If you’re not willing to follow the law then you should not have the right to make the law for everyone else which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote should not be restored automatically but only after the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf since unfortunately most felons will be returning to prison.

If you’re not willing to follow the law then you should not have the right to make the law for everyone else which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote should be restored only after the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf—not automatically since unfortunately most felons will be returning to prison.

If you’re not willing to follow the law then you should not have the right to make the law for everyone else which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored but it should not be done automatically; it should be done as Florida does it now, only once the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf. After all the unfortunate fact is that most felons will be returning to prison.

The right to vote should not be restored automatically but only after the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf. That’s because unfortunately most felons wind up back in prison and if you won’t follow the law yourself then you can’t demand the right to make the law for everyone else which is what you do when you vote.

The right to vote should not be restored automatically but only after the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf since unfortunately most will commit new crimes. And if you’re not willing to follow the law yourself then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else which is what you do when you vote.

If you’re not willing to follow the law then you should not have a role in making the law which is what you do when you vote. Voting rights can be restored but not automatically— the felon to show first that he or she has turned over a new leaf. After all, the unhappy truth is that most of those leaving prison will be returning.

The right to vote should not be restored automatically but only after the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf. After all the unfortunate fact is that most felons will be returning to prison.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

Re “restoring the civil and voting rights of ex-felons”: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

Re “equal opportunity”: “Equal opportunity,” yes — but that also means no guarantee of “equal results” (a.k.a. quotas, affirmative action, set-asides, and the like). Pick the best qualified individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sex. Anything else is unfair, divisive, inefficient — and illegal, indeed unconstitutional.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]. The testimony discusses why the claim that these laws are racist is bogus.

If you won’t follow the law then you can’t demand the right to help make it. It’s false to say that felon disenfranchisement is rooted in racism; these laws have ancient roots, are found in 48 states, and were used when the only people affected were white males.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [
http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [
http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

Too bad. If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

Just award contracts to the lowest bidder real hard less of race, one way or the other. PC discrimination is still discrimination.

We don’t let everyone vote because we have certain objective, minimum standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that have to be met before someone is qualified to participate in the solemn enterprise of self-government. So children, noncitizens, the mentally incapacitated, and those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens are disqualified— the latter until they have shown that they have turned over a new leaf.

Thx, Mr. McCarthy, but when you think about it we don’t let everyone vote: not children or noncitizens or the insane or those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens. The common denominator is that we have certain minimum and objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws before we entrust someone with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government.

Re #13: bad idea. The right to vote can be restored but it should not be done automatically but carefully and on a case by case basis to see if the person has turned over a new leaf. If you won’t follow the law then you can’t demand a role in making the law which is what you do when you vote, and unfortunately most felons who leave prison will be returning.

Re felons voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t
demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when
you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here
[ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ]
and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

Here’s my top-ten list of what we should expect from those who want to become
Americans (and those who are already Americans, for that matter). The list was
first published in a National Review Online column [link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378393/e-pluribus-unum-roger-clegg ],
and it is fleshed out in Congressional testimony [link: http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23115&linkid=164788 ]:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.

2. Respect women.

3. Learn to speak English.

4. Be polite.

5. Don’t break the law.

6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.

7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.

8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”

9. Don’t hold historical grudges.

10. Be proud of being an American.

Here’s my top-ten list of what we should expect
from those who want to become Americans (and those who are already Americans,
for that matter). The list was first published in a National Review Online
column [link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378393/e-pluribus-unum-roger-clegg ], and it is fleshed out in Congressional testimony [link: http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23115&linkid=164788 ]:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.

2. Respect women.

3. Learn to speak English.

4. Be polite.

5. Don’t break the law.

6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.

7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.

8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”

9. Don’t hold historical grudges.

10. Be proud of being an American.

Thanks, Mr. Spiker. I agree that it’s a bad idea to tell felons that they can never rejoin civil society as full citizens, but I don’t think that what I’m proposing does that. In fact, I think it is a great way to incentivize changed behavior. After some period of time, when the felon has shown he has turned over a new leaf, there could be a ceremony — rather like a naturalization ceremony — where an official congratulates the person in front of his friends and family and solemnly restores the right to vote. But you don’t have any of that if the right to vote is restored automatically.

Re felon voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here
[ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the Voting Rights Act – which was indeed unconstitutional, unfair, and outdated, and which was
never a permanent part of the Act anyway – and there are plenty of other
voting-rights laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated.
What’s more, the principal bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For
example, it does not protect all races equally from discrimination; it contains
much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself
violates the Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually
racially discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects. The
bill is also hopelessly partisan; at Senate hearings, it was clear that no
Republican there would favor it, because it is designed to give a partisan
advantage to the Left.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t
demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when
you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis
after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not
automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

While we have expanded the franchise over the years, we still have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws before we entrust people with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. And so, for example, we don’t let children, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent vote. People who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens fall into that category, too, until they show they have turned over a new leaf by going some period of time after serving their sentence without committing a new crime.

Re felon voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue here (including a rebuttal of the Florida study cited): http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/felon-voting-and-unconstitutional-congressional-overreach

If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

Putting aside the fact that there are differences of opinion between left and right on the need for better ballot security measures, there’s also the political and racial gerrymandering that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act facilitated.

No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a
permanent part of the Act anyway — and there are plenty of other voting-rights
laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more,
the principal bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it does not protect all races
equally from discrimination; it contains much that has nothing to do with the
Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by
prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only
have racially disproportionate effects. The bill is also not really bipartisan;
at Senate hearings, it was clear that no Republican there would favor it,
because it is designed to give a partisan advantage to the Left.

Here’s my top-ten list of what we should expect
from those who want to become Americans (and those who are already Americans,
for that matter). The list was first published in a National Review Online
column [link: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378393/e-pluribus-unum-roger-clegg ], and it is fleshed out in Congressional testimony [link: http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=23115&linkid=164788 ]:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.

2. Respect women.

3. Learn to speak English.

4. Be polite.

5. Don’t break the law.

6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.

7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.

8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”

9. Don’t hold historical grudges.

10. Be proud of being an American.

I hope he reconsiders: No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a permanent part of the Act anyway — and there are plenty of other voting-rights laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more, the principal bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it does not protect all races equally from discrimination; it contains much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects. The bill is also not really bipartisan; at Senate hearings, it was clear that no Republican there would favor it, because it is designed to give a partisan advantage to the Left.

Sorry, but if you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in.

The aim should be nondiscrimination, not achieving a predetermined and politically correct set of numbers. Whether you call it a quota or a goal or a target or a set-aside, race-based decisionmaking is unfair, divisive, inefficient — and illegal, indeed unconstitutional.

The principal reason for the persistence of racial disparities, by the way, is the dramatic variation in out-of-wedlock birthrates. More than 7 out of 10 African Americans are born out-of-wedlock, more than 6 out of 10 Native Americans, more than 5 out of 10 Latinos — versus fewer than 3 out of 10 whites and fewer than 2 out of 10 Asian Americans. There is a causal connection between the disparities here and the disparities you see in poverty, crime, education, employments, you name it.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t
demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when
you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison — let alone when the person is still on parole or probation! After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

Hiring and promoting on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as the 14th Amendment (when the employer is a government agency). The city’s lawyers need to take a careful look at this!

If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison — let alone when parole/probation have not even been served! After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

Re last sentence in article (on felon voting): That’s good news. If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison — let alone when the person has still not served out parole and probation, as this bill would have done! After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Sorry, I don’t buy it: I think that the texts 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments fit together better my way than your way.
But rather than belabor all that, what about the simple answer to your argument, which I mentioned but maybe didn’t emphasize enough in what I posted above: That when felons are disenfranchised, it is not because of their previous condition of servitude, it’s because they have committed a serious crimes against fellow citizens? Look at it this way: The states that disenfranchise felons would do so even if, for some reason, a particular felon served less time than someone might have for a misdemeanor, or even if he had served no time at all (maybe he paid a big fine instead, or was given a suspended sentence, etc.). Conversely, someone who did serve time but then was set free because the conviction was overturned WOULD be allowed to vote. So, obviously, the reason for disenfranchisement is the commission of a serious crime, not whether or not the person had been in “servitude,” whatever that means.

The reference to “servitude” in the 15th Amendment is to slavery — that is, people could not be denied the right to vote because they had been slaves. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment makes clear that felons can be disenfranchised; and when they are, it is not “on account of … previous condition of servitude” but because they have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens.

Thanks for your response, but please reread my post. If the felony warranted only a 79-day sentence, and the felon has gone 10 years with no other violation, then this is the sort of person to whom the right to vote can be restored. I’m just saying it shouldn’t be restored automatically on the day someone walks out of prison and before they’ve even served their parole time.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

Re felon voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison.

After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of
prison will be walking back in. Read
more about this issue on our website here
[ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

Re felon voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison.
After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of
prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here
[ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in
making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison.

After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of
prison will be walking back in. Read
more about this issue on our website here
[ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

And the Rooney Rule is illegal:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/182178/rooney-rule-illegal-and-so-expanding-it-roger-clegg

Gov. Hogan was right to veto this bill, and here’s hoping
that the Senate votes to sustain that veto. If you aren’t willing to follow the
law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to
felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person
has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically
on the day someone walks out of prison — let alone when parole and probation
haven’t even been served! After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people
who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue
here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429841/felon-voting-maryland-governor-hogan-veto?target=author&tid=1046 That link, by the way, refutes the claim made by the bill’s proponents that re-enfranchisement diminishes recidivism; another claim is that felons should be able to vote
since they pay taxes — but that’s true when they’re in prison, too, and taxes
are also paid by nonvoters like children, noncitizens, and the mentally
incapacitated.

Re felon voting (second item above): If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison — let alone before the person has even finished parole and probation! After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue here
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429841/felon-voting-maryland-governor-hogan-veto?target=author&tid=1046

Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all
in deciding who gets awarded a contract? 
It’s good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that
bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets
discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex.  But that means no preferences because of skin
color, etc. either–whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,” a
“quota,” or a “goal,” since they all end up amounting to
the same thing.  Such discrimination is
unfair and divisive; it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers and
businesses money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder;
and it’s almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C.
section 1981 and this model brief: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1342
).  Those who insist on engaging in such
discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.

Too bad. If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

Re “restoring sections of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court overturned”: No new
legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a
permanent part of the Act anyway — and there are plenty of other voting-rights
laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more,
the principal bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it does not protect all races
equally from discrimination; it contains much that has nothing to do with the
Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by
prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only
have racially disproportionate effects. The bill is also partisan;
at Senate hearings last year, it was clear that no Republican would favor it,
because it is designed to give a partisan advantage to the Left.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in
making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons,
but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has
shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on
the day someone walks out of prison.
After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of
prison will be walking back in. Read
more about this issue on our website here
[ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

The guidance is unenlightening and misleading, as explained here (by a conservative):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359733/obama-administrations-bad-advice-affirmative-action-roger-clegg

And also here (by a liberal):
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/09/27/the-misleading-administration-guidance-on-affirmative-action/

With all respect, the definition of spam is “irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.” The fact that I cut and paste from something that I have earlier written about an issue doesn’t make it “irrelevant” or “inappropriate.” Nor have I sent this to “a large number of recipients”; I’ve posted it to this particular article because I have read that article and determined that I have something to say that is germane to it. What difference does it make if I retype something rather than cut and paste it? It seems to me that it does not make what I have to say any less of interest to your readers. It’s not a commercial and it engages the issues raised by the underlying article.

Well, if a new article raises the same issue again, why shouldn’t I answer it the same way? Some people may not have read the earlier article, let alone my comment on it.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, to give you the example you request, is being used to challenge some of the voter integrity measures that Republicans have passed. Sometimes these lawsuits are successful, and sometimes they aren’t, depending on the evidence. That’s the way civil-rights laws work.

Well, if a new article raises the same issue again, why shouldn’t I answer it the same way? Some people may not have read the earlier article, let alone my comment on it.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act that Bernie Sanders is cosponsoring is a bad bill. It’s supposed to “restore” part of the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme
Court struck down only one provision in the Act — which was
indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a permanent part of the Act anyway
— and there are plenty of other voting-rights laws available to ensure that the
right to vote is not violated. What’s more, the VRAA contains
much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself
violates the Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually
racially discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects.

It’s even more extreme that an earlier bill that was introduced and has gone nowhere. The new bill would not, for example, exempt voter ID, and it would cover more jurisdictions than the earlier bill — indeed, more jurisdictions than the original Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. So we
are to believe that there are more racist jurisdictions in 2015 than there were
in 1965 — comprising half the country’s population. It’s hard to believe
that the bill’s sponsors expect the bill to be taken seriously. More
likely it is a bone being tossed to the more extreme parts of their base, who
thought the earlier bill — though bad in the extreme — was not bad enough.

Mr. Bush is right. No new
legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a
permanent part of the Act anyway — and there are plenty of other voting-rights
laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more,
the bill that has been drafted and is adverted to here is bad legislation. For example, it contains much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the
Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually racially
discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects.

It’s even more extreme that an earlier bill that was introduced and has gone nowhere. The new bill would not, for example, exempt voter
ID, and it would cover more jurisdictions than the earlier bill — indeed, more
jurisdictions than the original Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. So we
are to believe that there are more racist jurisdictions in 2015 than there were
in 1965 — comprising half the country’s population. It’s hard to believe
that the bill’s sponsors expect the bill to be taken seriously. More
likely it is a bone being tossed to the more extreme parts of their base, who
thought the earlier bill — though bad in the extreme — was not bad enough.

I can’t speak to the specific facts and ruling in this case, but I do want to take issue with the last sentence of this op-ed: “denying voting rights to ex-felons wasn’t enough of an undemocratic, immoral policy to being [sic] with ….” I don’t think that denying voting rights to people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens is “undemocratic” or “immoral.” To the contrary, if you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [
http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

As I said at the outset, I have no objection to felons being re-enfranchised, “but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in.” Re-enfranchisement could be done at a public ceremony — like a citizen naturalization — where an official congratulated the felon in front of his friends and family on turning his life around. That would be a positive way to reintegrate individuals; automatic reenfranchisement misses this opportunity and will give the vote back to many people who have assuredly not turned over a new leaf.

Here’s the link:
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Uggen_Manza_ASR_02.pdf

Thanks, but: (1) it’s not true that re-enfranchising felons would not change election results, and in fact one famous study by *proponents* of re-enfranchisement documented this (see http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Uggen_Manza_ASR_02.pdf); and (2) the reason that I support disenfranchisement is less for its rehabilitative effect than because people who aren’t willing to follow the law shouldn’t be making the law for the rest of us; we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require before people can be entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government, and some people (children, the mentally incompetent, noncitizens, and people who commit serious crimes against their fellow citizens) don’t meet those standards — see link to my congressional testimony above.

Thanks, but see my exchange with emjayay below.

Thanks, emjayay. But when you think about it, “the paid your debt to society” phrase really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I mean, it’s not like, when you rob a liquor store, you’re just borrowing something from society the way you borrow money from a bank, and if you go to prison then you’ve paid it back, and we’re all square and nobody can hold it against you. It’s not like society says, “Hey, how about if we make a deal with you, and you can rob a liquor store, but if we catch you, then you have to agree to go to prison. We feel like that’s a good deal for us, getting to lock you up and pay for your room and board, and we’re willing to let you rob a liquor store if you let us do that. Banks like to receive loan payments, and we like to lock people up — it’s worth it to banks to loan money if they get repaid, and it’s worth it to us to let people rob liquor stores so long as we can lock people up.” As I said, this is silly, and so this paid-your-debt-to-society argument really doesn’t make much sense.

Another way to think about it: There are all kinds of ways in which society doesn’t ignore the fact that someone has committed a serious crime, even though they have “paid their debt” to the extent that they’re allowed to come and go as they please now. We don’t let felons possess firearms, or serve on juries, and a convicted embezzler will have a hard time getting a job at a bank.

Thanks for your reply. While I don’t accept your premises, let’s pretend for the sake of argument that they are all true. It remains the case that the overwhelming majority of people who are convicted of felonies have indeed indeed committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens. (Consider: Less than 1 percent of the people sentenced for drug offenses in federal court in 2014 were sentenced for simple drug possession, and many of those were plea bargains.) So it makes sense, as I said, to re-enfranchise people carefully and on a case-by-case basis, rather than automatically on the day they walk out of prison.

Re felon voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law
yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else,
which is what you do when you vote. The
right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a
case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned
over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most
people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website
here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf
].

No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a
permanent part of the Act anyway — and there are plenty of other voting-rights
laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more,
the bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it contains much that has
nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the
Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually racially
discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects.

It’s even more extreme that an earlier bill that was introduced and has gone nowhere. The new bill would not, for example, exempt voter ID, and it would cover more jurisdictions than the earlier bill — indeed, more jurisdictions than the original Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (although, interestingly, not Alaska — which had been covered before). So we
are to believe that there are more racist jurisdictions in 2015 than there were
in 1965 — comprising half the country’s population. It’s hard to believe
that the bill’s sponsors expect the bill to be taken seriously. More
likely it is a bone being tossed to the more extreme parts of their base, who
thought the earlier bill — though bad in the extreme — was not bad enough.

No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional — and there are plenty of
other voting-rights laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not
violated. What’s more, the bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it contains much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by
prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only
have racially disproportionate effects. And it would treat half the country like it was 1965 Mississippi, requiring states like California and New York to get federal permission before making any change, no matter how trivial, to voting practices and procedures.

No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional — and there are plenty of
other voting-rights laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not
violated. What’s more, the bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it does not protect all races equally from discrimination; it contains much that has nothing to do with the
Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by
prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only
have racially disproportionate effects. The bill is also not really bipartisan;
at Senate hearings last year, it was clear that no Republican would favor it,
because it is designed to give a partisan advantage to the Left.

Depends on what you mean by “served your time” — you may be out of prison, but you haven’t completed serving your sentence, since probation and parole are part of the sentence. Besides, while serving a sentence discharges a felon’s “debt to society” in the sense that his basic right to live in society is restored, serving a sentence does not require society to forget what he has done or bar society from making reasonable judgments based on his past crimes. For example, federal law prohibits felons from possessing firearms or serving on juries, which does not seem unreasonable.

Glad to see the veto of the felon voting bill. As conservatives had pointed out, such
automatic re-enfranchisement is “premature and unwise” [ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416911/maryland-shouldnt-be-automatically-re-enfranchising-felons-roger-clegg?target=author&tid=1046 ].

To elaborate: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in
making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has
shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on
the day someone walks out of prison – let alone when parole/probation have not
even been served. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in.

The only bad news is that there may be a serious attempt
to override the veto. Here’s hoping the
votes are lacking for that in the Maryland state legislature.

Re “restoring” the Voting Rights Act: No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional, and which was never a permanent part of the Act anyway — and there are plenty of other voting-rights laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more, the principal bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it does not protect all races equally from discrimination; it contains much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects. The bill is also partisan; at Senate hearings last year, it was clear that no Republican would favor it, because it is designed to give a partisan advantage to the Left.

Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act

What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don’t raise the problems that Section 5 does.

Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act

What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don’t raise the problems that Section 5 does.

Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act

What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don’t raise the problems that Section 5 does.

The quota-goal distinction is a bogus one, as a matter of both law and policy. Goals inevitably become quotas; if a boss gives you a goal, of course you are going to do your best to meet it. The courts have recognized as much. See, e.g., this D.C. Circuit opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6926955270060929067&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr And the Supreme Court, in its landmark Adarand decision, said that strict scrutiny is triggered by any racial “classification.” If you weigh race in making a decision, you are engaging in discrimination. Setting goals or quotas will do that — that’s their whole point.

On the evil genius of the phrase “underrepresented minority,” see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219712/are-you-overrepresented/roger-clegg 

If you want to read the two briefs discussed in Mr. Will’s column (and others besides), you can find links to them at this post:  http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/281063/good-amicus-briefs-ifisher-v-university-texasi-roger-clegg 

No new legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the Voting Rights Act — which was indeed unconstitutional — and there are plenty of other voting-rights laws available to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more, the bill that has been drafted is bad legislation. For example, it does not protect all races equally from discrimination; it contains much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself violates the Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually racially discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects. The bill is also not really bipartisan; at Senate hearings last year, it was clear that no Republican would favor it, because it is designed to give a partisan advantage to the Left.

No new
legislation is needed. The Supreme Court struck down only one provision in the
Voting Rights Act, and there are plenty of other voting-rights laws available
to ensure that the right to vote is not violated. What’s more, the bill that
has been drafted is bad legislation. For
example, it does not protect all races equally from discrimination; it contains
much that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s decision; and it itself
violates the Constitution by prohibiting practices that are not actually
racially discriminatory but only have racially disproportionate effects. The
bill is also not really bipartisan; at recent Senate hearings, it was clear that
no Republican would favor it, because it is designed to give a partisan
advantage to the Left.

The principal problem with the remedial justification offered here — that is, that affirmative action is justified as a corrective for general societal discrimination — is that the Supreme Court has already rejected it. So, as a legal matter, it is a nonstarter and is not being advanced by, for example, the University of Texas in the Fisher case. And the Court was right to reject it, since there is no reason in 2013 to use skin color as a proxy for social disadvantage. After all, there are plenty of poor whites and Asians, and plenty of nondisadvantaged blacks and Latinos. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of African Americans admitted to the more selective schools (86 percent, according to the propreferece book The Shape of the River) come from upper- or middle-class backgrounds.

The Court should rule against the “disparate impact” approach:

http://www.cato.org/blog/making-sense-federal-housing-law-once-more-feeling

The concluding paragraph of the editorial says that racial preferences must be used because of their remedial value, but the Supreme Court has rejected this justification. And rightly so, since race is a poor proxy for social disadvantage in 2014, and most (86 percent) African Americans admitted to selective schools as a result of affirmative action are not poor. The “diversity” argument is unpersuasive, too, and the editorial doesn’t seem to take it seriously, since it dismisses any “diversity” value in foreign students unless they are the right skin color.

But even if you think there might be some benefit to racial preferences, it is minor, disputed, and marginal, compared to the heavy, undeniable, and numerous costs of such discrimination: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it mismatches African Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership – an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic (starting with our president).

This is not the way that Inside Higher Ed itself interpreted the data. It said that the survey of college presidents found that “only 70 percent of campus leaders agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that consideration of race in admissions has had a ‘mostly positive effect on higher education generally,’ and only 58 percent said the use of race in admissions has had ‘a mostly positive effect on education’ at their institutions.” The article notes that the sizeable minority out of “lockstep” with the diversity mantra is in contrast with the public statements and briefs of schools.

But other surveys have also found surprisingly strong support for nondiscrimination even among academics (to say nothing of the general population). And, as I said in my quote in the article, the relatively low positive response in the survey is probably too high, since presidents are more likely to dissemble about supporting racial preferences than about not supporting them. What’s more, the question was phrased in a way to reinforce the social correctness of a positive response, and more presidents were “generally” positive than positive vis-à-vis “at my institution” — that is, the more they knew about the effect of racial preferences, the less likely they were to support them.

One broader point: To justify racial discrimination in higher education as a legal matter, there have to be “compelling” reasons for it. How compelling can those reasons be if a sizable minority of college presidents don’t view the discrimination as having positive effects at all? Not to mention the fact that most schools don’t use preferences at all — since they are nonselective or are in states that have banned them.

First, there isn’t any legislation needed. The Shelby County
decision was aimed at only one section of the Voting Rights Act – the
preclearance provision, requiring some (mostly southern) jurisdictions to get
permission in advance from the federal government before making any
change related to voting – and the rest of the Act remains in full force,
including other, potent enforcement provisions for every jurisdiction in the
country.

And, indeed, for better or worse the Justice Department and civil-rights groups are now using
those other provisions to try to advance their agendas, which amount to a war
on voter-ID requirements and ensuring the continued racial gerrymandering
and segregation of voting districts. There’s no evidence that the Left needs
more weapons in its arsenal; all that’s different in the post–​Shelby County
world is that now its lawyers have to prove racial discrimination before they
can get court relief, which is the way that every other civil-rights law
works.

The second point: Much in the bill has nothing to do with Shelby County at
all. Rather, the Court’s decision is being used as an excuse to enact the
Left’s wish-list in voting policy. In particular, the Left wants to
promote its plaintiffs’ lawyers to the status of the attorney general in making
civil-rights enforcement decisions. All this is a standard demand for
the civil-rights groups whenever they (deservedly) lose a case and run to
Congress.

The Left’s agenda is, of course, a decidedly color-conscious one. Thus, the bill
itself features racial classifications, and offers protections for “minority
voters” that it withholds from “nonminority” voters.

Key provisions of the bill attempt to reinstate the “preclearance” provision of the Voting
Rights Act by amending another section of the Act so that it is triggered even
when there has been no constitutional violation, as is now required by that
section. This raises the same sort of constitutional issue that resulted
in the Shelby County decision in the first place, since Congress would
again be acting to limit state prerogatives even though it lacks a
constitutional predicate for doing so.

What’s more, the new legislation is an attempt to ensure that the Voting Rights Act works
principally as a “disparate impact” statute. This approach to civil-rights
enforcement is favored by the Obama administration, as shown by its new school-discipline “guidance” this year. But that approach is not about stopping real discrimination; it’s about ensuring
racial proportionality by eliminating legitimate standards and procedures.

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in
making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has
shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on
the day someone walks out of prison.
After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of
prison will be walking back in. Read more
about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [
http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ]

Not true. Here’s my Senate testimony:

http://www.ceousa.org/issues/567-testimony-of-roger-clegg-president-and-general-counsel-center-for-equal-opportunity-before-the-senate-judiciary-committees-subcommittee-on-the-constitution-civil-rights-and-human-rights-regarding-ending-racial-profiling-in-americaq

As they say, a “racist” is defined as someone winning an argument with a liberal. Good night, Bob.

Nothing remotely racist in anything I posted; by all means, you should stick to fossil-fuel issues.

Odd to accuse me of “racism” when I’m the one in this exchange who has stated that he is opposed to government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, no matter who the victim is. And for the third time, it’s a mistake to use race as a proxy for disadvantage and advantage.

Come on, Bob. Read the second sentence of my first post, for starters. You must have had a big bet on Florida tonight to be so cranky.

Re your first post: Your rationale for discrimination was rejected by the Supreme Court 25 years ago in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., and rightly so (among other things, you are using race as a proxy for disadvantage, as I warned against in my earlier post). Re your second post: As America becomes more and more multiethnic and multiracial, it is more and more untenable for the government to pick winners and losers on the basis of someone’s skin color or what country his or her ancestors came from. The only workable system is one where nobody is discriminated against on those bases.

Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all
in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It’s good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either–whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,” a “quota,” or a “goal,” since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive;
it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers and businesses money to
award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s almost
always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and
this model brief: http://www.pacificlegal.org/document.doc?id=454 ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose. (Note also that there is no reason to use race, etc. as a proxy for being “poor” or “disadvantaged,” because there are plenty of nonminorities who fall into these categories, and plenty of minorities who don’t.)

Here are ten reasons (there are more, but this is a good start) to oppose Mr. Perez’s confirmation:
http://heritageaction.com/2013/04/10-reasons-not-to-confirm-thomas-perez-as-next-labor-secretary/

“Shut up,” he explained.

Thanks for the quote. And don’t forget the Amish women (and men) and their distinctive dress.

Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overturn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act and
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/341443/two-points-ishelby-county-v-holderi-roger-clegg

What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don’t raise the problems that Section 5 does.

Quite a bit is being made — starting with Justice Sotomayor at the oral argument — of Justice Scalia’s statement that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is likely to be reauthorized by Congress in perpetuity because that’s the way it is with all “racial entitlement” programs. The transcript of the oral argument is available here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/todays-transcripts-153/ – Justice Scalia’s statement is on page 47, and Justice Sotomayor’s reaction to it on page 63.

Pace Justice Sotomayor, I don’t think that Justice Scalia meant that the “right to vote” is a racial entitlement — duh. Rather, I think he was adverting to the fact that Section 5 guarantees not just nondiscrimination but, in key respects, special treatment on the basis of race. The most obvious is the creation and maintenance of racially identifiable districts — indeed, the principal use of Section 5 these days is to ensure this sort of racial gerrymandering and segregation, as Joshua Thompson and I discussed in a Bench Memos post earlier this week:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/341443/two-points-ishelby-county-v-holderi-roger-clegg

More generally, as we also discussed, the combination of a preclearance requirement and an “effects” test guarantees that voting practices that have a racially disproportionate effect will be blocked, even if they further legitimate ends and are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their intent, and in their application. All of this is fairly described as “racial entitlement.”

Quite a bit is being made — starting with Justice Sotomayor at the oral argument — of Justice Scalia’s statement that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is likely to be reauthorized by Congress in perpetuity because that’s the way it is with all “racial entitlement” programs. The transcript of the oral argument is available here: scotusblog.com/2013/02/todays-transcripts-153/ – Justice Scalia’s statement is on page 47, and Justice Sotomayor’s reaction to it on page 63.

Pace Justice Sotomayor, I don’t think that Justice Scalia meant that the “right to vote” is a racial entitlement — duh. Rather, I think he was adverting to the fact that Section 5 guarantees not just nondiscrimination but, in key respects, special treatment on the basis of race. The most obvious is the creation and maintenance of racially identifiable districts — indeed, the principal use of Section 5 these days is to ensure this sort of racial gerrymandering and segregation, as Joshua Thompson and I discussed in a Bench Memos post earlier this week.

More generally, as we also discussed, the combination of a preclearance requirement and an “effects” test guarantees that voting practices that have a racially disproportionate effect will be blocked, even if they further legitimate ends and are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their intent, and in their application. All of this is fairly described as “racial entitlement.”

A Bad Policy
The “disparate impact” approach to enforcing the Fair Housing Act means that you can be found liable for illegally discriminating in a housing-related matter by following some policy that has a disproportionate effect, even though the policy is nondiscriminatory by its terms, in its application, and in its intent. So, for example, if a bank’s lending policy for home loans results in, say, a higher percentage of Asians being accepted than Latinos, then it can be held liable (banks have been actively opposing the regulations, unsuprisingly).

The disparate-impact approach is bad law and bad policy, especially in the housing area, as discussed in this brief:
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/brief-amicus-curiae-of-pacific-legal-fou-74521/

Here’s hoping the Supreme Court grants review in a pending case out of Mt. Holly, N.J. — which raises this issue and in which a petition for review has been filed – and puts an end to this nonsense.

Section 2 is all about segregation
Here’s why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in unconstitutional and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/14/overturn-unconstitutional-voting-rights-act

This was a bad brief, as discussed here: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/314013/big-business-weighs-unconvincingly-ifisher-v-texasi-roger-clegg

Universities, like businesses, ought to stop their politically correct discrimination and choose the best qualified individuals, regardless of skin color or what country their ancestors came from.

This was a bad brief, as discussed here: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/314013/big-business-weighs-unconvincingly-ifisher-v-texasi-roger-clegg

Universities, like businesses, ought to stop their politically correct discrimination and choose the best qualified individuals, regardless of skin color or what country their ancestors came from.

Re felon voting: If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis, not automatically. Read more about this issue on our website: http://www.ceousa.org/content/blogcategory/64/93/

My take on the executive order here (including why, in the federal workforce as a whole, there is no problem with minority “underrepresentation”):  http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/925/114/ 

Here's my top-ten list of what we should demand from those who want to become Americans (and those who are already Americans, for that matter). The list was first published in an National Review Online column a decade ago [link: http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment0912… ], and it is fleshed out in Congressional testimony [link: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/May2007/Clegg… ]:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.
2. Respect women.
3. Learn to speak English.
4. Be polite.
5. Don’t break the law.
6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.
7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.
8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”
9. Don’t hold historical grudges.
10. Be proud of being an American.

Here’s the anti-reparations testimony I gave to a House of Represenatatives subcommittee a few years ago: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Clegg071218.pdf

Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It’s fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either–whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,” a “quota,” or a “goal,” since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

The article refers to “a program pioneered by Kim to recruit and train minority bilingual nurses ….” I can understand why it might be important to recruit and train nurses who can speak a foreign language, but that can be done without insisting that the nurse belong to a particular racial or ethnic group. Lots of non-Latinos speak Spanish, for instance, and lots of Latinos don’t. And spare me the “cultural competence” nonsense: Having a particular skin color or national origin is no guarantee of that, either, and it can be taught to those of any racial or ethnic background. Would you hire only white nurses to work with white patients?