Even casual readers of my meager efforts here have seen the total, utter disdain I have for arguably the worst Secretary of State in the United States, Sam Reed.
Since we were unfortunate enough to elect him, he has spent far more time avoiding work than completing it.
Among other things, he has done absolutely nothing to set up a system that tracks felons, to make sure they are not voting. He has also continued to support the massive voting fraud system that enables non-citizens to vote as well as allowing people to vote without proof of identity or address.
These issues were problems when we elected this idiot in 2000; and they have remained a problem during the entirety of his sorry tenure.
Recently, under the fake guise of allowing "felons to fully reintegrate fully into society," Reed has finally managed to gain a partial victory. Reed has never wanted to actually take responsibility for what the law requires; he has never actively pursued, developed, designed or implemented any system to keep track of felons for voting purposes.
Yet now, magically, we expect Secretary Reed to finally begin to accomplish that which he has NEVER shown any interest in achieving?
Pyrrhic in nature, this bill pulls a slight-of-hand that attempts to make people happy on both sides. The democrats are giddy because they win the felon vote. The GOP believes that the payment issue will increase the amount of money given in restitution.
Nonsense.
When someone, anyone, is holding a knife to you wife's throat while they're preparing to rape her and your daughter, do you think they're worry about their voting rights?
And the careful parsing of the language in the bill, as condensed by the Seattle Times:
The new law removes the requirement that felons pay off all those debts before their rights are restored. However, their voting rights could be revoked if a felon willingly fails to make regular payments on those financial obligations.What the hell does "could" mean? Why is there a "could?" Shouldn't that mean "WILL" be revoked?
And what the hell does "willingly fails" mean? If I fail to pay my taxes (unless I'm going to become Treasury Secretary) is their a "willingly" component in paying those taxes?
The GOP was fooled. This requirement is broad enough that it will make absolutely no difference to a Secretary of State who has done nothing and will do nothing to identify and restrict felons from voting. Not requiring, by law, the Secretary to design and implement a system he has spent 9 years avoiding dooms any effort at holding felons accountable to failure... and that is precisely what the Secretary has wanted for years... even to the point where his minions lie for him.
9.@3 - The truth is, Secretary Reed NEVER "ran" or even requested a bill giving felons voting rights before they completed their sentences. A year or two ago, Assistant Elections Director Katie Blinn testified before a legislative committee and said our office supported any bill that helped create a "clear, bright line" defining the criteria that would allow a felon to vote. During committee hearings this session, our office again made this point in testifying in favor of legislation giving felons the right to vote before they complete their punishment (HB 1517). It wasn't until this session that Secretary Reed stated his support for a felon voting rights bill because of the bright line factor. Finally, let's not forget that the criminal justice system cannot provide a list of all people in Washington convicted of a felony, cannot provide a list of all felony sentences completed, cannot provide a list of all felony cases still open, cannot provide a list of all felons whose right to vote has been restored, and cannot provide a list of all felons still ineligible to vote. Our Elections Division would love it if such lists actually existed.Using the Department of Corrections database, we have removed 13,022 felons from the voter list since January of 2006, when a statewide database was launched pursuant to legislation requested by Secretary Reed. Our commitment is to use every reliable database we have access to as we review the rolls for duplicate, deceased and ineligible felon voters. We want no unqualified individual voting, period. The old database used by KIRO for their erroneous reports was not accurate or reliable and did not provide a sufficient basis for denial of this basic civil right. - Brian Zylstra, Deputy Communications Director, Office of Secretary of State
Posted by Brian Zylstra at April 20, 2009 06:03 PM
Nonsense.
10. "It wasn't until this session that Secretary Reed stated his support for a felon voting rights bill because of the bright line factor."So, we have a Secretary of State who doesn't want to deal with the hassle; and who has done absolutely nothing to achieve the:Sorry, Brian... that's simply not true.
Columbian, June 8, 2005 "State czar for voting: Let felons cast ballots"
Talking to reporters at the Clark County auditor's office, Secretary of State Sam Reed for the first time came out solidly in support of letting freed felons vote, regardless of their court-imposed debts.
Seems like "support" to me. And it also seems like FOUR years ago.
Then this effort from right here at Sound Politics (2 years ago), an effort referencing the self-same Blinn's efforts in the Leg:
Sam Reed's position on restoration of voting rights to non-incarcerated felons
Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell disputed my assertion that Sam Reed supports restoring voting rights to all non-incarcerated felons. Listen to the committee hearing, including testimony from Reed's lobbyist Katie Blinn.Discussion of this bill starts at 58:40, Blinn's testimony at 1:10:05:
The Secretary of State's Office is not taking a particular position ... about the policy issues of when the right to vote should be restored. But Blinn goes on to explain that there is no single database with information about felons' eligibility for voting, and that this bill offers a more straightforward way to determine eligibility:
The Secretary of State's Office is going to be supporting bills that make it clear who is eligible and who is not.
Impressive attempt at triangulation, but the bottom line is that Sam Reed supports a bill restoring voting rights to all non-incarcerated felons.
I don't make this up. I don't NEED to make this up.
"Finally, let's not forget that the criminal justice system cannot provide a list of all people in Washington convicted of a felony, cannot provide a list of all felony sentences completed, cannot provide a list of all felony cases still open, cannot provide a list of all felons whose right to vote has been restored, and cannot provide a list of all felons still ineligible to vote. Our Elections Division would love it if such lists actually existed."
So, by all means, show me the bill(s) he had dropped demanding that they do or requiring that they do any or all of these things.
It would be one thing if he had done EVERYTHING he could (and having someone testify that his office would support someone ELSE'S effort to define the criteria for a felon to vote" isn't "everything") to make these things happen, but clearly, when you've stated you WANT felons voting, why on earth would you go out and do anything to stop them?
In the last election, thousands of felon voters received ballots. http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/EFF%20Response%20to%20Reed.pdf
With equal clarity, that is Reed's responsibility. And his drumbeat to allow felons to vote because of his administrative incompetence certainly drowned out his efforts to identify them to keep them from doing so.
Your failure to address the issues surrounding voter identity and citizenship are noted, Brian.
Have a nice day.
list of all people in Washington convicted of a felony, cannot provide a list of all felony sentences completed, cannot provide a list of all felony cases still open, cannot provide a list of all felons whose right to vote has been restored, and cannot provide a list of all felons still ineligible to vote.And NOW, to put the icing on the cake, the governor has signed this travesty into law.
Big whoop.
Starting this summer, convicted felons in Washington state will be able to reregister to vote once they're no longer on parole or probation.
OLYMPIA — Starting this summer, felons will be able to reregister to vote once they're no longer on parole or probation.
Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill Monday that eases the restoration of voting rights for felons who are no longer in state custody but owe court-ordered fines and restitution. It takes effect July 26.
The old law said felons couldn't vote until they'd completed their entire sentence, including paying all restitution and other court fees.
The new law removes the requirement that felons pay off all those debts before their rights are restored. However, their voting rights could be revoked if a felon willingly fails to make regular payments on those financial obligations.
Rep. Jeannie Darneille, the Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure, said the new law will "help someone who's been an ex-offender to reintegrate fully into society."
No comments:
Post a Comment