Eric Holder to states: You all should really think about restoring voting for felons

posted at 1:21 pm on February 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

There was a report out yesterday that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled in an interview that 2014 would be his last year in office, but the Justice Department is now pushing back on that report, insisting that Holder’s tenure will continue indefinitely — although why the first-ever sitting attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress is so very at his leisure on the matter, I’m sure I don’t know.

“What I’ve said is, I’m going to be here certainly into 2014. Well into 2014,” Holder said, according to a partial transcript of the interview released today by the Justice Department.

The department provided the transcript to reporters in response to questions about a story in the Feb. 17 issue of the New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin. In the story, Toobin writes, “Holder told me that he will leave office sometime this year.” …

Fallon later issued a statement saying, “The most the Attorney General has said is that he still has a lot he wants to accomplish on issues like criminal justice reform, voting rights and LGBT equality. He did not speak about his plans any further than that.”

What a tease. Anyhow, as Toobin’s interview also suggests, Holder is hoping to make “voting rights the test case of his tenure” — and Holder opened up a new plank on that front earlier today, via the NYT:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday urged states to repeal laws that prohibit felons from voting, a move that would restore the right to vote to millions of people.

The call was mostly symbolic — Mr. Holder has no authority to enact these changes himself — but it marked the attorney general’s latest effort to eliminate laws that he says disproportionately keep minorities from the polls. “It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values,” Mr. Holder said at civil rights conference at Georgetown University. These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.” …

Nearly every state prohibits inmates from voting while in prison. In four of them — Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia — felons are barred from the polls for life unless they receive clemency from the governor. The rest of the country’s laws vary. Some state restore voting rights after a prison sentence is complete. Others require a waiting period. Some have complicated processes for felons to re-register to vote.

My natural inclination on allowing felons to vote, at least on the state and down-ticket level, is to defer to federalism, although it’s most definitely something worth discussing (Sen. Rand Paul certainly has plenty of thoughts on the issue). I have rather a lot of difficulty, however, taking it on good faith from the guy who has made it his personal mission to flat-out persecute states who have the audacity to try and deter the many well-documented incidents of voter fraud with simple voter-ID requirements, what the Supreme Court says be damned (and don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy of his ostensible minority-boosting goals when his own department has also made tamping down on school choice another of their major action-items).


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ummm, you mean Mr.Holder you want us to vote for you?

NOMOBO on February 11, 2014 at 1:26 PM

So he and Obama are getting ready for their own incarceration?

Ward Cleaver on February 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM

You’re the only felon I can think of who may need a vote..oh, wait

NOMOBO on February 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Mr. Holder should think about attempting something that is anatomically impossible.

Mr. D on February 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Mr. Holder has no authority to enact these changes himself

Like that’s ever stopped anyone in this administration.

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Eric Holder to states: You all should really think about restoring voting for felons

Pre-emptive action for all the Obama appointees to be prosecuted once the truth is exposed. Starting with Holder himself.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Mr. Holder should think about attempting something that is anatomically impossible.

Mr. D on February 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Preferably with a pen and a phone.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Makes total sense, given that the inmates (and those who SHOULD be inmates) are in fact currently running this asylum.

dentarthurdent on February 11, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Obama can do whatever he wants – why doesn’t he just sign an EO nullifying state laws that keep felons from voting?

Ward Cleaver on February 11, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Eric Holder to states: You all should really think about restoring voting for felons our constituency.

Rambotito on February 11, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Obama can do whatever he wants – why doesn’t he just sign an EO nullifying state laws that keep felons from voting?

Ward Cleaver on February 11, 2014 at 1:30 PM

If the R’s win big in November, I fully expect there will be an EO to nullify the election – or at least those that the R’s win.

dentarthurdent on February 11, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Alright, Mr. Holder. I’d be willing to return voting rights to felons, as soon as we strip people on welfare of *their* voting rights.

Mohonri on February 11, 2014 at 1:32 PM

The criminal thug, who s/b in prison, needs more votes for Nov.

Go to Hell.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I was wondering if the story about Holder leaving during this year was an indication that the Dems really do think that they will lose the Senate this year…

bofh on February 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Convicted felons should be allowed to vote and be your ObamaCare Healtcare navigator after a beer summit so they won’t act stupidly.

SparkPlug on February 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM

It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values,”

It’s also unwise, unjust and not keeping with our “democratic values” to commit crimes.

If you don’t want to do time, don’t do the crime.

nobar on February 11, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Eric Holder to states: “You all should really think about restoring voting for felons”

Spoken like a true Felon! Eric holder was caught red-handed during the Fast & Furious investigation perpetrating 3 Felony Counts of Perjury before Congress. Congress demanded the DOJ press charges, but they would not do so against their own boss. So Congress did the only thing within their power to do – They CENSURED Holder, who became the 1st & ONLY Atty General in U.S. History to be CENSURED (for 3 felonies).

So of course he wants felons to be able to vote…when he steps down he doesn’t want to lose his ability to vote for other Democratic party Criminals, like Obama and Hillary!

easyt65 on February 11, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Yeah, because Holder is an “untried Felon” right now.

It’s a lot like being an “undocumented immigrant” except in Holders case it’s because no prosecutor outranks him and thus he can’t be tried for his dozens of felonies yet.

ConstantineXI on February 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM

They already tried this as a pilot program in Minnesota.

gwelf on February 11, 2014 at 1:37 PM

He wants to release the choomed ones too.

Youth is not voting in Nov. 2014 and they need more scum.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Anybody that believes that felons aren’t already voting in democrat controlled states is fooling themselves. They not only vote illegally, they illegally collect welfare, disability, SSI and have multiple ObamaPhones to continue to conduct business while being guests of the taxpayers. It’s not just 3 hots and a cot anymore.

AppraisHer on February 11, 2014 at 1:39 PM

This guy is a work of art.

MoreLiberty on February 11, 2014 at 1:39 PM

The “transformation” of the country formerly known as The United States of America rolls on…

Anyone that thinks that Barky is “failing” or “ineffective” should take a good look around. He’s succeeding daily beyond measure.

bofh on February 11, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Nicex2!

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Why just voting rights?

Felons here in VA are not eligible to sit on juries. Do we sign them up for jury duty too? Or is intimate knowledge of the legal system still a disqualifier?

Do we (as some states try) hide the fact that they are felons on job applications? Does the employer have to find out the hard way that one of his employees assaulted somebody?

Or do we just tell this corrupt SOB to go to hell?

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Then they should also get their gun rights back.

jawkneemusic on February 11, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Amnesty.
Voting rights for felons.

This can only mean one thing:
The progressives have realized they’d already pissed off current voters and need a new crop to victimize.

gwelf on February 11, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Democrats share a lot in common with the Felon-American Community – they know the struggles they face in assaulting people in order to put food on the table for their crime families.

NoDonkey on February 11, 2014 at 1:46 PM

The states will get right on that as soon as your corrupt DOJ starts upholding the law, jackass.

antipc on February 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM

There is no nowhere in the constitution that says felons should lose their right to vote.

It’s either you support the constitutions or you don’t.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Amnesty.
Voting rights for felons.

This can only mean one thing:
The progressives have realized they’d already pissed off current voters and need a new crop to victimize.

gwelf on February 11, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Where in the constitution does it say felons can’t vote?

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

how about reinstating gun rights for former felons? i am personally ok with restoring all rights after a time of not continuing with criminal bull-hockey

devadevadasa on February 11, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I’m just wondering how many of Obama’s current and former Cabinet officials will be renewing their passports and spending a lot of time abroad if the GOP takes a solid majority in the Senate.

JEM on February 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM

libtardordie comes out of the closet as a dyed-in-the-wool fascist.

Fascist Pride!

How many colors in that flag?

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM

They never have enough voters do they. Illegals and dead people aren’t enough. Why are they bothering? They aren’t going to have to run again.

crankyoldlady on February 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM

libtardordie comes out of the closet as a dyed-in-the-wool fascist.

Fascist Pride!

How many colors in that flag?

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Just one: Red.

Well ok there’s a white circle with a black swastika in the middle, but it’s mostly red.

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 1:58 PM

it marked the attorney general’s latest effort to eliminate laws that he says disproportionately keep minorities from the polls.

Yes, but let’s not even mention the reason why it disproportionately keeps minorities from voting, right Eric?

And the reason is that minorities commit a disproportionately high percentage of the felonies in this country.

Why don’t you address that disparity, Eric? Or are you just too much of a coward?

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Nicex2!

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Support for lawlessness X 1,000.

BuckeyeSam on February 11, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Where in the constitution does it say felons can’t vote?

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Reading is hard to liberals.

nobar on February 11, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Felon’s haven’t been able to vote for a very long time.

I don’t know why the fascists like lib free (really? Should have changed his name to FascesFree [a portmanteau of fascist and feces]) are all that keen on letting felons vote.

Back in the late 1800′s, like 1880 or so, the territory of Idaho passed a law criminalizing Mormons. Well, technically, they criminalized belonging to any group that promoted polygamy, and that meant criminalizing Mormons. Part of the punishment was stripping of the right to vote. So people, regardless of whether they actually were polygamists–even single people, mind you–were denied the right to vote. It went to the Supreme Court, and was upheld 9-0.

This is, of course, where we are headed again. If you don’t like gay marriage, you won’t be allowed to vote. Or If you are guilty of “Hate Speech”, you will lose your right to vote. Probably enforced with a poll oath again.

Hate speech, of course, will be defined as not swearing allegiance to Obama personally.

Vanceone on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

liberalrules has a point. The Constitution’s 15th Amendment does not authorize the state to strip felons of their voting privilege.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

There is no nowhere in the constitution that says felons should lose their right to vote.

It’s either you support the constitutions or you don’t.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

There is also nothing in the U.S. constitution that forbids states from denying felons the privilege of voting as part of the punishment for their crimes.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Well, gee, I guess since they’re employing felons to work as “navigators” under ObamaGlitch, it only makes sense to let them vote too. After all, we ARE all on the, “make America officially an Authoritarian state” kick lately, may as well do this too.

Left_is_Wrong on February 11, 2014 at 2:03 PM

There is no nowhere in the constitution that says felons should lose their right to vote.

It’s either you support the constitutions or you don’t.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Just how many “constitutions” does the US have?

Where in the constitution does it say felons can’t vote?

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Where does it say they can?

The 1965 Voting Rights Act never mentioned felons. And the US Constitution itself does not explicitly state what the “right to vote” is.

BTW, O’bama’s “home state” of Illinois also prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor from voting while incarcerated. 9 other states also prohibit misdemeanor criminals from voting.

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2014 at 2:03 PM

There is also nothing in the U.S. constitution that forbids states from denying felons the privilege of voting as part of the punishment for their crimes.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Well, since the court system has basically said the states can’t even require a photo ID to vote, something tells me not to hold my breath that will hold up either.

Left_is_Wrong on February 11, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2014 at 2:03 PM

The “constitutions” was a typo. I meant to say constitution.

Anyway….

Stripping someone of their right to vote is the most UN-American thing anyone can do.

It leads into dangerous territory and the potential abuse of power by the state.

The question here becomes, who else will the state deem unfit to vote because they violated some law written by a corrupt lobbyist/bureaucrat?

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM

liberalrules has a point. The Constitution’s 15th Amendment does not authorize the state to strip felons of their voting privilege.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Reread it, moron

antipc on February 11, 2014 at 2:06 PM

liberalrules has a point. The Constitution’s 15th Amendment does not authorize the state to strip felons of their voting privilege.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

AMENDMENT XV

SECTION 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SECTION 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I missed the part where 15th was relevant (unless all felonies are considered conditions of servitude).

nobar on February 11, 2014 at 2:06 PM

liberalrules has a point. The Constitution’s 15th Amendment does not authorize the state to strip felons of their voting privilege.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

What part of the Constitution gives the States any right to try, and to incarcerate criminals Perfessor Genius?

oldroy on February 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM

The 15th Amendment says “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

It does not impose any other restrictions. Denying someone the right to vote based on their status as a convicted felon does not implicate the person’s race, color, or previous condition of servitude (i.e. that they were previously a slave), and therefore does not violate the 15th Amendment.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM

There is also nothing in the U.S. constitution that forbids states from denying felons the privilege of voting as part of the punishment for their crimes.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM

There’s nothing in the Constitution mandating that I buy health insurance either.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM

There’s nothing in the Constitution mandating that I buy health insurance either.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Because it’s a tax. Unless you own a business, or are a union member, or…

oldroy on February 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM

It’s telling that this racist criminal throws his hat in with convicted felons.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 2:14 PM

There’s nothing in the Constitution mandating that I buy health insurance either.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM

True, but I’m the wrong person to bring that complaint to. Take it up with John Roberts.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM

I missed the part where 15th was relevant (unless all felonies are considered conditions of servitude).

nobar on February 11, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Bingo.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Give us universal VOTER ID and we’ll think about it.

M240H on February 11, 2014 at 2:16 PM

True, but I’m the wrong person to bring that complaint to. Take it up with John Roberts.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Oh, I wasn’t complaining to you. I was just piling on with your original comment.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM

liberalrules has a point. The Constitution’s 15th Amendment does not authorize the state to strip felons of their voting privilege.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

You have it backwards- it only prohibits based upon 3 criteria, it is silent about any others.

Jeff Weimer on February 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM

The writing is on the wall:
Holder pushes states to allow felons to vote as he is on his way out the door. Holder wants to be able to vote after he leaves his position.

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Bingo.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Since when is punishment considered servitude?

antipc on February 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM

liberalrules has a point. The Constitution’s 15th Amendment does not authorize the state to strip felons of their voting privilege.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Please, feel free to commit a felony in a felon-don’t-vote state, do your time, attempt to vote, file suit in Federal court, and prepare your brief.

Until then, your opinion on this matter is about as useful as the rest of you.

M240H on February 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Bingo.

libfreeordie on February 11, 2014 at 2:16 PM

OK, smart guy, what’s the precedent for considering a felony to be a “condition of servitude”?

Jeff Weimer on February 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM

OMG – I want some of what this sad and pathetic example of an AG must be smoking!

Katfish on February 11, 2014 at 2:24 PM

I’ve always thought criminals should be allowed to vote as long as they’ve paid their debt to society. But now I’m against it if Holder wants it.

crankyoldlady on February 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Then they should also get their gun rights back.

jawkneemusic on February 11, 2014 at 1:44 PM

That was the first thing that popped into my head. If someone’s done the crime and done the time they should get all their rights back – not just voting rights.

What this does is put a spotlight on the punishment for crimes meted out by the judiciary. If a murderer gets out after 8 years for good behavior and can buy a gun legally and then murders someone with it, guess what? There’s something wrong with his review board. If he had served his full, life sentence there’s no way he could get out and be a threat to society.

Ruckus_Tom on February 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically provides that states may abridge the right to vote of citizens “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”

Source:

Flora Duh on February 11, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Why doesn’t he just say that felons can vote and be done with it? As I understand it, proclamations from the executive have the force of law, right?

besser tot als rot on February 11, 2014 at 2:37 PM

The Obama administration arms Mexican drug lords and terrorists with guns and now wants criminals to have the ability to vote for his party.

That’s just about par with this administration.

Kanga on February 11, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Look, the 14th, 15th and the two amendments granting suffrage to women and also to people 18 and up all mention the right to vote shall not be abridged for the XXXX reason. There’s one about not paying a poll tax too.

Nowhere does it say that the right to vote is universal; indeed the 14th amendment (section talks about how if the people allowed to vote is less than the number of males over age 21 (lowered to 18 and expanded to women by later amendments)–then the state loses electors in the Electoral College. The 18th also doesn’t count Indians not taxed (presumably Indians that are taxed can vote).

Plainly, that contemplates that not every person over the age of 18 will be able to vote.

We can’t discriminate on basis of gender or age over 18, or for not paying a tax. What’s left to discriminate on?

It’s perfectly legal for Utah to deny Democrats the right to vote, if they are willing to lose electors in the electoral college. It would be worth it, too.

Vanceone on February 11, 2014 at 2:41 PM

It’s perfectly legal for Utah to deny Democrats the right to vote, if they are willing to lose electors in the electoral college. It would be worth it, too.

Vanceone on February 11, 2014 at 2:41 PM

A good example of what I’m talking about.

The potential for abuse is too great.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Where in the constitution does it say felons can’t vote?
liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Where does it say they can’t have their gun rights back? If you’re okay with giving them voting rights back, I’m sure you’re okay with giving them their gun rights back. It’s all or nothing.

jawkneemusic on February 11, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Where in the constitution does it say felons can’t vote?

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM

They can vote. Just as soon as they petition to have their civil rights restored.

Wanna vote? Want to own guns? Want to get a job requiring a security clearance?

Don’t commit a felony.

Lanceman on February 11, 2014 at 2:52 PM

I see the libtwins have departed the scene (shape of…smokescreen!).

I really want to see libfree square the vote and gun conundrum. I assume he would want firearms kept away from a felon, I mean, person of previous servitude. He can’t have it both ways.

Jeff Weimer on February 11, 2014 at 2:53 PM

I have come to believe that Holder really hates America and American traditions, culture, and values … Just like his boss.

Whitey Ford on February 11, 2014 at 2:53 PM

And libdie, you’re a professor. You probably should know that there is no Constitutional ‘right’ to vote in a federal election.

The Constitution only states that where a right exists, it shall not be abridged on account of one being a broad, a Moonie, a whackjob, part of a lousy 15% of the population, etc.

Lanceman on February 11, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Crooks never want to leave. That also explains a lot of congress-critters and senators.

sadatoni on February 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Stripping someone of their right to vote bear arms is the most UN-American thing anyone can do.

It leads into dangerous territory and the potential abuse of power by the state.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Ditkaca on February 11, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Holder only cares about “his people” and he won’t be honest and upfront about that which makes him a “coward”.

OxyCon on February 11, 2014 at 3:21 PM

OK, smart guy, what’s the precedent for considering a felony to be a “condition of servitude”?

Jeff Weimer on February 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Amendment XIII

Ratified December 6, 1865

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

One of the often overlooked phrases in the Amendments. It defines slavery (servitude) as a legitimate punishment for someone convicted of a crime. This is the authority under which you have prisoners “making license plates”, etc., not to mention “hard labor”, road gangs, etc.

Technically speaking, if someone wanted to traffic in slaves, getting the prospective “merchandise” convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant a life sentence, etc., would make it legal. The law is silent on the exact form the “servitude” may take.

Also please note that the amendment refers to the “United States” in the plural. It clearly shows that even after the Civil War, the commonly-accepted formulation of the form of government was federalist, i.e. a confederation of sovereign states.

So for once, LFOD, etc., are correct in the legal sense.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM

You all should really think about restoring voting for felons

You doing some “planning ahead” there Eric?

GarandFan on February 11, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Perhaps Holder should focus on the illegitimacy rate if he wants to do something about minority incarceration rates, and the subsequent loss of voting rights.

NY2SC on February 11, 2014 at 4:19 PM

GarandFan on February 11, 2014 at 3:37 PM

It’s more that he’s out to create another loyal voting bloc.

After all, progressives are in favor of things criminals like- short sentences, probation, treating them as “victims of society”, making them “partners in urban renewal” (as with the gangs in Chicago and LA- great opportunity for graft)- and of course disarming the citizenry so they are defenseless against the criminals. Not to mention goodies like allowing a criminal to sue a victim who hurts him.

People like that aren’t going to vote for a “law and order” candidate from either party. Assuming you can even find one in the Democrats’ ranks today, which I doubt.

Their definition of “law and order” is the death penalty for owning a gun, the decriminalization of most forms of violent crime favored by the thug set, and Taxpayer-Funded Free Dope For Life for all truly “good, sensitive, and caring”… rebels against Evil Western Civilization [tm].

Now, who do you think the perps will vote for?

clear ether

eon

eon on February 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM

By ‘felons’ I assume Holder means felons, dead people and cartoon characters – but only if said vote is cast for the ‘Democratic’ party. At least the felons won’t be able to bitch about voter ID since theirs is a necessary part of their incarceration and free of charge.

ghostwalker1 on February 11, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Well it would make sense since Holder is a criminal himself. Feels sympathetic to others in the soup I guess. In any case, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically involves the withholding of the right to vote from convicted criminals. Some in this thread have pointed to the 15th Amendment as being a justification for allowing this, but that is a complete misconstruing of the meaning of the amendment. The concept of “previous condition of servitude” involved slavery, which has no connection whatsoever to being convicted of a serious crime against society. The fact that some would compare being forced into bondage without any choice whatsoever to people who maim, kill, or harm others is abhorrent and disgusting. For breaking our nation’s highest laws, it serves the nation’s best interests to deny these individuals a hand in it’s activities. That’s what going to jail/being locked away entails…you are being removed from society because you have committed a grave act against it. The 14th Amendment follows that as well, as denying equal protection under the law can only happen for a justifiable reason, and this definitely fits. For those who are playing your “constitutional” vibe, how about this? You want to give them their right to bear arms again? Isn’t that “denying their rights”? Let’s be consistent eh?

zacmidnigh on February 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM

The man is a law man that doesn’t obey the rule of law. By definition he’s not really credible on any issue at this point.

Karmashock on February 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM


urged states to repeal laws that prohibit felons from voting, a move that would restore the right to vote to millions of people.

The criminal moron just admitted that his people were mostly felons?

Twana on February 11, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Eric Holder to states: You all should really think about restoring voting for felons

The coming twenty million new voters via a Republican amnesty isn’t enough for the Democrats they want the criminal vote as well.

Still, one must give them credit, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats play to win.

RJL on February 11, 2014 at 5:39 PM

In other news:

Breaking News: The House of Representatives votes, 221-201, to raise the nation’s borrowing limit above $17.3 trillion. The bill now moves to the Senate.

Ah good job, GOP. Keep it up. If there is anything to keep perfecting, it is appeasement and unmitigated surrender.

zacmidnigh on February 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Let us face it. Obama can never let Holder go, while he is president. Holder keeps the corruption and illegal acts undercover. Plus, Obama could never get an adequate replacement, if they lose they lose the Senate. Adequately corrupt.

Techster64 on February 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM

how about reinstating gun rights for former felons? i am personally ok with restoring all rights after a time of not continuing with criminal bull-hockey

devadevadasa on February 11, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I can see that- as long as the felony didn’t involve a gun or violence.
A lot of pot using folks are serving long sentences, even as two states have decriminalized it.
Our states are all over the place on this subject.

Nape-wa-ste on February 11, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Does this mean that administration officials will now be able to vote? Will they have to use multiple id’s in order to vote multiple times, or will their mug shots be good enough?

vnvet on February 11, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Eric Holder to states: You all should really think about restoring voting for felons

I’m guessing that ALL of the Obamacrat ex-officeholders want to preserve their ability to vote after they are convicted and finish serving their sentences: especially Holder!!

landlines on February 12, 2014 at 12:17 AM

Holder only cares about “his people” and he won’t be honest and upfront about that which makes him a “coward”.

OxyCon on February 11, 2014 at 3:21 PM

A coward AND a racist!!!

landlines on February 12, 2014 at 12:23 AM