Silly Owen ...

You're always a felon until pardoned, Greg. The article was erroneously using the term "ex-felon." Webster's defines "felon" as "one who has committed a felony." No definition I know of requires that you still be in prison.

Also, as you well know, in many jurisdictions being a felon forfeits you the right to vote (at least for a time). Just because you get out of prison doesn't wash away the taint.

And yet, you have nothing to say about the Texas law. Priceless! C'mon Owen ... let's hear the outrage over that there liberal Texas law. Can't wait till you do the homework to see which Governor is responsible ;-)

Greg Wythe,

Ok... "I am outraged over that liberal Texas law, signed by then Governor George W. Bush."

I don't like the law. I think losing your right to vote -- at least for a period -- ought to be a consequence of committing a felony. I don't know why Bush signed it; apparently it was House Democrats that were mainly pushing for it, and they are also the ones that recieved the political benefit. But it isn't the first time I've discovered that I disagree with Bush on some issue.

But I'm not nearly as outraged about Bush signing a law that prohibits felons to vote as I am about Hillary and Kerry trying to force this policy on the states. This is primarily an issue of criminal law, a traditional purview of states, and I don't think it ought to be nationalized. There are still about 10 or so states that prohibit felons from voting after they've completed their sentences, and that's their perogative.

Furthermore, I do wonder if the bill extends voting rights to felons still on probation (I can't find the exact text of it anywhere). If it does, then it conflicts with the Texas law that only restores voting rights when probation is completed. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

That Texas law makes what Texas and Florida did in 2000 all the worse when Texas sent a list of ex-felons to Florida, who were then erroneously removed from the voter roles in Florida. Most of those removed weren't felons either because they were only convicted of a misdemeanor or because they weren't convicted of any crime.

How about a little outrage over the violation of civil rights? (And Florida didn't restore these people's right to vote by the 2002 election.)

Florida was wrong to deny voting rights even to those who were felons but who were given the right to vote under Texas law. That kind of fundamentally dishonest denial of voting rights has not been properly handled under Florida's purview and is a reason why it needs to be a national issue.

As for why Bush signed it, it was partly for expediency: It saves the time for having to appear before the court to restore those rights.

And then there is the problem of racial disparities in convictions, as supported by the Sentencing Project research funded by the DOJ. The 2005 Report concludes that young black and Latino males and unemployed black males are sentenced more severely than whites in similar situations. 74% of illegal drug users are white, but they make up only 20% of those serving prison sentences for drug possession. So, you have a good many whites who committed a felony who never lost that right to vote.

And felons do lose the right to vote.

But not to lose sight of Owen's silliness: "Alas, having felons vote serves no purpose but to improve the representation for criminals in our national government." Speaks for volumes for Bush, I guess. Oh, wait, that little condemnation doesn't apply to Bush because he's a Republican.

Thanks Tx Bubba for your insight.

The legislation was put forth by Houston's own Harold Dutton. Once an offender has completed all of the requirements in their sentencing--prison AND parole, their rights are restored as they have paid their debt to society. Heck, most offenders also have to pay sizable fines before they are finally released from requirements.

Once released, the majority of ex-offenders take on thankless jobs as society is not yet ready to accept them in other positions that provide them a little more respect. Nonetheless, they are taxpayers and given the old adage of "No taxation without representation," deserve the right to vote.

Sure the "taint" may remain, but restoration of rights has contributed to the decrease in recidivism rates. Add to that programs, such as Project RIO and other nonprofit programs that assist ex-offenders with job search and training opportunities, it is lowered even more.

So, if one is going to argue out of innocence and fear about all these criminals voting, chill out. Maybe Owen just enjoys having a second class citizenry to knock around. But if one takes into consideration the Bush Agenda, they're trying to expand the second class.

Hasta la victoria, siempre!

Good catch, Bubba ... I mean, if there *was* a direct correllation between criminals voting and criminals serving in Congress, we'd see all felons voting for Tom DeLay, wouldn't we?

But never fear, because for once, Owen is in complete agreement with the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board on the matter of George Bush's curious sense of federalism. I can't wait to see how such "real" conservatives express their outrage over Bush on this. Will they postpone by a day or two some monument to name after him? Will they seek out lesser driveways to name after him?

I agree with Stace and TX Bubba that it seems felons should have their voting rights restored once they have paid their dues to society. Is that not the sort of equity that Americans usually demand of their society?

Regarding crime, Greg, I am surprised that you have not posted an item about the Bush secret tapes. In conversations secretly taped by Doug Wead as George W. Bush was contemplating a presidential bid, Bush admitted that he had used marijuana, mocked Gore for having confessed using the drug, and strongly implied that he had used cocaine. "The cocaine thing, let me tell you my strategy on that," Bush said on tape. "Rather than saying no -- I think it is time for someone to draw the line and look people in the eye and say, you know, 'I'm not going to participate in ugly rumors about me and blame my opponent,' and hold the line. Stand up for a system that will not allow this crap to go on." High-minded, albeit self-serving. If Bush had used neither marijuana nor cocaine, he could have just said so in his 2000 campaign in which he played endless word games with reporters rather than answer questions about drug use. After all, Bush esentially admitted having an uncontrollable alcohol problem, essentially an admission of alcoholism. Conservative Republicans, endlessly attacked Clinton over marijuana. Now, it appears that George W. Bush may have used both marijuana and cocaine, in addition to having been a drunkard for a considerable period of time before he turned 40. Quite ironic, given that he and the Right Wing Republicans hail themselves Social Conservatives.