this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
147 points (98.0% liked)

Minnesota

833 readers
5 users here now

About Us

We are community-driven and dedicated to celebrating the diverse and inclusive spirit of Minnesota. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or simply fascinated by the Land of 10,000 Lakes, you'll find a warm and welcoming community here. Our goal is to foster meaningful discussions, share local news and events, and create a safe space for everyone to connect and engage.

Rules and Guidelines

Be Kind and Respectful: Treat others with empathy, respect, and understanding. We embrace diversity and encourage civil discourse. Personal attacks, hate speech, discrimination, and harassment will not be tolerated.

Stay on Topic: Keep your posts and comments relevant to Minnesota. Let's focus on discussing local issues, events, news, and culture.

No Spam or Self-Promotion: We love to support local businesses and initiatives, but please refrain from excessive self-promotion or spamming. Posts must provide value to the community.

Avoid Sensationalism: When sharing news articles or stories, please provide accurate and reliable sources. Avoid clickbait titles or exaggerated claims.

No Illegal Activities: Do not promote or encourage illegal activities or engage in any discussions that violate the law.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
query@midwest.social
147
‘My voice matters’: Felons vote at polls for first time after voting rights restored (www.mprnews.org)
submitted 1 year ago by recreationalplacebos@midwest.social to c/minnesota@midwest.social
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The monumental day comes despite two legal challenges that attempted to undercut it. Last Thursday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a legal challenge by Mille Lacs County District Court Judge Matthew Quinn against Restore the Vote. Quinn had barred at least six defendants from voting as part of their sentences and argued the voting law was unconstitutional.

In an order, Chief Judge Susan Segal wrote that Quinn had no authority to declare the law unconstitutional. And Segal said Quinn’s actions were “unauthorized by law.”

Another lawsuit by conservative voter’s group Minnesota Voters Alliance is pending in Anoka County before District Court Judge Thomas Lehmann. A first hearing was held on Oct. 30, but Lehmann has not issued a ruling on the case yet.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The only reason to deny felons a vote is political malfeasance.

Even inmates should generally be able to and encouraged to vote. Civic participation, social buy in, rehabilitation, nothing bad can come of that, these are supposed to be the point.

The fact that these people are subject to our laws is the same reason they should never lose their voice in it, because then you're just subject to the system's whims. The thing that makes their incarceration just in theory to begin with is that they are part of it rather than simply an unwilling kidnapping by power.

To me its disgusting how punitive we are towards our largest prison population on earth. We as a people seem to revel in what we take away from them, even things that might encourage them to be part of society again. We set people who make mistakes, usually because of desperate circumstances to begin with, up to fail in perpetuity, and seem to discourage any effort to rejoin society in good faith.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

During the height of Apartheid, South African prisons had voting booths. Let that sink in. Angela Davis gives a really good lecture on the subject - basically George Bush Jr. would never have been elected if incarcerated people were permitted to vote, and we would be living in a very different world.

[–] m3t00@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

mapped by state: as of 5/1/2023

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm cool with letting felons vote. That is, unless they were found guilty of murder/manslaughter. If you remove another person's vote part of the punishment should be losing your own political voice.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Manslaughter? What about companies that manufacture a faulty product that results in premature death? Does their board lose the right to vote? Can the corporation be barred from lobbying congress?

What about Phillip Morris, manufacturer of cigarettes? Does everyone who works there lose the right to vote?

Slaves had no voting rights, and removing the voting rights of people convicted of a crime was invented under Jim Crow, and was used to disenfranchise black people from political power in the antebellum south. It is still used for that purpose throughout the United States to this day.

Permitting any crime to remove a person's right to vote will result in black and indigenous people of color being targeted for and wrongfully convicted of that crime.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But whatabout

Listen fella, I made a pretty concise explanation of my take of it. You can do the same without trying to make me feel like shit because of the racist history of America? Thanks.

[–] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Rapists, pedophiles? Thieves, especially thieves of great scale/scope?

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They committed a crime and they served their time. That's what jail is for.

You know you can be labeled a pedo if you drunkenly peed in a bush near a daycare? Or if you're a dumb teen sending nude photos to another dumb teen?

[–] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am very aware of that, and the law needs to be reformed to reflect reality. We know those aren't pedophiles. I'm not addressing the outliers. What about the real pedophiles, the real rapists? I don't respect their judgment or voice. Why should we allow them to vote?

[–] FreeFacts@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are people who don't respect the judgement or voice of people who have abortions, or provide them. The former probably ask about the latter "why should we allow them to vote" too. That just emphasizes the fact that personal feelings are not good enough reason to limit a right. The right to vote should be the basis. As a right it needs no justification, on the contrary, any limitations to it are the ones that need to be justified. And justified better than "I don't respect this and that".

[–] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair enough, but I also want to point out a bit of a false equivalence. Rape & abortion. While there is plenty of debate about abortion, its legality & justification, there is no such debate that I'm aware of about rape. Except maybe among, you know, rapists. 😂 There is no pro-rape coalition; virtually everyone is in agreement: rape is a terrible act & is never justified.

[–] FreeFacts@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While there is plenty of debate about abortion, its legality & justification, there is no such debate that I'm aware of about rape.

There actually is, but it is not on the same level. It's on the definition level, as in what constitutes as rape. And believe me, there are lots of people who will be in agreement that rape is a terrible act, but will also defend a rapist because the legal definition of rape doesn't match what they perceive as rape.

[–] InevitableWaffles@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Please tell me how you decide this, oh grand arbiter of crimes?

[–] w2tpmf@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Rapists, pedophiles? Thieves, especially thieves of great scale/scope?

That describes the people making the laws and holding the offices getting voted on. 🤷‍♂️

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems pretty easy to generalize that if you are beholden to the government then you get a say in the government. Otherwise, unjust laws just remove opposition from the voting pool.

I don't disagree that there are people who should not be able to vote based on what they've done but I think the amount of people that applies to is too small to make any real difference. And the amount of people who should be able to vote but have been wrongly disqualified from voting is higher.

[–] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I agree, probably hardly enough to make any real difference. I guess I just like the idea of formally, politely, legally telling truly despicable human beings that nobody cares what they think & they should go fuck themselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯