So after having served your scentence, this law instates an additional penalty retroactively. Seems fair.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
265 points (99.6% liked)
News
23301 readers
3536 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Seems fair. If the candidate can be a felon, why not the voter?
This looks like a massive own goal for the Alabama GOP. The relevant state constitution amendment was pushed through in response to covid 19 and they way many states improved voting access during the worst of the pandemic.
It was supposed to make it harder to expand voting access but now (briefly) did the opposite. Not that it matters much on a deep red state.
To the people saying there should be no reason to lose the right to vote. I do not agree. Treason -- this should absolutely bar their right to vote, if they are not sentenced to death. So be the absolutists all you'd like, but there is a line, and a fair due process and conviction of treason is it.
I feel like there are 2 related arguments against this. One is that it could motivate political prosecution to disenfranchise people. The second is that it kind of creates a slippery slope, if treason disenfranchises you why not murder, or rape, or election fraud or whatever other crime someone considers serious enough
Anything can be used for political persecution/prosecution, that is not an argument to not do something.
And for your second argument, that’s exactly how it works in the US — felonies mean losing the vote. Not that I agree with it in all cases. And using slippery slope here is logically fallacious since I’m being specific to a single cause pointing to a single effect, whereas you’re assuming such an effect will then create further causes to it.
The point is that due process is supposed to protect against phony charges. So to me, at minimum, a conviction of treason, with fair due process, is not at all a slippery slope. And since treason is the ultimate anti-patriotic criminal act a citizen could commit, and once convicted and upheld through appeal, they should no longer be allowed to vote in the country they betrayed.
Thus, I refute the absolutists, hence my post.
No citizen lose the right to vote, ever, for any reason other than no longer being a citizen.
Treason, voter fraud at scale, insurrection/coup seem like good reasons. Anything short of that seems ridiculous.
Election related crimes should result in disenfranchisement. People who gerrymander districts shoujd be barred from voting or holding public office.
Nope, they, too, should be allowed to vote. We shouldn't allow any path to disenfranchisement.
What about the dead? Call me controversial, but I'd like to disenfranchise the dead
Okay, call me slightly ableist.