Right To Vote Restored For Ex-Cons In Ky.

[Gunny]

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:35 AM PT — Friday, December 13, 2019

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has restored voting rights to more than 140,000 convicted felons. Just days after being inaugurated, he signed an executive order reinstating voting rights to former felons who had committed non-violent offenses and completed their sentences.
“I also believe in redemption, in second chances,” he stated. “And as I said in my inaugural speech on Tuesday, my faith teaches me forgiveness.”
Beshear strongly believes it’s wrong for their rights to be overlooked regardless of their offense or good work since serving their sentences.
Ex-convict Rynn Young was convicted of drug possession when he was 18-years-old and has never voted in his life. He now wants a voice to help determine a better future for his children.
“It is a blessing and something that a lot of people may take for granted,” he explained. “Trust me, 21 years without a voice is unimaginable.”

Beshear’s decision reinstates an executive order previously implemented by his father, former Governor Steve Beshear, in 2015 after it was reversed.
Kentucky and Iowa were the only two states with laws that barred convicted felons from voting regardless of the crime. As of Thursday, felons in Iowa who have finished their sentence or parole will be given a mostly completed application needed to restore their voting rights.

https://www.oann.com/right-to-vote-r...ex-cons-in-ky/

I never really thought about this much. Most places I've lived convicted felons couldn't vote.

And I always thought "so much for your debt to society being paid"

Now, say the same about convicted sex offenders. Don't get me wrong. They should have been executed far as I'm concerned. They have no Rights because Gunny says so

BUT ... the double standard IS there.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am ok with voting rights restored to any but those convicted of murder, rape, child molesting, drug selling and prostitution-
as such actions tho' having finished time served, do not warrant any other rights, IMHO.
Child molesters when their guilt is proven well beyond a shadow doubt== SHOULD BE EXECUTED....
Firing squad that very week-- I'd gladly supply the bullets myself if need be ...
Such evil deserves no mercy............................................. ................................ -Tyr

[Bilgerat]

The pure fact is the left NEEDS these votes, they're not doing anything out of sense of right or wrong

[Gunny]

I am ok with voting rights restored to any but those convicted of murder, rape, child molesting, drug selling and prostitution-
as such actions tho' having finished time served, do not warrant any other rights, IMHO.
Child molesters when there guilt is proven well beyond a shadow doubt== SHOULD BE EXECUTED....
Firing squad that very week-- I'd gladly supply the bullets myself if need be ...
Such evil deserves no mercy............................................. ................................ -Tyr

The point is, while I do not disagree necessarily with your take on who should and/or should not have their "Right" to vote restored, it is nonetheless YOUR take. As mine is mine.

I don't think the law was written with that in mind. In fact, I think it was written to preclude such. You wouldn't know it the way every weirdo, aberrant group in the US has managed to squeeze unequal protection for themselves out of PC governments afraid to say "That's stupid. No."

Here is a question this topic brings up: I always thought the "Right to vote" was Federal. Such is not the case. It's another one of those things like voting for the President of the US that IMO should be Federal but is not.

We're voting for Federal positions are we not? Yet each State makes up it's own voting laws. That's fine for State level positions. The Fed government has it's hand in our every waking moment except not where it directly concerns the Federal government? THAT doesn't make any sense to me.

This law in KY is also a "pick-n-choose" law. Nonviolent convicted felons? So Ponzi schemes destroy less lives than straight-up murder? At least the latter is honest and quick.

[Kathianne]

States set voting rules for their state, via Constitution. Voting is a privilege, not a right, “right” is when a group wants to be eligible for that privilege.

The point is, while I do not disagree necessarily with your take on who should and/or should not have their "Right" to vote restored, it is nonetheless YOUR take. As mine is mine.

I don't think the law was written with that in mind. In fact, I think it was written to preclude such. You wouldn't know it the way every weirdo, aberrant group in the US has managed to squeeze unequal protection for themselves out of PC governments afraid to say "That's stupid. No."

Here is a question this topic brings up: I always thought the "Right to vote" was Federal. Such is not the case. It's another one of those things like voting for the President of the US that IMO should be Federal but is not.

We're voting for Federal positions are we not? Yet each State makes up it's own voting laws. That's fine for State level positions. The Fed government has it's hand in our every waking moment except not where it directly concerns the Federal government? THAT doesn't make any sense to me.

This law in KY is also a "pick-n-choose" law. Nonviolent convicted felons? So Ponzi schemes destroy less lives than straight-up murder? At least the latter is honest and quick.

[Gunny]

States set voting rules for their state, via Constitution. Voting is a privilege, not a right, “right” is when a group wants to be eligible for that privilege.

Did I forget to say that? Which is obviously the underlying point I'm trying to make.

I just think of all things the fed gov't meddles in that is NOT its affair, THIS would be one where I would expect it.

I get a kick out of people who don't really get the difference between "Right" and "privilege". Like the ones crying about their "Right to drive".