Now Rush Limbaugh and all three of Jeb's kids can breathe a little easier next time they commit a felony. But then again, they never really had anything to worry about in the first place, because the Republican judges would never convict another Republican.

I don't know much about Gov. Crist. He sure seems like a liberal on election issues. As I recall, he has previously called for getting rid of touchscreens, and now he supports letting released felons vote. We should hold him up to his party as proof that justice and common sense don't hurt after all. They even get a lefty like me praising someone in the GOP.

Sounds about right.

I really don't understand this. It defies what I know about Republicans. They are supposed to be working hard to stop minorities and the poor from voting, not increasing their numbers. What's the spin? Are my perceptions wrong, or is there something going on that's not obvious?

As this story is also in the news today, abotu Florida: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/index.html talks about how released sex offenders are being told to live under a bridge.

Perhaps it's just that, unlike the Jebster, he also spent years as a legislator and then as the state's attorney general, and learned that there IS give and take, and two sides (at least) to a story. Or perhaps it's just that he knows that Florida is a purple state, not a red one.

I suspect that much of the impetus for giving voting rights to almost all ex-felons (there are some exceptions for some of the more heinous crimes) is the realization that this was an increasingly rare holdover from the post-Reconstruction era. In other words, it's not so much an issue of civil rights or voting rights, but that it was a painfully embarassing anachronism. There's supposedly still a couple more states where this doesn't happen, I don't know which ones they are.

Some of our more rightie repub's down here are apoplectic about it -- especially because he first became prominent years ago as "Chain Gang Charlie" for advocating a return to chain gangs.

He claimed at the time he had been deeply impressed as a kid by seeing a chain gang while riding with his parents on a trip to Gainesville. Reporters who looked into the story could not find any evidence that any county along the route of his trip was using chain gangs at the time he supposedly saw them (the state got rid of them in `56). SO I guess it was one of hose stories like Bill Clinton's personal memory of church bunrings, or the Republican tale of government bureaucrats ordering that all buckets have a hole in them to keep kids from drowning in them.

Anyway, if he keeps up this kind of pace, the Democrats in 2010 may as well just concentrate on legislative and congressional races. His biggest problems would be the Flat-Earth Republicans who, in the last cycle, frothed and raged at him for being too liberal (i.e., reasonable).

I might see that they've forfeited the right to participate. However, considering the unfair drug laws in this country, I can only assume that many of these "felons" have been caught in this mess of a "drug war", and I can't assume that they are people I wouldn't trust with our polictical system.

I never had a problem with felons not being able to vote for three reasons: a) criminals have forfeited the right to participate in the system by outright refusing to play by the rules; b) it's possibly a deterrent--break our laws, you don't get to play anymore; and c) in theory, if you had enough criminals voting, they could make the illegal things they like legal.

However, the drug war changes all of that. People medically addicted to drugs may have questionable judgement (depending on the drug, I guess) but not necessarily a criminal temperment. Threatening people with not being able to vote or serve jury duty is not going to cure them of their addictions.

Also, because of the drug war being such a mess, I think that it's only fair to give those who have been convicted in it the right to vote to change the laws. Who cares more about legalizing pot than the guy who got busted in college with two ounces? And who will change the laws if not the people who are being unfairly targeted by them? The people doing the targeting are already happy.

Fighting back in the case of the drug war, and particularly in the case of marijuana use, is fighting the tyranny of the majority (or possibly in this case, the minority).

William S. Burroughs was the first person who pointed out to me (um, not in person, obviously) that if the gov't wants to lock up a group of people, it needs to find out what they're into and make it illegal. Pot laws (besides being backed by Dupont and other anti-hemp folks) were largely targeting blacks and immigrants. His point was, that's how the goverment can lock up all the "undesirables". I'd say also that if you don't ever allow them to vote again, then you're also making sure your laws can never be overturned. Just arrest anyone who doesn't like the law and breaks it, and then you've cancelled out one vote forever. Do that a million times or more, and your stupid law can never be overturned.

So, kudos to Florida for making the change.

Unless your crime was selling your vote, I don't see why you should permanently lose your right to vote.

Jill S writes (in part) "in theory, if you had enough criminals voting, they could make the illegal things they like legal." My suspicion is that such people never bothered voting to begin. Career criminals wouldn't vote anyway.

Which leaves us with the people who made bad choices, got caught up in bad situations, did their time and now want to start anew.

They've done their time, they've already been punished. There is no public safety issue such that society needs them to forfeit their voting rights. If you want these former felons to be invested in society and its laws, let them be a part of the process. In fact, encourage them to be informed voters. It should be part of their rehabilitation.

P.S. I agree, Jill S, that the drug wars add a whole new dimension to unfairness in felons losing their voting rights.