- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
According to the official arbiter of truth, it wasn't until the 14th amendment that we had anything about criminal disenfranchisement in the constitution. According to this article the legal basis for felony disenfranchisement is a matter of Supreme Court interpretation of the second section of the 14th amendment.
The implementation of this form of disenfranchisement is arguably arbitrary in that there's not a strict way in which it's implemented. Various states have different ways in which they disenfranchise or allow the re-enfranchisement of criminals.
Not all felons are violent.
It's different, I'll agree, but the expansion of the franchise has been argued in many different ways. Allowing 18-year-olds in the club was argued from the perspective that since they had to sign up for the draft, they should be allowed to have a voice. What's to stop someone from arguing that since 6-year-olds (or whatever the age requirement is) are required to attend school, and since public school is a matter of public policy, that they too should be able to vote?
You could turn that around on its head and say since 18-year-olds aren't being drafted that they don't need a vote, and since people who don't own property are less likely to be invested in society that they should likewise be excluded.
