cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Contributor

Kim, why the push for votes against you?

Kim Reynolds wants to see CONVICTED FELONS voting in Iowa. 

 

Why would you push to have the people who most likely vote for the opposition gain voting rights?  People that are the farthest from law and order are not the people that should be deciding who will make our laws.  It's contrary to common sense.

 

There's something inherently wrong with Republicans that constantly reach out, bend over backwards for the opposition and ignore the constituents that placed them in office.

6 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: Kim, why the push for votes against you?

Kim must be insecure about her core beliefs as a conservative to push for felons voting. Iowa is more gone than I thought if 64 percent of the voters actually approve of restoring voting rights to felons, as reported in a recent article I read. I would have to see what the question posed actually was...the news media has a pretty nasty habit of distorting public opinion.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Kim, why the push for votes against you?

I think her point is that they already do (under specific governor action or previous executive orders), but the rules are confusing and the process perhaps burdensome, while also dependent on executive order or action from the governor's office.  Don't really see it so much as enabling voters who are likely to vote for the other team -- see it more as enabling citizens who have  "paid their dues" for their previous misdeeds, clarifying the rules, and simplifying the process.

 

If you were governor, would you want to be looking at these individual requests 2-3 times a week, or more?  Wouldn't it be preferable to have a straight-forward, well-defined and constitutional process?

 

Personally though, I think their voting rights should only be reinstated if they have actually "paid their dues", including the court-ordered restitution, if any.

Veteran Contributor

Re: Kim, why the push for votes against you?

If you killed somebody how exactly do your pay your dues?

 

And how does sitting in prison with free food, free health care, entertainment pay your dues to the business or family that you beat and stole from?

 

If you simply stole my car and wrecked it what do you think would "pay your dues" be?  The time that one loses getting repairs or getting a new car, the feeling of violation when somebody enters you home and steals isn't something that can be paid with jail time.

 

We were in an ACCIDENT and were paid for pain and suffering.  How about making criminals pay for what they stole as well as time lost and pain and suffering?

 

Then I would consider the reinstatement of voting rights.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Kim, why the push for votes against you?

If you takes the attitude that one never pays for a crime, then you might as well throw them in the slammer forever.  "Les Miserables" Victor Hugo.  Jean Val Jean has to carry a yellow passport because he is a convicted criminal.  Inspector Javert represents that part of society that never forgets and never forgives.

 

What hope does a person who made a mistake have if the criminal who pays his dues can never expect to be accepted into society?

 

Society, not the individual, makes the rules one what constitutes restitution.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Kim, why the push for votes against you?

Not really in disagreement with you, Kurt#1 -- that's something that could be clarified in the proposed rules.  I'm not from Iowa, and don't know what prior governors' executive orders might have covered.  If they were Democratic governors, then I would likely assume the executive orders were more "progressive" than I would agree with.  I'm just saying that it would likely be better for the state to specify how/if this is done, as opposed to each governor just deciding based on however the wind is blowing. 

Senior Contributor

Re: Kim, why the push for votes against you?

Wasn't Jean Jean put into prison for stealing a loaf of bread? That would not be felony and no loss of voting rights would result. For rapists, murderers, and other psychopaths, a humane execution would probably answer a lot of issues and for the remainder of the prison population, sentences proportionate with the crime would have society content that justice has been served. After a lengthly probabtion, then and only then would I favor voting rights restoration.

 

If the original crime, such as possession of a small amount of drugs, ceased to be a felony, I would propose that those that had been convicted under prior law and judged to be felons, would have their records expunged.