Attorney General Eric Holder is calling for states to amend their laws to allow felons to vote once their debt to society is paid. Among his assertions is the idea that those who are permitted to vote after they have served their sentences are less likely to reoffend.
The article makes strong arguments for fairly assessing the issue of race given the disproportionate number of African Americans caught up in the penal system. I am not sure this relates well to comparing the plight of felons to ours, other than many people are simply prejudiced. Given the fact that states have jurisdiction over voting privileges and statutes vary considerably, one can imagine the long protracted process entailed in such amending. The state of Delaware, that domestic haven of tax abuse, also changed its law to permit some felons to vote once they’re out of jail, but not if the felon is a murderer, a sex offender, or guilty of felony bribery. Seems ironic that such a state would equate felony bribery with murder or sex offences. However, one can hardly imagine a legitimate reason that would deny these individuals their rights once they have paid their debt to society. Alexander Keyssar, author of The Right to Vote (2009) states “[d]isenfranchisement for [serious] crimes had a long history in English, European, and even Roman law, and it was hardly surprising that the principle of attaching civil disabilities to the commission of crimes appeared in American law as well.” He also alleges that “disenfranchisement, whether permanent or for an extended period, served as retribution for committing a crime and as a deterrent to future criminal behavior.”
I see some basic comparisons to the unfair situation expats experience if they wish to exercise their constitutional right to vote. According to AARO those rights have often been “thwarted by inconsistent state regulations governing voter registration, by late arrival of ballot applications and the ballots themselves, and by lack of clear and timely information on how to vote.” AARO has been working for more than three decades to make the system easier and more efficient, and to ensure that overseas voters are aware of their rights.” The current situation results in nothing less than taxation without representation. None of our elected representatives seem to grasp this inequity. Certainly the Homelanders, along with all their other misperceptions, wrongly assume that this right is exercised and undeserved by those “tax cheats living abroad, not paying their fair share.”
This makes me wonder if expats should ask AG Holder to challenge the system that limits their ability to vote effectively. After all, if they want to penalize us to high heavens, the least they could do with all that undeserved money, is to count us!
It is impossible for expats to have representation even if we have, at the best of times, the right to vote for someone else’s representative. Not one of the representatives or senators who represent their local constituencies in their respective states, represent the local needs and interests of Expats who are scattered throughout the planet and have differing needs according to their differing local circumstances.
If the American colonists had had the right to vote in local elections where they last had a foothold in their beloved mother country of England, they would still have revolted. For they would be voting for the MPs for Surrey or Kent, not Boston or New York. This is the franchise that Americans have abroad. For me, to choose between Dem and Rep in local Alaskan elections: representatives and Senators who jealously fight to represent Alaskans living in Alaska, not scattered expats across the globe. Citizenship based taxation is truly taxation without representation–and that will never change.
I can’t lament taxation without franchise when franchise is merely the ability to cast a vote for someone else’s representative. http://tinyurl.com/lo53t3n
@Trishia, Notwithstanding my earlier comment, thank you for writing up this post. You bring up good points that affect the franchise of US expats. That is for those who still want to play that particular aspect of the abuse.
If the Canadian government is going to allow the US to tax Canadian citizens perhaps they should allow American politicians to campaign in Canada. I say that sarcastically of course. But think about it … they are acting as if the US has a right to tax in Canada. If they have that right then why not other rights like holding US elections in Canada? I don’t want that but doesn’t it seem logical? Canada now the 52nd state of the US.
Is there actually a 51st state already or did I just imagine that?
@Petros
Indeed. Though I read somewhere, a long while back, that there had been an attempt to count Americans abroad, maybe 2004 and in some Middle Eastern country and perhaps, France. The turnout was non-existent. So it appears someone had at least considered trying to get us in the census and perhaps, some sort of possible way to give us a voice.
Of course, it is meaningless to have a representative who has perhaps no other constituents like or other than, oneself. Though it seems unfair that some expats, at least I believe this is so, cannot vote based on some states’ statutes. As usual, reform would seem a logical action.And of course, I have no personal interest in this.
My ancestors left England in 1682, along with many other Quakers, trying to escape religious persecution and were subjected to the same nonsense we are, as you demonstrated. It is more than ironic to find myself in their exact shoes, some 300+ years later.
@omg
nope, not yet anyways! Puerto Rico is often touted to be the next one, if not Canada (over my cold, dead body)!
Expat voting is supposedly their big carrot to justify the stick we get beaten with called CBT.
What I found was a complete and total lack of response from any and all representatives. We don’t live in their district and they will not respond. You can’t even write to them through their websites as you must list a “state” and “zip” code to do so. Even if you fill that in with your former state and zip they do not respond.
You can vote for POTUS who during an election will say “I am going to listen to the concerns of Americans Abroad” and then who will promptly implement laws that assume you are a tax cheat along with all your foreign family.
We have zero representation and haven’t even spent any time in jail for any crime. The U.S. is only concerned with us as far as they can fine and fee us. Yes, the only solution if they insist on CBT is to campaign here and start offering us something tangible for the paperwork burdens and threats we endure here.
Voting is an empty right unless you actually have property within U.S. jurisdiction/territory. This is because the value of the vote lies within the Congressional districts and Congressional districts only exist within U.S. territory. Expats without property are outside of any Congressional district and therefore outside of the U.S. Constitution.
It is therefore totally misguided to focus on voting rights as being some kind of quid pro quo for being obligated to pay taxes and all that goes with it. Expat votes are worthless under the U.S. Constitution. No politician is ever going to run on a platform of justice for non-resident U.S. persons. If you want U.S. tax justice then you have to move back to the U.S. The U.S. tax system can do nothing for you when you are resident outside of U.S. territory. Tax spending sovereignty doesn’t extend beyond the borders of any sovereign nation and that is why taxing authority does not do so either.
All voting power is residence based and so is all taxing power and spending power.
@recalcitrantexpat
Yes, it is definitely an empty right. I had thought about holding my nose and renewing my voter registration, but I just can’t do it.
It took me a lot of time to reach this conclusion, but in the end, despite Canada’s hand being forced into signing an IGA with the US, in my situation, my life is here in Canada for better or for worse, and there really is no point in having US citizenship, anyway.
Sooner or later, I’m going to have to renounce just to protect her, and I DO NOT WANT to go back to the US, knowing the kind of nation that it is, anyway. We all know what we’re dealing with here.
Anyone that still wants to remain a dual in light of these circumstances ought to ask themselves this question: Since all know that Canada is not a superpower like the US, and likely might not even be able to protect its dual Canadians if push really came to shove, don’t you guys think it is perhaps time to just go ‘all in’ and be done with US personhood? (of course, if you don’t have a choice, then you don’t have a choice) Perhaps it is not too much for Canada to ask us to stand on guard for her, as well as for Canada to stand on guard for us?
Comment on a Daily Kos (U.S. liberal blog) thread about voter registration.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1316553/54033748#c5
The original post itself is also interesting, though not directly connected to Isaac Brock Society issues: it talks about unintended consequences of voter registration databases being used for purposes other than voter registration.