Way back in 2002, when he was still drawing cartoons for the Los Angeles Times.
If you missed it for some reason, here's the decision.
In a move that could see Washington inmates voting from prison, a federal appeals court has thrown out the state's restrictions on felon voting due to civil rights concerns.
Under the Washington law at issue, citizens convicted of a felony lose the right to vote until they are released from custody and off of Department of Corrections supervision. The 2-1 ruling by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel puts those restrictions in doubt, the majority reviewing the voting rights lawsuit found that the state restrictions unfairly penalize minorities.
The 2002 Ramirez cartoon explains how the panel came to this decision. It shows a children's birthday party. On one side of a room, a mother is explaining to her son: "Bryson, Bobo the clown was all booked up, so we got the next best thing."
On the other side of the room, a little boy is asking a grim-faced man, dressed in judicial robes, this question: "Are you really from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?"
And that cartoon should tell you most of what you need to know about this decision. (If you want more, you might start with this prosecutor's analysis.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(You can see that cartoon, and many others, in Ramirez's fine collection. You can follow Ramirez at his new newspaper, the Investor's Business Daily.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 07, 2010 09:49 AM | Email ThisBut then, after the idiotic decision in Kelo V. New London, anything is possible.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 7, 2010 10:11 AMThen, as the chief law enforcer in the state, does that make Christine Gregoire the Bull Connor of the Northwest? She does have that other skeleton in the closet of being the president of a "whites only" sorority at the UW back in the day...Hmmm, could be a pattern emerging here.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 7, 2010 12:20 PMIf the felons want to contest that they were discriminated against during their convictions then that is a separate issue unrelated to voting rights for felons. It's amazing Washington State could not muster that simple response in the court room and that the justices could not figure out the difference.
This will be overturned at the next level.
Posted by: y on January 7, 2010 01:27 PMThat said, I didn't have time to read the full decision, but I wonder why they don't simply order fixing the system rather than this. It's kinda like allowing people to drive 55 mph in a construction zone just because the project is over budget.
a third term would be too horrible to even imagine....
Posted by: Michele on January 7, 2010 10:48 PMThe problem is they have to stop committing crimes first.
Posted by: Vince on January 8, 2010 08:13 AMA bit, but while the system is broken and disproportionately affects minorities then the statue is unconstitutional. The court cannot assume a fixed system when one doesn't exist.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 8, 2010 12:26 PMWhat statue would that be? This has more to do with the disarray in the family unit than anything else. There are more criminals in there because they have less respect for laws and authority in a civil society- But hey, 7 out of 10 babies born out of wedlock, generational welfare cases- 'daddy' dips, drips then skips... and now mama has to raise the kid on her own-
Lovely picture isn't it? I can't possibly wonder why the kid isn't the next Bill Gates, George Washington Carver, etc.
I'm pretty sure the psychobabble sociologists that cry "there's racism in the court system" will ever look at the true causes of the high and disproportionate incarceration rate in these groups though. It's just easier for the "leaders" in the community to blame the white man and the system for their problems.
I believe in the saying that you get the society you deserve, and sad to say, we are seeing the effects of generations of trash breeding more trash; across the race spectrum. Sure, give 'em the vote, then let's see what kind of America our kids and grandkids will get to live in.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 8, 2010 04:11 PM
They are not represented because they are no longer free men. The Constitution does not say anywhere "no taxation without representation". I think you are confused with a slogan which was used often during the time before and during the Revolutionary War. It never had anything to do with incarcerated felons. It was part of a grievance where colonists under British Rule were not properly represented in British Parlaiment.
Educate yourself before you make more ridiculous claims.
Posted by: y on January 8, 2010 04:12 PMAll mail-in ballots. No identification necessary.
No address necessary.
Then, who will count these votes....
I want to go to a local voting booth,
be checked in by a neighbor who has known me
for years, and physically mark my ballot.
Then, I want a purple finger, like they had in Iraq when we taught them how to have
elections!
A bit, but while the system is broken and disproportionately affects minorities then the statue is unconstitutional.
White collar fraud is 95% whites, does that mean fraud laws are discriminatory?
If the cause of their incarceration (the law, such as selling crack) is not discriminatory, then the higher rates of effect on minorities - for their own willful actions - is not unconstitutional.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 9, 2010 11:18 AM2. here's an interesting question.
If african american males are currently disenfranchised to the extent of 25% due to the felony disenfranchisement system, do the conservatives think this is because:
(a) they have an inherent tendency to be criminals more,
(b) their social circumstances create bad behaviour more, or
(c) our justice system systematically creates crimes that AAs engage in more (eg, penalties for crack being higher than for poweder cocaine), AAs get caught more (being poorer, they are doing it in the street instead of doing it in BMWs the way the yuppie drug users do), they are more likely to get jailed etc. (can't afford good lawyers, face discrimination in subtle institutional ways, etc.).
and
(d) do some conservatives believe it could be a combination of the above factors, or do most conservatives believe it is just one factor?
Finally, assume this ruling stands, and they have the right to vote. Do you want them voting in the rural district where the prison is? This could lead to Walla Walla becoming more Democratic. Or should they vote where they originally came from?
As to no taxation without represntation, I thought conservatives believed in natural law principles or rights reserved or unstated in the constitution, so the argument that "the constitution doesn't say that outright" is never a valid one for someone who also says "there are rights not stated in the constitution."
Right?
In fact if you read most of our founding rights type documents, the language is pretty clear they all say these are preexisting rights. That is what inalienable means, I think. They don't say "well this will be a right once the King signs this Magna Carta" they say "these ARE rights, and the King is going to recognize them when he signs this."
Correct, right?
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on January 9, 2010 11:23 AMSee the post at 22 for your answer.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 9, 2010 01:51 PMIf african american males are currently disenfranchised to the extent of 25% due to the felony disenfranchisement system,
You can stop right there. First, for the rest of your post to have any relevance you have to show we have a felony disenfranchisement system. What laws are specifically aimed at African American males?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 10, 2010 09:20 AMBut many people take felonious actions every day.
Some are arrested for those actions, and some are not.
If the decision as to who is arrested and prosecuted is the result of discrimination, then there is a violation of the Voting Rigts Act.
That is why the 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the decision to allow felons in Washington State to vote.
To see more of the reasoning used by the Court, go to: http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com
But many people take felonious actions every day.
Some are arrested for those actions, and some are not.
If the decision as to who is arrested and prosecuted is the result of discrimination, then there is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
That is why the 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the decision to allow felons in Washington State to vote.
To see more of the reasoning used by the Court, go to: http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com
But many people take felonious actions every day.
Some are arrested for those actions, and some are not.
If the decision as to who is arrested and prosecuted is the result of discrimination, then there is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
That is why the 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the decision to allow felons in Washington State to vote.
To see more of the reasoning used by the Court, go to: http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com
But many people take felonious actions every day.
Some are arrested for those actions, and some are not.
If the decision as to who is arrested and prosecuted is the result of discrimination, then there is a violation of the Voting Rigts Act.
That is why the 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the decision to allow felons in Washington State to vote.
To see more of the reasoning used by the Court, go to: http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com
But many people take felonious actions every day.
Some are arrested for those actions, and some are not.
If the decision as to who is arrested and prosecuted is the result of discrimination, then there is a violation of the Voting Rigts Act.
That is why the 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the decision to allow felons in Washington State to vote.
To see more of the reasoning used by the Court, go to: http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com