LD Possible Affirmative Arguments November Topic
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
Definitions:
Democracy:
Blacks Law Dictionary:
“Democracy: n. Government by the people, either directly or through representatives.”
Dictionary.com:
“Constitutional Democracy: n. a system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are set forth in a constitution.”
Society:
Blacks Law Dictionary:
“Society: n. A community of people, as of state, nation, or locality, with common cultures, traditions, and interests.”
Felon:
Law.com, an online legal term dictionary:
"Felon: n. a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison.”
Right:
Blacks Law Dictionary:
“Right: n. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.”
Vote:
Blacks Law Dictionary:
“Vote: n. The expression of one’s preference of opinion in a meeting or election.”
Disenfranchisement:
US Legal Forms Inc., an online legal information service, wrote the following in their article, “Disenfranchisement Law & Legal Definition,” (accessed Aug. 18, 2008):
“Disenfranchisement is the taking away of voting rights. Most states in the U.S. have enacted laws disenfranchising convicted felons and ex-felons. Laws vary by state, with some state denying voting rights to all felons, only certain felons, felons on probation, felons on parole, felons serving sentences, or a combination of the above…48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony offense. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow inmates to vote. 35 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole."
Value:
Democracy (Majority Rule): Government by the people, for the people. When government is run by the majority of citizens, policies favor the many, not the few. Democracy is the way in which decisions are made to benefit the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. When government is run by a few individuals, policies favor the few – the rich or elite, and ignore the rest of society. Only rule by the masses can preserve freedom and equality because these values benefit the citizens at large. Ruling elites are rarely concerned about freedom and equality for the average citizen.
Universal Suffrage: Consists of the extension of the right to vote to all adults, without distinction as to race, sex, belief, intelligence, or economic or social status.In the first modern democracies only a limited number of people had a say in the running of the government - for example in the United Kingdom only Protestant, male landowners with relatively large holdings had the right to vote. Over time societies have realized that in order to be truly representative democracies, the right to vote needed to be extended to adults of both genders, all religions, and all races and classes.
Criteria:
Social Contract:
The Columbia Encyclopedia, (6th Edition 2005), stated:
"Social Contract: agreement or covenant by which men are said to have abandoned the 'state of nature' to form the society in which they now live.
The theory of such a contract, first formulated by the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes (in The Leviathan, 1651) and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state.
Locke made the social contract the basis of his advocacy of popular sovereignty, the idea that the monarch or government must reflect the will of the people. Like Locke, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, in Le Contrat social (1762), found the general will a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a basis of the state. Similar ideas were used as a justification for both the American and the French revolutions in the 18th century.
Thomas Jefferson held that the preservation of certain natural rights was an essential part of the social contract, and that 'consent of the governed' was fundamental to any exercise of governmental power."
SEE YOUR LD VALUE BIBLE FOR MORE INFO ON SOCIAL CONTRACT!
Possible Ideas for Contentions
1. Voting is a right:
The "National Voter Registration Act of 1993," passed by the U.S. Congress, stated:
"The Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right..."
In Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its 1964 majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice Earl Warren, that:
"And history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government."
Lyndon B. Johnson, Former U.S. President, advocated the passage of the Voting Rights Act in a March, 1964 speech before Congress, stating that:
"It is wrongly -- deadly wrong -- to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote [...] it is really all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome."
2. Felon disenfranchisement laws violate the social contract:
Afi S. Johnson-Parris, JD, an Associate with Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, stated in her 2003 article "Felon Disenfranchisement, The Unconscionable Social Contract Breached," published in the Virginia Law Review:
"[D]isenfranchised felons are unequal parties to a contract that is fundamentally unfair in its formation on the grounds that they are unconscionable. [...]
The social contract between citizens and the state to which they delegate their authority gains its validity from the parties' freedom to contract and share an active voice in negotiating that contract through the [voting] franchise. In fact, active citizenship in the United States is but a façade without this vital right.
The felon, disenfranchised upon breaching the original social contract, enters into a second contract upon his release. The validity of this second formation is questionable because the felon, in his disenfranchised state, is not an equal party truly free to contract. This suggests that the contract is unconscionablebecause of the unincarcerated felon's unequal position as a silent party to the ongoing negotiation of the contract. [...]
The social contract suffers from many of the ailments in the formation, liquidated damages provision, and unconscionable terms that would invalidate any traditional contract [...] the franchise should be returned to unincarcerated felons so that they may be whole and free parties to the social contract."
Jason D. Schall, JD, an Associate with Steptoe & Johnson LLP, stated in his 2004 article "The Consistency of Felon Disenfranchisement With Citizenship Theory," published on the website of The Sentencing Project:
"Despite its initial attractiveness, the use of social contract theory to defend felon disenfranchisement is in fact specious. Under a regime of disenfranchisement, an individual who breaches the social contract continues to be bound by the terms of the contract even after being stripped of the ability to take part in political decisions. However, contract doctrine does not allow an injured party to force the breacher to perform its contractual duties without the injured party performing its own. The contract can be terminated or the injured party can accept the performance, but the injured party cannot simply pick and choose which terms will remain and which will not. [...]
Social contract theory and the objectives of punishment fail to provide a satisfactory explanation for the denial of one of the most fundamental rights to millions of citizens."
3. Felon disenfranchisement laws do not help the process of rehabilitating felons and re-integrating them back into society after prison:
Pamela S. Karlan, JD, the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford University, stated in her 2004 Stanford Law Review article "Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement":
"[I]f felon disenfranchisement is to be justified, it must be justified as a permissible form of punishment. [...] Neither rehabilitation nor deterrence plays any plausible role at all in justifying the disenfranchisement of former offenders.
It is impossible to see how lifetime or extended post-incarceration disenfranchisement rehabilitates anyone; indeed, the very message of such exclusion is to suggest that ex-offenders are beyond redemption."
Charlie Crist, JD, Governor of Florida, stated in an Apr. 3, 2007 article on Tallahassee.com titled "Wednesday My View: Florida Must Begin Automatic Restoration of Ex-Offender Rights":
"[L]ike any debt, once the citizen has fully repaid, he or she should be afforded the opportunity, except where the most heinous of crimes have been committed, to re-enter society with the same rights the citizen had before breaking the law. [...]
Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society, make a living and participate in our democracy will incentivize good behavior."
4. Felon disenfranchisement laws conflict with the 8th Amendment of the Constitution:
The 8th Amendment says:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Pamela S. Karlan, JD, the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford University, stated in her 2004 article "Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement," published in the Stanford Law Review:
"Given contemporary voting rights doctrine, if disenfranchisement is to be justified at all, it must be justified as an appropriate punishement. Thus it is impossible to avoid the question Trop v. Dulles set to one side: is diensfranchisement consistent with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?
The Eighth Amendment 'succinctly prohibits 'excessive' sanctions,' and demands that 'punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.' (Atkins v. Virginia, quoting Weems v. United States) [...]
The claim that a particular punishment violated the Eighth Amendment because it is disproportionately severe 'is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685 ... or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail.' [...]
Thus, the states that continue to exclude all felons permanently are outliers, both within the United States and in the world."
5. Felon disenfranchisement laws conflict with Section I (the Equal Protection Clause) of the 14thAmendment:
Section I of the 14th Amendment says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In Hunter v. Underwood, the US Supreme Court stated in its Apr. 16, 1985 decision:
"Held: Section 182 [of the Alabama constitution of 1901] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] ... That 182 may have been adopted to discriminate against poor whites as well as against blacks would not render nugatory [worthless, futile] the purpose to discriminate against blacks...
The drafters [of Section 182] retained the general felony provision - 'any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary' - but also added a new catchall provision covering 'any...crime involving moral turpitude.' [...] It is alleged, and the Court of Appeals found, that the crimes selected for inclusion in 182 were believed by the delegates to be more frequently committed by blacks."
6. Felon disenfranchisement laws conflict with the 15thAmendment:
The 15th Amendment says:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Gabriel J. Chin, JD, LLM, Professor of Law, Public Administration, and Policy at the University of Arizona, stated in his Jan. 2004 article "Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment?," published in the Georgetown Law Journal:
"Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement 'may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election.' Because the Fifteenth Amendment repealed Section 2 [of Amendment XIV], courts must reconsider the treatment of felon disenfranchisement. [...]
In states that denied the vote to African-Americans, white voters had extra impact because African-Americans counted for purposes of allocating seats in Congress but did not participate in electing those who served there. Section 2 thus encouraged states to let African-Americans vote by punishing states disenfranchising African-Americans, but it left the ultimate decision to the states. Instead of merely encouraging nondiscrimination, the Fifteenth Amendment imposed it, granting the right to vote to qualified African-Americans. The Fifteenth Amendment represented a newly restrictive view of both state power and the consequences of exceeding it."
7. Felon disenfranchisement laws conflict with the 24thAmendment:
The 24th Amendment says:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.”
The American Civil Liberties Union stated in the Dec. 8, 2005 "Motion for Summary Judgment" they filed in the case of Madison v. Washington:
"By denying the vote to those who have not paid their LFOs [Legal Financial Obligations], the State of Washington distributes this findamental right [to vote] on the constitutionally impermissible basis of wealth.
Washington's re-enfranchisement scheme creates two classes of ex-felons in Washington: those ex-felons who are able to pay their LFOs and regain the right to vote, and those ex-felons who are unable to pay their LFOs and remain permanently disenfranchised.
By requiring payment of all LFOs as a condition for reenfranchisement, the State effectively imposes a poll tax upon Plaintiffs and all other ex-felons. This violates both the Federal and State Constitutions."
8. The argument of 'taxation without representation' justifies giving felons the vote:
S. David Mitchell, JD, Scholar in Residence in the Dept. of Sociology at the University of Colorado, stated in his Dec. 2004 article in Bad Subjects magazine titled "The New Invisible Man: Felon Disenfranchisement Laws Harm Communities":
"Ex-felons who manage to become gainfully employed are still required to pay taxes even though they are denied the benefits associated with those duties such as the ability to elect their representatives or to decide on policies that will govern their lives, and lives of their families.
Centuries ago this prospect of taxation without representation was untenable to some Americans.
Today, however, such a policy is acceptable, as long as the voice that is denied is that of the ex-felons. Consequently, by alienating ex-felons and treating them as non-citizens, felon disenfranchisement laws merely contribute to the difficult process of reintegration for the ex-felon."
Global Exchange, an international human rights organization, stated in its online article "Felon Disenfranchisement; Taxation Without Representation: End Felon Disenfranchisement," accessed Apr. 5, 2007 from its website votejustice.org:
"Permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is an unreasonable restriction that creates subcategories of citizenship in the United States. Ex-felons are expected to contribute to society as gainfully employed citizens, pay taxes and raise families, but their disenfranchisement gives them no say in how those tax dollars are spent, who sits on their children’s school board, or who represents their interests in government."
Matt Welch, Editor-in-Chief at Reason magazine, stated in his July 25, 2003 article "Felonious Bunk; Why Ex-Cons Should Be Given The Vote":
"The combined [felon voting] laws have created the democratic world's largest pool of adult citizens living under a system of taxation without representation."
1