"I am not sure our democracy is made better by allowing murderers to vote" - Ted Cruz
As usual, Ted Cruz is wrong on policy, and spectacularly wrong about what matters to a functional democracy
He even inferred that the 14th amendment suggested for disenfranchisement, which it does not (it only allows it, if a state decides to do so).
Just a shameful exercise in political theater with real people's votes on the line
1. No taxation without representation (you know the foundation of the Tea Party movement...I believe you have heard of it Mr. Cruz?)
2. Every member of that Tea Party broke the law and could have been excluded from voting under the Cruz reasoning
3. Incarceration, everyone should agree, is nearly the MOST extreme form of taxation that exists (death penalty is the most) and people incarcerated have NO voice (at all) in their own governance
4. People are more than their crimes
5. Why would anyone consent to continue to abide by laws and participate fully in a Democracy from which their voice is excluded and to which they will never be included?
6. Using the "what about Hannibal Lechter' argument is how mass incarceration was built and maintained
7. Mr. Cruz is actually wrong, there is actually published research that suggests that allowing formerly incarcerated people to vote IMPROVES our democracy and public safety outcomes
There are of course other reasons we should allow people to vote
For instance, preventing incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people from voting is a MASSIVELY racially disparate
In fact the 14th exception and many of the policies that followed from that compromise form a history of MASSIVE racially motivated voter suppression
And Mr. Curz was explicitly engaged in "monster making" which is how this system is literally maintained
And Cruz is wrong because the 14th amendment exception is out of step with what the court has decided is not generally true
His is also literally an anti-democratic message...explicitly so, he is saying that punishment is more important than Democracy....I do not agree
At the end of the day, we either believe rights are inherent and ordained...that they can be limited but not erased....or we don't....we believe in liberty or we don't
What Ted Cruz was explicitly arguing is that we are a better nation if we disenfranchise 70 million people
Funny story, I was just informed that apparently people sentenced for murder can vote in Texas after they have served their sentence....Texas being the state Ted Cruz represents (sigh)
Grandstanding much?
I used to live in Texas, so I should have known that, but I have lived in Michigan for a long time....and we allow everyone to vote - regardless of offense - after they come back from incarceration.
Oddly enough we have a GOP Senate and House
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Picking and choosing who gets to vote is anti-Democratic
Even the statement, "I don't think our Democracy is made better by letting _____ vote" is internally contradictory and self-defeating.
Democracy is not, and should not be, about elites choosing preferred voters Ted Cruz.
Side note: Oddly enough, in the state Mr. Cruz represents, people who did time for murder can vote...and yet, Mr. Cruz was elected. Is Texas' not an acceptable Democratic state?
Political grandstanding by putting real people's vote on the line is UGLY
He was also FLAT wrong...there is actual research that shows that VOTING by incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people actually does make our communities safer and our democracy stronger
Exactly...originalism is just political cover giving personal and religious views the appearance of objectivity...it is an attempt to suggest that the judge is like the narrator in a movie...but narrators are always unreliable
Everyone wants to believe that they make decisions objectively. Everyone wants to believe they arrive at conclusions fairly...but we all interpret what we read and arrive at what we write using OUR eyes and everything that makes us who we are...we are, by nature self-interested
If you and I read the same text, we will interpret at least parts of it differently...most likely, that is because how we read things is determined by everything that came together over a lifetime to make us who we are....Reading is ALWAYS a co-productive process
Continuously restating that courts are not political does not magically make them non-political
Laws, and the context of laws, do not speak in "clear language," we hear them through OUR OWN EARS - the voice we hear is filtered through our own judgment (informed by our politics)
In other words, what @BenSasse is saying is absurd to me
The best way to explain this....remember when you were a kid and played the "telephone game?"
If we all read the same text, we will all see what that text means as DIFFERENT....the reasons for those little differences are based in the differences b/w us & who we are
Side note, if "sex offenders" are "hiding in the shadows" that is because of registries, not b/c of legislators trying to protect people on the registry.
Here is the evidence
Oddly enough, increasing housing and employment insecurity while making people public pariahs INCREASES recidivism
Sadly, most of the people responding will just say "it's an unfair smear" which is sad, because all legislators should oppose registries on public safety grounds
What if traditional arrest, imprisonment, punishment, and shaming actually does NOTHING to reduce crime?
What if crime is actually also about environment, and as a result of brutal conditions you make the huge percentage of people incarcerated WORSE instead of better?
What if making it impossible for people returning from prison to get jobs or housing and loading them down with massive criminal justice debt makes them MORE not LESS likely to recidivate or commit new crimes?
What if manufacturing massive housing and job insecurity, stress, and debt after disconnecting people from family and friends is counterproductive?
What if addressing long ignored trauma, providing meaningful services, and giving people HOPE for a real future works better?