More reeking hypocrisy from the Pravda Columbian: In our view Feb. 18: A Freedom Regained

.
Once again, the Pravda Columbian is failing this community.

Today, they came out swinging in favor of yet another "Don't-take-responsibility-for-your-actions" bill co-sponsored by Rep. Jim Moeller that removes a part of the punishment imposed as a result of committing a felony in this state.

What this bill would do is to restore the right of a felon to vote the moment they get out of confinement.

Whoever wrote this garbage listed a wide variety of false platitudes and what they refer to as "reasons" why this practice should be done away with, apparently forgetting the "debt" part of the phrase "paying back their debt to society," as if no such debt existed.

Clearly, the blithering idiot that wrote this drivel has never been the victim of a felon; has never suffered either physically, financially or emotionally at the hands of someone who has inflicted, in some instances, unfathomable and unimaginable pain on someone else.

Had that moron actually felt the pain... had they buried a family member; seen their house burned down, lost everything in a fraud case, suffered rape or molestation at the hands of someone really not terribly concerned about any of YOUR rights... then perhaps they'd sober up and get back to reality.

Thirteen states do this? Swell. Thirty seven don't. That thirteen do is meaningless, much like the gruel in this editorial.

Our own State Supreme Court nailed it when they ruled that this right could only be regained upon completion of the entirety of a sentence, including incarceration. probation or parole, and all fines or restitution is paid. And that is as it should be.

That this paper has, once again, lost sight of the people in favor of felons who voluntarily took the actions that led to the revocation of this right is not altogether surprising. After all, while advocating the rights of felons who haven't completed their sentences to vote, THIS VERY PAPER has advocated stripping the people of Vancouver, regardless of their criminal history, of THEIR right to vote on downtown redevelopment by supporting the Taliban City Council of Vancouver's successful efforts to sue their citizenry into silence. Further, this paper has failed to advocate for OUR right to vote on the horrific, massive waste of money known as the I-5 Bridge Replacement/loot rail project.

Odd, isn't it? They waste space, ink and paper to front a worthless, harmful "reform," that will give felons a voice in their affairs, while they have actively advocated the silencing or decision to ignore the people of this county whenever it suits them.

Utter hypocrisy. But what else have we been led to believe this paper can do?

This is all-too-typical of the pile of rank, steaming hypocrisy that has done so very much for this rag's circulation.

While the paper lists what it refers to as "four fundamental reasons to change this law," they overlook and leave out the one reason that geometrically exceeds their "reasoning" in breadth, depth and scope. And that is typically the last person this disgrace to journalism concerns themselves with: the victim.

If a felon is all that "civic minded" that he or she is going to want to vote, then they will understand and agree with the idea that they must complete every aspect of their sentence, including the all-important part involving restitution.

Once that responsibility is completed... once the ENTIRETY of the debt is paid, then the automatic restoration of rights should be a given.

No one forces anyone to commit a felony. Commission of a felony amounts to a voluntary revocation of your right to determine who your elected leaders/legislators are.

The "reasons" supplied by this idiot are a crock. Lack of staff? Tough. If our elected officials can't do the job with what they have, then they should quit. That it's "hard" or "difficult" neither makes it impossible nor is it any reason to change this law.

The crap about this being a "poll tax" is pure garbage. See rule one about becoming a "felon." The fact is that while paying restitution is mandatory, the commission of the act REQUIRING the restitution is entirely voluntary. Thus, any connection to a "poll tax" is nothing but a lie, a false delusion this cretin uses to strengthen his position.

Even using the PHRASE "poll tax" is manipulative, since poll taxes were not ever applied based on criminal status.

The current felon voting law is 100% discriminatory... against felons. The skin color of the felon has no bearing on this issue. The idea of completing a sentence in every respect is required of ALL felons, REGARDLESS of color, thus, the asinine conclusion that this requirement is, in any way, discriminatory is just that: asinine.

Their is absolutely nothing "malicious" about forcing someone to do everything they can to make their victim(s) whole. While SB 5534 says something, they provide nothing to prove it... and they also overlook, because it would be so much more difficult to acknowledge, that there are a wide variety of ways to have "civic engagement" that do not include voting.

To that end, this waste of paper shows nothing to indicate that allowing felons to vote before their sentence is completed in every respect does absolutely anything to reduce recidivism. "Civic engagement" could mean practically anything. Clearly, the gang at OPR was hoping that those incapable of critical thinking, like the mental midget that wrote this column, would stupidly conclude that "voting," by itself, is the complete definition of "civil engagement."

Proving, once again, that Mr. Lincoln may not have been mistaken about fooling part of the people, all of the time.

This rag has abysmally failed to justify their worthless, harmful position. They've once again shown themselves more empathetic to felons than to the victims of felons.

Gee. What a surprise.




In our view Feb. 18: A Freedom Regained
Once you’ve done the time, you should be allowed to vote

Wednesday, February 18 1:00 a.m.

There's just something about that prison gate, isn't there? So definitive. Behind it, virtually all personal freedoms vanish, and for good reason, according to our judicial system. But back on the outside, individual empowerments mushroom, not the least of which are rejoining families and going back to work.

In 13 states, you can vote as soon as you walk back out that prison gate or jail door. (In two other states — Vermont and Maine, where incarcerated felons are allowed to vote — they never lose that right). But in Washington and about a dozen other states, the right to vote is not regained until the entire slate is wiped clean, including payment of fines and restitution. We've editorialized before that this policy is overly punitive, discriminatory and mean-spirited, evidenced by facts we'll re-examine later in this editorial.

First, though, we salute two bills in this year's Legislature — one in each chamber — that would allow Washington felons to vote once they are no longer in the custody of the state. Senate Bill 5534 has moved beyond the Committee on Government Operations & Elections, and House Bill 1517 (whose sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver) could see action in the State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee as early as Thursday.

In 2007, the Washington Supreme Court reversed a 2004 order by the King County Superior Court that allowed such a freedom; the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 verdict that the right to vote could be regained only after probation or parole is completed and all fines paid. Writing in dissent, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander made this comment, which we praised in a 2007 editorial: "As a society, we should encourage, rather than discourage, felons to rehabilitate themselves. … Having set this laudable goal for felons, we should not prevent them from achieving it simply because they lack ability to pay legal financial obligations." In fact, we suspect a lot of people are far deeper in debt than released felons, and are still voting.

More garbage, if you can stomach it:
.