Tonight on Hardball, Smerconish, Eugene Robinson and Florida's GOP chairman got into an issue about which I care a great deal: reinstatement of the franchise for felons who have served their sentences.
Curry argued that, even though these people have served their time, in prison and parole, they haven't yet "proved" that they understand and value the rights of others, a position that Robinson and Smerconish rightly held is ridiculous.
Listening to the exchange, I was struck by an idea that, despite years of studying this issue, had never once occurred to me: these people have served the sentences passed by juries and judges, sentences that include prison time, months and years on parole, community service...
but never included disenfranchisement.
IANAL. Nor a law student. (Nor, thank dumb luck, a felon). I can't begin to know whether what I propose can be defended in court. So I'm asking here, in the home of much smarter people than myself:
Can automatic disenfranchisement of felons, or onerous requirements to regain the right to vote, be struck down on the basis that, at no time, are juries advised that this is one of the punishments to which they are subjecting felons?
In short, can an ex-con argue successfully that, while he might have been sentenced to time and parole, he was never sentenced to permanent second-class citizenship?
I live in a state where felons have to petition to regain their right to vote, yet never have I been told, in the times I've sat in jury boxes, that this was included in the defendant's sentence.
I am very eager to hear the thoughts of sharper minds on this question.
Very early update: This diary is a request for informed legal opinion on one very specific aspect of state laws and the right to vote. There are many other issues that surround questions of law and order, imprisonment, etc. There are many other diaries that discuss those issues.