so forth) are more fiction and bluster than fact."
I personally don't care where he's from. He won the election. The problem is that he won it on false pretenses, and that's why today is going to look like what it's going to look like.
Your lines look like they're copied from a DNC press release. What people actually care about is that, with the looming gigantic tax increase (that Pelosi did nothing about), the explosion of regulation, and the uncertainty and anxiety caused by trillions of new debt that cannot possibly be paid off, business has gone into a shell and is not hiring at anything close to the rate needed to bring down unemployment.
I'll respond to the rest of your post shortly.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 11:06:56 AM
"The leading reason for crime is the feeling that you aren't a part of the community, and being barred from voting just contributes to that."
The leading reason for crime is that the criminal wants money without having to work for it.
The second leading reason is he needs extra dough for his next high.
The most important "root cause" is the absence of the father in the home when growing up. Our do-your-own-thing culture has come home to roost.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 11:12:56 AM
Jonathan Edelstein --
"In any country but this one, Obama would be center-right. Here, he's center-left.
Nope. Hillary is center-left. So was John Edwards, when not stepping out on his cancer-stricken wife.
"A market based health-care plan, without so much as a public option (let alone single-payer), could only be called "doctrinaire leftist" by someone who's never seen the real left."
I went to Stanford in the early 70's, when a member of the National Lawyers Guild was busy delivering revolvers into to San Quentin. In August 1971, inmate George Jackson and some of his San Quentin cohorts shot to death three prison guards and two "snitches," or at least people they thought were snitches. Needless to say, there were support rallies all over campus for Jackson and his murderous rampage.
You wanna run by me one more time that I've "never seen the real left?"
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 11:29:42 AM
Bill, why shouldn't Obama call Republicans the "enemy" when they've been acting that way since day one? He wasn't talking like that when he took office, and if the Repubs had made a genuine good-faith effort at bipartisanship rather than owning the "Party of No" label, he still wouldn't be.
Look, don't get me wrong. You guys were perfectly entitled to use all the parliamentary devices at your disposal to block, undermine and thwart Obama's agenda. That's what minority parties do. But having done that, you're _not_ entitled to exect us to like it, or to act as if your parliamentary maneuvering is on a higher moral plane than ours.
And have you ever considered that if Snowe and Collins hadn't kept acting like Lucy with the football, it wouldn't have been necessary to buy off Nelson and Landrieu?
Anyway, I'm voting at 6 p.m. You have until then to come up with a verified example of doctrinaire leftism.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 11:37:49 AM
OK, Bill, so you saw the left at Stanford around the time I was busy being born. I stand corrected.
In that case, it should be easy for you to list Obama's doctrinaire leftist accomplishments.
(Hint, though: the Vietnam-era left is not necessarily typical of the left through history, or the left now. Lynne Stewart and her ilk -- who, for what it's worth, I despise -- are historical artifacts, not meaningful political figures.)
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 11:58:15 AM
Bill, we could argue about your version of the George Jackson story. The lawyer you accuse of smuggling a pistol into prison was ultimately acquitted on that charge. So the alternative explanation for how the gun made its way into Jackson's hands (that it was planted on him by guards who shot him) is no less plausible than yours.
You pride yourself on honesty, Bill. So are you honestly suggesting Boehner and McConnell would have helped Obama pass health-insurance reforms if he'd only included tort-reform and given them more time to study? Honestly? Really?
Not a day passes that Boehner doesn't stagger to a microphone and belch up mean, misleading, inaccurate attacks against Obama. Party leaders Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al, spew anti-Obama bile at every opportunity. Mouth-breathers in funny hats show up at rallies with signs portraying Obama as Hitler and The Joker in black face. What more, in your world, would these folks have to do to be considered enemies?
You say, "The problem is that he won it on false pretenses, and that's why today is going to look like what it's going to look like."
No. Today's probably going to unfold pretty much the way mid-term elections usually unfold (with the Party holding the presidency losing lots of seats)...Obama haters' wildly imaginative alternative explanations and conclusions notwithstanding.
Posted by: John K | Nov 2, 2010 12:33:46 PM
The Obamacare bill is doctrinaire left. That's the reason EVERY SINGLE House Republican voted against it, along with Snowe and Collins.
It is typical of the doctrinaire left to deny that they're doctrinaire left, so I don't expect you to admit it. But the bill is calculatedly the precursor to socialized medicine. It's cleverly structured so that, while private insurance is not outlawed per se, it is forced to bear additional costs that will unavoidably increase premiums (which has already started to happen). This in turn will drive away customers, and the industry will either shrink (increasing calls for YET MORE government involvement (which is the plan)), or driving the plans into these pools, which is the first step of their capture by the government. Because of Obamacare's complex, Rube Goldberg look, the single payer system -- which the public rebelled against -- is cleverly concealed as the objective. The people who constructed this thing were lefties, not stupid.
P.S. The reason the President of the United States should not call the opposition the "enemy" is that, well, he's the President of the United States. You know, President of All the People, as Obama piously told us again and again that he was going to be.
The majority of today's electorate is going to vote against him. There is no other way to construe the size and direction of the vote. Does that majority now get to be the "enemy" too?
P.P.S. Despite my winning the wager, I want you to vote your beliefs, not mine. Unlike Obama, I don't regard my adversaries in civil society as my enemies. So just contribute $100 to the USO.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 12:36:09 PM
"It is typical of the doctrinaire left to deny that they're doctrinaire left"
And it's typical of the doctrinaire right to declare victory when they haven't won.
Obamacare is Romneycare with the serial numbers filed off. It mirrors plans that have been suggested, and even signed into law, by those "doctrinaire leftists" in the Republican Party. It's well to the right of the health plans that exist in nearly every European country today, including those like Germany and Italy that have right-wing governments. You really need to do better than that, especially since even according to your own argument, Obamacare is at most a "precursor" to socialized medicine.
In any event, the wager required you to support your claim with a verifiable citation to a work of leftist doctrine. That condition was necessary to prevent you from doing exactly what you did, i.e., claiming victory by simple assertion. I'm really looking forward to seeing the left-wing polemic in favor of market based health insurance reform.
Even though I haven't lost, I'll contribute $100 to the Association of the United States Army, in which I formerly served. I'd appreciate if you match that with $100 for Feeding America, which needs help these days thanks to the mess that the Bush administration got us in, but you are under no obligation to do so.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 12:50:28 PM
Oh, and the public never "rebelled against" single payer -- they were never offered it as an option. From what I recall (although I'm willing to be corrected), single-payer did considerably better in polls than the insurance-carrier windfall that ended up getting passed.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 12:52:21 PM
John K --
"Bill, we could argue about your version of the George Jackson story. The lawyer you accuse of smuggling a pistol into prison was ultimately acquitted on that charge. So the alternative explanation for how the gun made its way into Jackson's hands (that it was planted on him by guards who shot him) is no less plausible than yours."
I should probably let that speak for itself and for the most part I will. (It should also be a lesson for Jonathan that the Old Left of the 70's is very much with us right on this forum). I will note, however, that, contrary to your claim, I did not accuse Angela Davis (or any other specific person). Davis was not at Stanford, nor was she the only person involved.
And just to clarify one point: Are you denying that Jackson and his prison cohorts murdered three guards and two fellow inmates? Did the guards kill themselves so their colleagues would be able to blame Jackson??? That sort of left wing nutiness is exactly the field you're starting to plow. Is Jackson a hero to you? Why not?
"You pride yourself on honesty, Bill. So are you honestly suggesting Boehner and McConnell would have helped Obama pass health-insurance reforms if he'd only included tort-reform and given them more time to study? Honestly? Really?"
Unlike your mortgage broker friend, who made his living concealing key financial facts, yes, I do pride myself on honesty. At no point did I say that the Republicans would have helped The One pass government-run health care. If you'll recall, I mentioned that Obama refused to incorporate tort reform as an example to support my statement that he was a partisan from the getgo, not the post-partisan he claimed to be in the campaign. Any Republican health care bill would have looked very different from the unread, unaffordable and dishonestly enacted monstrosity we got.
In an age of deficits we can't pay off, the Republicans were not going to add another gigantic entitlement. You've got that exactly right. The entitlements we have RIGHT NOW are out of control, as you couldn't possibly help knowing. I guess the Democrats think national bankruptcy is someone else's problem. And in this they are right. It's our children's problem.
This election is being driven by Obama's extremism, and specifically his extremism in embracing the hard left. Independents ARE angry, but not in the irrational way you imply, and they aren't stupid either. Peggy Noonan put it well in a Wall Street Journal column last Saturday:
"Six months ago the common wisdom was that the tea party was going to scare independent voters and make them run screaming from the tent. “There was an awful man in an Uncle Sam hat and a woman talking about repealing some amendment. I can’t take it, Harry!”
"But the center doesn’t appear to be scared. Maybe it doesn’t scare easy. Maybe getting scared is what happens next time, not this time. Or, my hunch, maybe the center, some of whose members have expressed a certain antipathy or standoffishness toward the tea party, simply doesn’t care that it feels a certain antipathy or standoffishness. Because such feelings are beside the point right now, a self-indulgence suited to less crisis-laden times. And we are in crisis. Our spending is ruinous, the demands of government are too great. It doesn’t matter if you like the style of those who want to turn it around, join them and try to turn it around. One of the things Rep. Paul Ryan [R - Wisconsin] says has seeped into the electorate: We have only a short time to fix things, we have to move now."
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 1:14:45 PM
"I guess the Democrats think national bankruptcy is someone else's problem."
Does the phrase "Bush tax cuts" remind you of anything?
I don't suppose that the CBO score for Obamacare -- showing net deficit reduction -- moves you either?
I'll tell you what, though. Rather than waiting for a citation to the leftist pro-Obamacare polemic that doesn't exist, I'll settle for a link to anyplace in which, prior to 2008, you described Romneycare as "doctrinaire leftist" or something similar. I'll accept that as evidence that, at least, you sincerely _believe_ Obamacare-type plans to be leftist rather than just saying so now for reasons of political expediency.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 1:25:55 PM
The reason that, since Reagan, the USA has had far more growth than Europe is precisely that the USA is NOT (yet) nearly as besotted with welfare state culture and economics as Europe is. Some of us prefer to keep it that way.
"...it's typical of the doctrinaire right to declare victory when they haven't won."
It must be typical of the doctrinaire left to concede defeat when they haven't lost, since it wasn't even four hours ago that you said the Republicans would win a minimum of 50 seats, giving them control. Did I misread that?
You're a little low, BTW, but you got the big part right. And of course a changeover of even 50 seats would be a massive and historic rebuke to Obama.
The charity will have to be politically neutral, which is why I suggested the NSO. But I will continue to listen to your thoughts.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 1:37:00 PM
I'll cop to "left," albeit (I hope) not doctrinaire. However, when I mentioned false declarations of victory, I was talking about the wager, not the House. With respect to the latter, I do predict a switch in party control, although it would be nice if I were proven wrong.
As far as I understand, Feeding America is totally apolitical -- all they do is feed people. If I'm incorrect, please let me know.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 1:43:39 PM
"The reason that, since Reagan, the USA has had far more growth than Europe is precisely that the USA is NOT (yet) nearly as besotted with welfare state culture and economics as Europe is. Some of us prefer to keep it that way."
I'll agree that the United States has had a higher growth rate and per-capita GDP than the European countries (exceptions like Norway and Luxembourg aside). However, some of us -- your words -- believe that growth isn't the be-all and end-all, and that it isn't healthy for a society if growth is concentrated in the top 2 percent of the population. (I belong to the top 2 percent, and didn't start out that way, so this isn't sour grapes.)
There are plenty of measures -- healthy life expectancy, childhood nutrition, educational attainment, environmental integrity, etc. -- where western Europe is well ahead of us. Not to mention that things like catching an intercity train or making an uninterrupted cell phone call can be much easier there. I don't deny that these have come at a cost in terms of absolute growth, and that beyond a certain point, lack of growth impacts on the poor as well as the rich. However, I would choose responsible albeit slower growth over the kind of bubble economy we've had for the past three decades. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 2:03:15 PM
Why on earth would I have said anything whatever about Romneycare in 2008 or ever? I don't live anywhere near Massachusetts and have no reason to give a hoot (or even know) what goes on there.
I hadn't even heard of Romneycare in 2008.
My candidate in 2008 was Giuliani, but he flamed our early, and I just watched after that. I paid almost no attention to Romney, since it was obvious he could not be elected. He looks like the little man on the wedding cake, and he's a Mormon, which many people (but not me) would hold against him. So he wasn't going anywhere even if he were the next Ronald Reagan.
I will repeat that Obamacare, to which I have perforce paid a lot of attention since it is going to affect me, is a doctrinaire left idea. You earlier said that I had had never seen the real left. You said this with the same degree of certianty you show now. But making statements about the beliefs and experience of people you don't know and haven't met is a dicey enterprise, as you've seen already today.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 2:04:18 PM
I've already admitted to being wrong about you not having encountered the "real left." Let me change that now: you've seen the real left, but seem to be under the impression that it extends to somewhere slightly right of center.
Objectively speaking, any definition of "doctrinaire left" that includes the German Christian Democratic Union (which it must, if highly-regulated private health care is to be deemed "doctrinaire left") is a pretty useless definition. And given that this is an objective assessment that doesn't depend on your personal experience, I feel on much firmer ground in saying so.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Nov 2, 2010 2:11:53 PM
Enough back and forth on politics for me, but I feel compelled to point out only one lawyer was linked through criminal charges to the arming of George Jackson and that lawyer was Stephen Bingham, who, as I noted previously, was subsequently acquitted.
Posted by: John K | Nov 2, 2010 2:31:22 PM
John K --
I would never have guessed that, almost 40 years later, someone would STILL be suggesting that Jackson was set up. How many of his fellow creatures does a person have to kill before, in your view, he gets classified as a bad guy?
As for the acquittal, that's true. It's likewise true that OJ was acquitted. Everyone the least bit acqainted with the system knows that "acquitted" doesn't mean "didn't do it."
Yes, you did retract it, and I thank you for it. My point was no more than it's risky to ascribe characteristic X to a person when you don't know the person.
You are younger than I (by your own account), and have more energy. Good for you. Enjoy it while it lasts.
I guess I'll say just one more thing for now. You said, in response to my bankruptcy point, "Does the phrase 'Bush tax cuts' remind you of anything?"
Does it ever. It reminds me that what I earn belongs to me and not the government. It also reminds me that the Democrats are saying over and over again that they want to re-enact them for 98% of the population. As to the CBO, yup, I saw what it says. Of course it assumes the talked about cuts in Medicare will happen, which absolutely no one believes. And even with that, the CBO also says that in the out years -- and not that far out -- the deficit will explode given the glide path upon which Obama has put us.
It just can't continue. This spending and borrowing without limit or discipline has to stop. That is the main message that will emerge from today.
Thank you for the candid and intelligent quality of your remarks.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 4:07:27 PM
"Everyone the least bit acqainted with the system knows that "acquitted" doesn't mean "didn't do it."
Bill, doesn't it also follow that "everyone the least bit acquainted with the system knows that 'convicted' doesn't mean "did do it"?
Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Nov 2, 2010 6:37:44 PM
Sure. It's a human system. There are erroneous convictions and acquittals. The difference (or one difference) is that the former can continue to be litigated while the latter almost always just disappear.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 2, 2010 6:48:53 PM
Bill writes "I would never have guessed that, almost 40 years later, someone would STILL be suggesting that Jackson was set up. How many of his fellow creatures does a person have to kill before, in your view, he gets classified as a bad guy?"
Well, usually I like to wait until he's been convicted of the crimeshe's been charged with before I classify him as a bad guy.
All I said was that the other story put forward at the time (that the gun was a plant) seems at least as plausible as the one that failed at trial and that you continue to put forward as unquestionably true.
Posted by: John K | Nov 2, 2010 7:46:21 PM
John asks, "...what evidence do you have for asserting criminals favor Democrats?"
In this article, they not only favored Democrats, their vote made for a tiny margin of victory, seating Al Franken in the Senate.
Now, this is the real mystery. Blacks, Latinos, felons vote for the Democrat, which is the Party of the KKK, over-regulation, and big government, including big prisons. Why? Welfare payments is the only reason I can think of.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 3, 2010 7:11:12 AM
SC, the "study" was put forward by a "conservative watchdog group" using an approach that proved spectacularly flawed, though nonetheless successful, at caging votes in key precincts and fraudulently skewing results in George W's two presidential elections.
The math that emerged from the Ramsey County DA's examination of the watchdog group's charges suggests only one of every 10 challenged votes MIGHT have been been cast illegally by a felon ineligible to vote. (Apparently Minnesota lets felons vote after they go off-paper)
Using the DA's math then, even if the group was correct and all 341 challenged voters supported Franken, he benefited, at best, from only 34 illegal votes...not nearly enough to have changed the outcome even if they'd all been successfully caged.
Furthermore, the report of the group's study didn't say for whom the challenged voters voted (Democrats or Republicans) or whether that information had even been compiled.
Posted by: John K | Nov 3, 2010 12:12:13 PM
Oh my!!! You are just too true to be good. How do you manage to write and research on such wonderful things? You have inspired me to work harder now. I shall try as much as possible to enjoy life to the fullest and be satiated with the wonderful things that are around me, which I have been unaware of until now.
Posted by: Kamagra | Dec 21, 2010 1:44:19 AM