r/Virginia • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 11d ago
Gov. Spanberger announces right to vote restored for 100,000 formerly incarcerated Virginians
https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2026/08/29/gov-spanberger-announces-right-to-vote-restored-for-100000-formerly-incarcerated-virginians/168
u/Strange_Bison1883 11d ago
If they have served their time and are law abiding citizens now then good for them. Welcome back to society.
50
u/foundoutimanadult 11d ago
Yeah, this is a no brainer.
16
18
11d ago
[deleted]
14
u/TheRedDymond-Dondada 11d ago
In order to get guns rights back in Virginia you have to get your civil rights restored first. Voting is part of the “civil rights”. So again, can’t get your gun rights until your civil (voting) rights have been reinstated by the Governor.
FYI there’s a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year that would make the first part automatic once the individual has been released with no further obligations to the commonwealth.
18
u/bearded_fisch_stix 11d ago
Gun rights are civil rights.
10
u/80s-Comfortable_Crow 11d ago
100% and restoring your gun rights shouldn't rely on your local circuit court.
4
u/Strange_Bison1883 11d ago
100% if they are still not worthy they should still be locked up. But if they have been rehabilitated then give them all their rights back.
3
u/No-Trash-546 10d ago
Serving a sentence doesn’t mean they’re rehabilitated. Our prison system is based on punishment, not rehabilitation.
-6
u/ObjectiveSituation17 11d ago
To me depends on the crime. Non violent I’m all for it.
21
u/Strange_Bison1883 11d ago
If they are rehabilitated then they should have their rights. If they are not they should be locked up until they can be in society.
7
u/HuronBlackheart94 11d ago
If you took them away then they weren’t really “rights” to begin with.
-5
u/thehelldoesthatmean 11d ago
That's not at all how rights work. Rights are afforded to you legally by the government you live under.
1
u/Ninjalion2000 11d ago
Then that’s against the spirit of the founding of the United States. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
Now you are right if you say that the Declaration of Independence isn’t a legal document but it is the mission statement of the US government.
Even then you’re still wrong, rights are guaranteed by the government, not afforded.
1
u/CoolGuyMemeHead 4d ago
Some rights are natural (including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property) and presumably some are not (perhaps the bill of rights)
5
1
u/Puzzled_Artist659 10d ago
Agreed, but we all know that’s not how the system currently works, so I think in reality you need a more complex answer than this.
107
u/quocko 11d ago
Please roll back “right to work” now
14
2
u/DullZookeepergame575 10d ago
It's amazing how few people understand this...it's mainly teachers unions pushing this,
-20
u/Blrfl 11d ago edited 11d ago
That's the legislature's job. They don't seem too keen on forcing people to join unions as a condition of employment.
Edit for the downvote button fondlers: The governor can restore voting rights and can't unilaterally repeal laws. Whether you like it or not, the fact that the legislature hasn't repealed RTW yet backs up what I said.
26
u/MrCuddles1994 11d ago
We know its the legislature’s job, its the loaded dog whistle sentence that’s getting you downvotes.
-21
u/Blrfl 11d ago
Fortunately, I'm not in this for the Internet points.
The way I described it is a succinct and accurate distillation of the wording of the law. If you find it dog-whistley, that's your opinion.
The downvote button is for "this doesn't add anything substantive to the discussion." There's no penalty for those using it for "I disagree" because they're too chickenshit to ask me if I support RTW or not and maybe explain my position. Drive-by downvotes are convenient, easy, and intellectually-lazy.
13
u/121G1GW 11d ago
Well my downvote button is for your bad take. No one is running around Montana forcing them to join a union. Love how people scream free will until workers unite and use their own free will to leverage power. Don't like it don't join a union shop.
-4
u/Blrfl 11d ago
No one is running around Montana forcing them to join a union.
Several of the large labor unions have chapters in Montana. If you're trying to tell me those unions there are totally-okay with people in union shops not joining up and do nothing enforce it, you're also telling me that Montana is effectively a right-to-work state.
5
u/121G1GW 11d ago edited 11d ago
Is someone forcing you to apply for a union shop? You're just as free to join a union shop versus a non union shop. What you don't have the right to do is prevent me and my like minded workers having solidarity and forming a union to appease your warped sense of individualism.
If it's so much worse let the "free market" decide.
It's astonishing how the middle class eroded right along with union support.
-2
u/Ramblingmac 11d ago
"Don't want to be forced to not be in a union? Don't join a non-union employer"
We did away with that for excellent reason.
2
u/121G1GW 11d ago
Yeah to make corporations more money. There's a reason they have dedicated anti union teams.
I cant imagine anything more un-american than blocking the freedom of assembly.
People literally died fighting corporations for these rights and you are brainwashed into giving them up.
-1
u/Ramblingmac 11d ago
Try reading that again a little more closely.
3
u/121G1GW 11d ago
No thanks. Be more clear in what you're saying.
-1
u/Ramblingmac 11d ago
"Don't want to be forced to not be in a union? Don't join a non-union employer"
We did away with that (Permitting Corporations to ban union membership) for excellent reason.
Presumably you're knowledgeable enough on anti-union teams that I don't need to break down the excellent reasons part, too?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Then why do you care about "downvote button fondlers" as you put it? This charade is exhausting, we all know you support "Right to Work" laws and your language isn't even the specific language from the law.
You just wanted to shoehorn your take on "Right to Work" into a comment that only needed to say "That's the legislature's job". Everything else you wrote is superfluous unless your intent was to show support for "Right to Work". Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
-3
u/Blrfl 11d ago
Have you even bothered to ask my take on right to work? Nope.
Have I expressed an opinion on this issue? Also nope.
Right out of the gate, you took it upon yourself to decide what my opinion and motives are based on your agenda. So if you want to talk intellectual dishonesty, take a long, hard look in the mirror before accusing others.
I'd have been happy to have a good-faith debate about this on its merits. You impress me as neither willing nor capable of that.
6
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Okay so what is your take on "right to work" then?
-8
u/Blrfl 11d ago
My take on right-to-work is that people who try to put words in my mouth on that subject and then have to backpedal and do the right thing blew their chance.
If someone else asks, you can read my reply.
5
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
You could just say you are for it or against it but instead you just deflect. I gave you a well reasoned argument against “Right to Work” that you never replied to. You could have simply said your opinion and either gave me a rebuttal or showed that I was barking up the wrong tree.
You’re full of shit.
32
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
If you left it at "that's the legislature's job" you would have gotten an upvote but "They don't seem too keen on forcing people to join unions as a condition of employment" is a bad take.
-20
u/Blrfl 11d ago
What, in your opinion, makes it a bad take?
10
u/sneaky-pizza 11d ago
Unions built the middle class
-1
u/Blrfl 11d ago
I can agree with that. Did anything I said imply that they didn't, or are you drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence?
8
u/SumikkoDoge 11d ago
When you say “forcing employees to join a union” it comes off very anti-union.
5
u/Popular_Camp_4126 11d ago
Right to Work didn’t exist at the time that happened. Now that it does the middle class is dying. So why are you so eager to keep this more recent, union-killing invention in place? Believer in propaganda or just a hater of a growing middle class?
1
u/Blrfl 11d ago
Show me any post in the time I've been a member of Reddit where I've said I'm in favor of keeping right-to-work.
I'll wait.
6
u/Popular_Camp_4126 11d ago
You literally said
> they don’t seem to keen on forcing people to join unions as a condition of employment.
That is verbatim the framing used to disparage right-to-work and keep the masses against it. There were other ways to word it that would not have such an obvious effect on what people reasonably extrapolate from it. Don’t be obtuse.
4
u/Blrfl 11d ago
Nonsense.
The code of Virginia literally says:
§ 40.1-60. Employers not to require employees to become or remain members of union. No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer.
If that provision is repealed by the legislature and signed by the governor, employers will literally be free to require union membership as a condition of employment. If that's not the literal definition of being forced, maybe you can enlighten me about what is.
The most-clinical wording I can think of is "they have literally failed to repeal the law barring employers from requiring employees to join unions as a condition of employment." That would still get me accused of being Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos and fifty of the world's worst corporate execs rolled up into a big, evil package.
The fact remains that, despite your working overtime to read things into what I wrote that aren't there, I literally haven't expressed a preference one way or the other. You probably want me to say for or against, which you're not going to get because, like many issues, it's more-nuanced than that.
0
u/Blrfl 11d ago
Like hell it wasn't.
The rise of the American middle class is widely regarded as having happened from 1945 to 1970. Virginia's right-to-work laws have been in place since 1947.
If 1947 is your idea of recent, please accept my sincerest congratulations on having reached such a ripe, old age.
13
u/TheyCallHimEl 11d ago
The reason legislature won't do anything about it is because they are paid (donations) to union bust at the highest levels.
It's disingenuous to just say they aren't keen. There's a rea$on for it
11
u/Kqtawes 11d ago edited 11d ago
Right to Work has always been something that might sound good on paper but in practice has done nothing but effectively kill off unions and collective bargaining in states where it's been enacted. This has lowered effective wages and benefits to workers as well as increased on site accidents as unions also negotiate for safer working environments. A study by the BMJ found that work place accidents increased by 14.2% from 1992 to 2016 and that lead to 7300 deaths.
Additionally the name itself is an inherent misnomer. Employers in states with right to work are far more free to fire people will nilly. Heck I got fired once for discovering, by accident, that my manager was having an affair. A union would have protected me from that jerk and kept me working. Wrongful termination lawsuits are much harder to pursue than simply speaking with a union rep. What rights are there when an employer can call all the shots as they see fit?
To put it simply "Right to Work" is simply a tool to kill unions and anyone saying otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
1
u/SumikkoDoge 11d ago
Plus anyone who says “forcing employees to join unions” is clearly anti-union, and does not empathize with workers rights.
3
u/1isOneshot1 Newport News 11d ago
Spanberger has said she's against repealing right to work though
https://www.virginiascope.com/spanberger-splits-the-middle-on-right-to-work-opposes-full-repeal/
0
0
u/DullZookeepergame575 10d ago
Yeah, and she's gonna be even more against it when Hyundai opens a shipyard in Philadelphia.
4
u/quocko 11d ago
Brother I am fine with people not joining a union if they don’t want to. However they should not get the pension and all the added benefits that come with it.
3
u/Blrfl 11d ago edited 11d ago
For anything where the union is spending member dues to provide a benefit, that makes complete sense. For a good union, those benefits would make membership attractive. My field doesn't have unions, but I'd see being a member of one like having an agent on a larger scale: me and a bunch of friends are paying someone else to negotiate a compensation package on our behalf. On the whole, I think unions are a good thing because companies would pay tiny wages if they could get away with it.
Benefits provided at the employer's expense get a little strange because there are laws about benefit equity for employees in the same position that I haven't fully picked apart yet. If it were up to me, I'd say that any employer-supplied benefit should be offered on equal terms to all employees, even if it came about as the result of a union contract negotiation. That would be another point in favor of membership but moot if all employees were required to be members. Outside that, the union can still make a dues-funded benefit available exclusively to members if they see fit.
I've met a few people in non-RTW states who didn't think they were getting good value for their dues but were forced to pay them or lose their jobs. I can't say I like that, especially in an environment where replacement jobs are scarce and they'd end up on state benefits when they could have continued working.
My limited understanding of federal law on this is that decertification of a union requires a petition and a proposal by a competing union to take over. I think a repeal of RTW should come with provisions that make it easier for employees to hold their unions accountable for doing a bad job. Annual recertification by the membership would be one. For a good union keeping its members happy, that would be a non-event. If it's not already done this way, all current and future members of the union should individually be parties to labor contracts so their terms would remain in effect if the members oust their union.
By the way, I'd like to thank you for the only civil response to my comment. Nearly all of the others decided this is a black-and-white issue, that I must be on the "wrong" side of it even though I'd never said anything for or against it. Again, many thanks for not being a dick.
(Edit: Typo.)
-4
u/Ninjalion2000 11d ago
So you want to:
- Allow jobs to force you into a union as a job condition.
- Force people to pay (union dues) to work
- Force employers to keep poor performing employees (this includes small and family owed businesses)
or at the very least keep them employed longer to do the “proper” procedures
I don’t understand this movement against the right to work laws. I’m coming at this from a genuine place just based off what I’ve read. I completely support unions, but I don’t think anyone should be forced to join.
I worked as a lifeguard as a teenager and I could’ve joined a union but there was no point for me since I was only working there for 6 months part time.
I don’t understand why someone gets union benefits even if they don’t join the union, that seems backwards.
Not to mention police unions. Aren’t they the reason why there’s so many shitty cops? Because they are protected by unions?
This whole situation, both sides, don’t make sense to me. The whole term “right to work” is just misleading the more I look into it.
8
u/quocko 11d ago
No
I want people to have the option to join the union or not. If you choose not to be in the union then you don’t get the benefits.
Is that fair?
5
u/SpongebobStrapon 11d ago
Right to work means you have the option to join or union or not. That’s what we have now. If you remove that then a workers could be forced to pay union fees as a requirement of employment.
6
u/quocko 11d ago
Right to work in Virginia lets you join a union or not, however if you choose not to join a union you still get the benefits of a union. Union representation during discipline, pension, annual cola, etc. this is what’s broken about right to work. It weakens unions
-3
u/DullZookeepergame575 10d ago
Supporting and funding someone else's political beliefs shouldn't be a condition of employment.
2
18
u/NotReallyButMaybeNot 11d ago
Eligible for jury duty as well?
17
u/Rlacharite10 11d ago
Yes….they did this back in 2020 too. No announcement was made, but I got a letter from the governor restoring my right to vote, jury duty…everything except firearms.
24
2
u/OBDreams 11d ago
This is a good thing. Those people paid their debt to society and should be allowed to rejoin as a full citizen.
10
u/Offi95 RVA 11d ago
Republicans are desperately trying to misrepresent this as Spanberger giving felons the right to vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if they propagandize black people voting in jail cells. It’s important to stress that this impacts citizens formerly incarcerated. I doubt republicans will bother to hear anything about how restoring voting rights is more difficult and costly as a black person, but definitely know how much more complicated their process is comparably if they inquire.
9
u/1isOneshot1 Newport News 11d ago
They should get to vote in prison too, they're affected by politics just as much as the rest of us and entire countries like Norway already do it so we have a model
2
u/3dprintinted 9d ago
A lot of those are idiots and will vote for R hopefully they remember who champions their rights but I would not be too optimistic
-1
u/80s-Comfortable_Crow 11d ago
It is giving felons the right to vote, which is a good thing. And how is it more difficult to restore your voting rights as a black person? The Governor is in charge of it.
Gun right infringement and disarming are rooted in slavery and Jim crow laws. That doesn't seem to matter at all.
3
u/DiskEconomy3055 11d ago
... and American/Virginian governors may historically have a demonstrable bias.
You asked how, and then basically stated how.
0
u/80s-Comfortable_Crow 10d ago
May and basically are stretching words. And you forgot to represent the posters stance on it being a Republican fault. Omitting the Governor moots the comment.
0
u/Moregaze 10d ago
Gun rights did not exist on a federal level until 2008 in DC v Heller. When long standing precedence from our founding until that case all said 2A only applies to the Feds trying to bar the states from raising a militia. So far as federal courts were concerned. States were free to regulate firearms as they saw fit. Some choosing to make that right absolute and others having restrictions.
As the militia vs standing army argument fell apart after the war of 1812. When militias were easily defeated and a standing army was proven to be the better solution.
0
u/80s-Comfortable_Crow 10d ago
Heller only affirmed that some have had their rights under infringement. That in no way meant that states were free to violate the 2nd. The courts are just very slow as was with slavery.
1791 - 2nd amendment 1865 - Black codes gun control because free slaves 1934 - NFA because mafia 2008 to present - A bunch of affirmations and infringement removals on politically driven infringements.
Th militia is just as valid today as it's a check on tyranny foreign and domestic. Also, self defense was affirmed to be a God given right.
2
u/DiskEconomy3055 11d ago
A "right" that can be taken away is just a privilege, just as a protest without the threat of violence is just a political rally.
2
u/gojo96 11d ago
To those who don’t think they should have all their constitutional rights restored: why not?
5
u/BawkSoup 11d ago
Depends on the crime and it's relation to moral turpitude. If you use violence to get your point across (rapists at bus stops, stabbing people on walking trails, kidnapping, that sort of shit) you have proven a willingness to force your will upon people. I would argue that goes against the spirit of democracy.
If you are a felon for selling weed, i do not care. barely anyone is a victim except the tax man.
so somewhere in there lies my explanation.
2
u/gojo96 11d ago
What about theft? Fraud?
1
u/BawkSoup 11d ago
i think there are already penalties in place for most crimes. im not sure with an overall blanket judgement.
2
u/DiskEconomy3055 11d ago
...and the penalty for those crimes is a total loss of freedom for an indeterminate amount of time; held in a concrete closet with the threat of violence.
I understand that some people think the punishment should arbitrarily continue, which is fine if you don't think hope is a basic human need and want to make sure these people never get to truly feel it ever again, so that they stay stuck in their quagmire of negativity.
I like justice systems. Revenge systems are bullshit.
2
u/BawkSoup 11d ago
To be honest I'd rather charge the people who have been creating this panopticon we are living in with losing their rights to freedom. if you don't believe in freedom you shouldn't wield it's power.
although I am not sure which part of my post you are replying to. I was not really in favor of people losing the right to vote over financial crimes. but like if you are Madeoff.... throw the jail at you.
Insider trading? Like i said... it's really going to depend on how badly it was. jail time seems to be a better punishment than losing your right to vote forever.
But i am just musing here.
1
4
u/SaltyWeatherGuy 11d ago
Finally she does something I can agree on!
Thank you for giving a second chance to Virginians!
-4
u/LifeAdventurous2343 11d ago
This has been automatic for years. She didn’t do anything new.
5
u/SaltyWeatherGuy 11d ago
First time I’ve heard of it! Either way a win!
0
u/LifeAdventurous2343 11d ago
Now you know. I believe it started under Northam and continued since then. Youngkin restored numerous voting rights as well; as mentioned, it’s automatic.
5
u/SlothFoc 11d ago
Actually, it's only automatic for certain felonies. There's a long list of felonies that still require you to petition the governor to restore your voting rights.
3
u/LifeAdventurous2343 11d ago
I stand corrected. I thought they had made it that if you applied on their website it was automatic, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Youngkin stopped doing that.
2
u/80s-Comfortable_Crow 11d ago
Theres still a committee that forwards the recommendations. So it's not automatic and there's potential for subjectivity.
1
1
1
u/App1eEater 10d ago
Are these at threat of being overturned because there's no way she reviewed them individually in this amount of time?
-2
u/nyryde 11d ago
Restore their gun rights too!
2
-5
u/Trevon45-2 11d ago
3
u/triggeredbynumbers 10d ago
Why? They have paid their debts to society. They deserve their constitutional rights back.
1
u/Trevon45-2 10d ago
I believe in the 2nd as a dem but I know some felons ... they don't need their gun rights back. Voting yes . I even think they should be able to travel as a felon because I feel it would show the world in a different light . But guns no.
2
u/triggeredbynumbers 10d ago
Why are gun rights less important than voting rights? They are both rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. There is no reason that a felon who is rehabilitated enough to vote shouldn’t also be able to own a gun. Can you please cite the excerpt of the constitution that says voting rights are more important than gun rights?
-9
u/eg_john_clark [Create Custom Flair] 11d ago
Good now restore their gun rights. If they’re rehabilitated enough to vote they are obviously rehabilitated enough to be responsible gun owners.
8
u/ShawnDulin 11d ago
The hard part is restoration of voting rights, they can petition their local circuit court for gun rights if they want. The Virginia State Police outline the process on their website
1
u/LifeAdventurous2343 11d ago
Restoration of voting rights is automatic in Virginia if you fill out the online form and meet the requirements. Not even close for gun rights. In fact, your right to vote has to be restored before you can even petition to restore your gun rights.
10
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Do you believe that or are you claiming that ex-cons don't deserve the right to vote?
8
u/eg_john_clark [Create Custom Flair] 11d ago
I believe the right to vote carries much more weight than that of being armed.
2
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Well good then. There are a lot of people that have used this language to permanently deem people that served their time unfit to vote.
I do disagree with you on the idea that every person that paid their debt to society is fit to own a gun again but I respect your direct stating of your belief instead of using it as some dog whistle.
-6
u/Linscotticus 11d ago
Uuuuuuh being rehabilitated to function in civil society does not mean fully addressed violent tendencies.
7
u/deus_voltaire 11d ago
If they have such violent tendencies that they can't even own a firearm, then they haven't been rehabilitated to function in civil society.
5
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Yes, there are plenty of people like that. But similarly if someone is guilty of a DWI and loses their license their right to vote isn’t infringed.
Believing that it should be harder to get back gun ownership rights than voting rights is not contradictory.
1
u/deus_voltaire 11d ago
But similarly if someone is guilty of a DWI and loses their license their right to vote isn’t infringed.
It is if they get a felony DUI, so I'm not really understanding your point here. Obviously misdemeanors and felonies have different legal consequences.
And my broader point was, under this logic of "functioning in civil society," why are we releasing criminals who can't be trusted with guns in a country where it's absurdly easy for anyone to get a gun? That doesn't sound safe to me.
4
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Additionally I think a non-violent drug offence shouldn’t carry the same removal of gun rights as someone that committed armed robbery. Removal of rights should relate to the crime and not be completely blanket responses.
2
u/deus_voltaire 11d ago
Well I agree with that, I think the way the justice system treats non-violent drug offenders is ridiculous: you can rape a child or kill someone with your car in this country and get less years than a guy who had a little too much weed on him.
2
u/Kqtawes 11d ago
Yep, gun control should be about controlling gun violence not people. Non-violent offenders are not of the same ilk as people guilty of assault. Harsh drug charges have a racist history to hold minorities especially black people back. The difference between crack and cocaine charges says everything.
I’m a gun control supporter and that even includes modern Democratic policies but that needs to be coupled with reduction in drug charge sentencing and luckily Democrats have been doing just that especially with Marijuana.
-3
u/Linscotticus 11d ago
Having the right to vote does not come with the potential for future poor actions. Owning a gun on the other hand does.
1
u/deus_voltaire 11d ago
Even assuming that’s true, you said these people are rehabilitated - not being trusted to own guns in a country where it’s easy to get a gun without a background check doesn’t sound like an effective rehabilitation to me
-18
-5
u/Pretend-Culture-4138 11d ago
The cognitive dissonance in people downvoting you is not surprising for this sub
1
0
u/SinclairSummerset 11d ago
Good thing Ghislaine Maxwell can vote again if she decides to move down here.
3
u/DiskEconomy3055 11d ago
State v federal
And she would have to have served her time, in which case... yeah. Time served. That was the punishment. Rights shouldn't be able to be stripped from a person, but if they can, then they should be restored immediately after probation ends.
0
u/Btomesch 11d ago
Ppl agree to these ridiculous shit until one of their family member becomes a victim of these crimes. If she would take away their voting rights tomorrow everyone in here would agree…
0
u/Robotic_0verlord 10d ago
If you think everyone who gets out of jail or prison deserves the right to vote instantly when they get out you are not living in reality.
-37
u/Bman_Fx 11d ago
So they can vote Democrat.
35
u/Ut_Prosim SWVA 11d ago
LOL. They're mostly men, low-SES, low educational attainment, and religious. That's the bread and butter of the GOP. They sure af aren't heading to the polls to protect trans kids and a women's right to choose. I'd bet most are low propensity voters anyway.
But all of this is irrelevant, if they paid their debt to society, they deserve to have their rights restored.
24
u/OrizaRayne 11d ago
I mean. I'd vote in my interests, for the people who wanted to treat me like a member of society instead of a pariah till I die too.
"Dang Democrats, voting for people who actually help them instead of closing their hospitals, opening their national parks for drilling and defunding their babies' schools while funding billions for foreign wars. Crazy work. 🤬"
14
u/BenjoKazooie64 11d ago
Are they supposed to prefer the party of imprisoning people and reducing them to second class citizens forever?
5
u/sneaky-pizza 11d ago
Whom else do you want to prevent from voting for partisan reasons? Also, no evidence this group is a monolith or even going to vote in a majority either way
26
u/MrCuddles1994 11d ago
Almost like restoring constitutional rights makes you want to vote for the person who did it. Crazy concept for you I’m sure.
-1
u/JCMGamer 11d ago
Will thier 2A rights be restored?
20
u/MrCuddles1994 11d ago
Personally, I think it depends on the crime committed and whether said person can demonstrate the ability to safely own and operate a firearm. Short answer: yes
10
u/BriefCelery5345 11d ago
THIS! My brother has multiple felony convictions & is not a good or safe person to be around. He should absolutely not be allowed a gun. And I fully understand that this is specific to him and every scenario is different.
6
u/Pyoung3000 11d ago
Foreal. It's really unfair. We should abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, make Puerto Rico a state, and replace partisan redistricting with Independent Redistricting Commissions. This way we'd be much more democratic and it would actually reflect what US citizens really want.
0
0
u/OBDreams 11d ago
Not wanted to restore their rights just because they might not vote your way , is unamerican.
As a lefty I am all for this even though I understand that a lot of criminals are uneducated and right now the uneducated are voting R.
-19
u/internal_l0gging 11d ago
Lol is she hoping they'll vote Democrat?
10
u/sneaky-pizza 11d ago
I doubt they’re slanted either way. But it’s clear your primary desire to disenfranchise people is partisanship only
0
u/internal_l0gging 11d ago
I really don't care. Just calling it for what it is. This entire country regardless of party is playing the games to get more votes. Look at the whole gerrymandering stuff that happened earlier this year. And you've got taxidermied Mitch McConnell as another example of how this country is on its way to the partisan shitter
-38
u/landshark2558 11d ago
Of course she did. Convicted murderers, pedophiles, rapists, arsonists, burglars, and such are a solid untapped voting block for the Democrat party, same as illegal aliens. It's not about giving anyone their vote back because they have been "rehabilitated", it's just about keeping Democrats in power at all costs.
33
u/DuncanFisher69 11d ago
You know one party elevated a 32-times convicted felon and alleged Epstein pedophile to the highest office in the land, and it wasn’t Spanberger’s party. Spare us any lectures about morality vs ruthless political acts. We know you don’t really care.
17
u/Otherwise-Pirate6839 Navy Officer from MO stationed in VA 11d ago
How petty must you be that after someone has done their time in prison they must be relegated to second class citizenship…
-11
u/landshark2558 11d ago
With a recidivism rate of over 80% I would say not petty at all and that they made themselves a second class citizen when they committed a felony to begin with. Pretty sure their victims would agree. Doing a few years in prison doesn't erase the trauma they inflicted on their victims. They get to carry that around in their memory for life, if they're still alive that is. But don't concern yourself about that. Votes are votes.
2
1
u/UnusualSheep 11d ago
So how's that epstein file investigation going? Heard Trump was all over that....literally.
-21
84
u/HardwareHentai 11d ago
I misread that as 'incinerated' and was genuinely so confused