|
In the 19th Century it was illegal for an ex-felon to vote. That law was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the late 1800s. In the 20th Century the Pennsylvania State Legislature changed the rule to being not able to vote for five years after the Felon was released from prison. In 2001 Superior Court ruled THAT the five year rule was a violation of the Equal protection clause of the State and Federal Constitution. The violation was the five year rule set up disparate treatment for two similar types of people (Ex-felons who had been out less than five years and Ex-felons who had been out more than five years) without any rational reason for the difference. Thus Pennsylvania joined New York and other states that no longer ban ex-felons from voting (Felons in Prison can NOT vote for the simple fact that since they are in prison they can be forced to vote the right way by prison officials, thus most states do NOT permit felons in prison to vote. Felons serving their sentences are NOT the subject of the current push to permit ex-felons to vote).
New York State has NEVER (To my knowledge) ever stripped ex-felons of the right to vote. Their Rationale has been that the Right to Vote is suspended while you are in Prison to do the potential for abuse by Prison officials, but New York law does NOT strip a person of the Right to vote as part of the punishment of a Felony.
Now, to understand this you must have a working understanding of what the difference between a Felony and a Misdemeanor was under the common law and how that affected people’ right to vote and how the expansion of the right to vote occurred.
Under the Common Law their was four types of crimes. Treason, Felonies, Misdemeanors and Summary Offences.
Treason was punishable by Death AND forfeiture of your property to the King, this included both High and Petit Treason.
Felonies were punishable by a Jail Sentence of more than one year (and may include Death) AND forfeiture of the Felon’s property to the king for one year. After that year the Felon’s property went to the Felon’s Mesne lord. In most places one’s Mesne Lord and the King was one and the same, so if you were convicted the King received everything. The problem was when the Mesne Lord and the King were two different people. For example the last Petit Treason case was in Massachusetts in 1713. Petit treason is when a servant or a wife killed their master/husband. The Governor of Massachuset was an appointee of the King, he stood to gain the wife’s property if she was convicted of petit treason (but only the use of that property for one year if she was convicted of the Felony of Murder). Thus she was tried, convicted and hung for Petit Treason instead of Murder.
Misdemeanor was punished by Sentences of less than one year (No property forfeiture except for that year imprisonment when your mesne lord has use of the property).
Summary offences were fines only.
The above have been changed in every state of the Union (and the Federal Government) but most of those changes did not occur till after 1865. The changes can be drastic (for example High Treason is now a Felony not its own special criminal class) and sometime unintentional (Under the Common Law a person who killed his parent for the inheritance, inherited. The reason being was that upon conviction the property was forfeited to the King or Mesne Lord or in the cases after 1776 the State. When the state stopped confiscating ALL of a felon’s property upon conviction as part of the reforms of the criminal law starting around 1865 you than had a strange situation developed. Convicted Murders inheriting from their parent they had killed AND being able to keep the money. When the Legislature found out about this they had to pass special laws saying you can NOT inherit from people you have murdered.)
Now, while the Criminal law have changed drastically since 1776, the Common law rule on crime affected who could vote up to today. Prior to the American Revolution voting was viewed as belonging to someone with property, thus if you lost your property for any reason (including conviction of a Felony or Treason), you lost the right to vote. After the America Revolution the view as who had the right to vote shifted to being a member of the Militia. This did not affect Felon’s right to vote for Felon’s could not be member of the Militia.
Under Jacksonian Democracy of the 1830s the Right to Vote shifted again to all white males over 21 (With Blacks included in that shift after 1865). This shift would have permitted Ex-felons to vote for the first time (this is also the time period where the idea of the modern prison started, prior to this period Felons tended to be executed, whipped, and stripped of all of their civil rights. Sometime they were “sold” for labor but most appear to have been punished by confiscation of their property and stripped of their right to vote. Given that most people depended on the relatives for assistance this was sufficient punishment for most non-violent felonies.)
Thus in the 1830s for the first time, did you see the possibility of ex-felons voting. Some states responded to this by saying ex-felons could not vote, other said they could, while some decided not to do anything. This three methods of deciding if ex-Felons can vote continues to this day. When the State Legislatures expanded the right to vote to all males over 21, this was one of the issues that had to be resolved (remember we are talking about the 1830s so in addition to whether Ex-Felons could vote, questions as to permitting Blacks and Women to Vote also came up).
Given this history of who had the right to vote, legislatures were all over the place as who could vote. In the long term it was found that to expand the right to vote to Woman and Blacks you had to change the Constitutional (Which was done to ensure first Blacks than Woman the right to vote). No such constitutional amendment ha been proposed for ex-felons to vote, thus voting is still view as a right that the State can stripped from a person under any reason it see fit (Other than race or sex). Since felons under the common law (like Woman, Blacks and non-property owners) had no right to vote, the State Legislature can stripped them of that right.
How does this affect RKBA?, Under the Common law people had the right to own a weapon even if they did NOT have the right to vote. Felon’s could be stripped of that right as part of their punishment (Just like they can be stripped of the right to have a driver’s license, the Right to Vote or any other right the State Legislature decides the ex-felon no longer has do to his conviction). Under the theory of Voting the dominants in the USA since the 1830s people have the right to vote UNLESS after a hearing or trial they have been stripped of that right. Since Felons could NOT vote under the common law, the Legislatures can strip Ex-felons of their right to vote as part of the punishment for being convicted of a felony. Please note, these “additional punishments” are viewed as being part of being an convicted Felon NOT a part of the “Punishment” for the felony you are convicted of. Thus you do NOT have to be told of the loss of such rights at your trial.
Other rights that can be (and have been stripped) from ex-Felons in addition ot the right to possess a firearm and the Right to vote has been the right to get a Driver’s License, the Right to obtain welfare. Megan’s laws have been a problem, for the courts have started to look at Megan laws restriction as punishment for the crime they were convicted of instead of being an ex-felon. What this means is unless the felon was told of his duty to register with the local police at the time of his conviction OR Guilty Plead, it was NOT part of his sentence and as such NOT enforceable against him.
My Boss took a similar case to Superior Court about ten years ago, he had won a person’s right to get back his driver’s license (the Offender had served his sentence for a drug related crime) on the grounds that State did not tell him at his sentencing that he would lose his right to Drive. Superior Court ruled that the ban on driving was part of the Sentence for the Drug crime and since he had not been told of that part of his sentence it would be an unconstitutional denial of Due Process to strip him of his right to drive. i.e. the Judge should have told him he would lose his right to drive. The Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that the Right to Drive was NOT part of the Sentence for the felony but a restriction on any ex-felon and as such does NOT have to be told to the defendant at the time of his guilty plead.
Thus the court have tended to view the rights of ex-felons as being less than non ex-felons, no matter how good a life the ex-felon have lived since their conviction. Thus the state legislature can stripped an ex-felon of rights the state legislature is forbidden to strip from non-ex-felons.
The above I know is strange, but it is the best I can do to answer your question, given the history of the right to vote and the RKBA.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
