Harry's Gang: Who should be able to vote?

For years, the only people eligible to vote were male property owners. Yet humanity flourished. In America, women weren’t allowed to vote until 1920. Blacks were given the right in 1870 but many actually couldn’t easily exercise those rights until 1965. People under 21 got the right to vote in 1970, but they still have to be at least 18.

A democracy can flourish even when, sometimes, voting rights are restricted.

Now, I am not advocating for voting restrictions. I generally oppose voter ID laws, especially because there is no real problem with unauthorized voting and I believe most voter ID laws have a more sinister purpose. Most voter restrictions do, in fact, have sinister motives, and are usually designed to benefit one party or ideology, rather than advancing more pure democracy.

Some restrictions have been in place for a very long time. And just like it would now seem odd to restrict women, for example, from voting, there may be a day when current voter restrictions will seem archaic.

For example, some political candidates, notably Bernie Sanders, have been advocating for everyone’s right to vote — even those in prison.

If you are convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote. In some states, you lose that right forever; in Minnesota and many other states, the right to vote can be restored after the sentence is completed. However, it’s unclear to me what purpose is served by restricting a felon’s right to vote.

I certainly understand that some people find the concept of felons voting to be reprehensible. Those opposed to Bernie Sander’s plan typically trot out terrorists, rapists and murderers as potential voters, mostly in an effort to sway the issue emotionally rather than logically. After all, it’s hard to find popular public support for criminals.

I asked a few people I came into contact with this past week about the issue. Except for a few hardcore conservatives and one equally excessive liberal, nearly everyone echoed the sentiments of Gracie Swartwoudt, my night manager at Eskomo Pies: for some crimes, losing the right to vote is just too much. But for serious crimes, like murder and rape, those convicted should not be able to vote until they have served their sentences.

(I also asked the same people if 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote. Generally, the response was that kids are probably not developed enough to make voting decisions while still in high school, although a few told me that maybe kids shouldn’t even be allowed to drive until 18. I didn’t detect strong support for 16-year-olds voting.)

Giving all criminals the right to vote just seems too generous. History may prove me wrong, but a restriction on voting rights for felons while serving their sentences seems reasonable.

Nationwide, like almost all good governance, some hybrid compromise system is probably best.

That’s how we do it in Minnesota.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News community newspaper and an attorney in Esko who hosts the talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7. He can be reached at [email protected].