(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



5 million Americans denied Constitutional voting representation violating 14-1,14-2, 14-3 &15 [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-05-15

Puerto Rico Washington DC Virgin Islands American Samoa Northern Marianas, as well as clear record that the legal systems use law enforcement to protect voting majorities for more than

If you

Approximately 5 million birthright Americans without voting representation in the United States Congress, Constitution or voting rights for President, guaranteed by 14th Amendment Citzenship Clause, Privileges and Immunites clause,

And the 15th Amendment, as approximately 4 million are people of color.

in a different matter, specifically there are approximately 6 million Americans felony disenfranchised. There is a very good argument for the 15th amendment outlawing permanent voting disenfranchisement as a class as a “condition of previous servitude

1.5 million Floridians, are felony disenfranchised, 10% of the population; making Florida near the highest incarceration rate in the world

However by a 65% margin,

The people of Florida granted voting rights to the felony disenfranchised.

Governor DeSantis and the GOP Florida Legislature refused to restore voting rights outlined in Florida’s Constitution and arrested people who received election registrations for voting.

A, no The Constitutional Amendment 14-2, modifying Article I, Section 2, the Apportionment Clause, governing the composition of Congress

Government Printing Office printed, Congressional Research Service Annotated Constitution on 14-2- “Congress has never seriously attempted to implement this amendment” It has a mandatory voting rights process most civil rights attorneys seem to know little of despite being fundamental to the Contract of America, the balance of representation in our Government.

At stake is the balance of Power in the House, and even the Senate, but also the Voting Rights of approximately 10 million birthright Americans, their 14th and 15th amendment rights- more than half of these are black Americans, and all districts unrepresented have majority minority citizens.

My name is Darrell Prince. I’ve been going direct to the Courts on the matter of Constitutional Apportionment. My Congressional Attempts to address this matter, admittedly out of turn were not well acted upon, though in the Court’s current case law, a regular occurrence at the State level; legislatures can get nasty and the maps affect a two party system in critical ways, not accounted for by the Constitution.

I tell you now, because as citizens it is your right to know, and mine to tell. The other reason is it seems to me belief and consent of the government requires informing the citizens so through their avenues, they can take action, and make changes. Also, speaking of this, to do these things one traditionally runs for Office, which will become paperwork official later. You can donate to the non-profit, or to the election campaign on Cash app $khanfucius or contact me for larger donations

unity.humanevolution.one/...

humanevolution.one , a site for building teamwork to manifest change, through management of our own resources, either ownership or rental contract, and informed online and inperson public discussions groups, to develop and live a green happy healthy vibrant life, and to build structures for and with the next generation

Uh a rubric and algorithm for our civilization to make necessary choices for its future asking and answering questions, guided but not restricted by the best of the wisdom of hundreds or thousands of years ago, Confucius unlike Christ is non controversial in America. I like to draw from both including differences, and also to guide my discussions with practioners of same.

Alg0rhythm, is about the initial start, to an intellectual process set to rhythms, frequency kicks we respond to oscillations turned to Rockette dance kicks without instrument or graph, respect to ourselves is respect to all our ancestors were. Our technology and near perfect recollection of the way we were- really started in the US in the

Constitutional challenge to the Apportionment of the United States

United States Apportionment Map Constitutional Audit

10 million birthright American citizens, primarily of color without voting representation in Congress violates the Constitution, and changes the composition of Congress

14TH AMENDMENT (DUE PROCESS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) AND 14-2, AND 14-3, 13th and 15th, Declaration of Independence, Baker vs Carr (1962), 12th Amendment, Wesberry vs Sanders, United States vs Classic, 2 USC 6, Voting Rights Section 2, 52 USC 10101,10303,10304, 10307

Declaration of Independence, 2 nd indictment

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Attorney General Bates, 1862

.. our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.

Constitution Amendment 14-2, Representation Penalty Clause

- adjusted to reflect 19th and 26th amendments

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any inhabitants of such State, being of (LEGAL) age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens of (LEGAL) age in such State.

Wesberry vs. Sanders(1964)

“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.

“No serious effort was ever made In Congress to effectuate § 2,” Government Publishing Office Annotated Constitution. From gov.info

GPO provides access to Constitution Annotated editions and supplements from 1992 forward. The volume has been published as a bound edition every ten years, with cumulative updates issued in the intervening years biannually as inserts that address new constitutional case law, primarily from U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The analysis is provided by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress.

House Librarian in 2020 indicated there were no records of any such attempt to Apportion according to 14-2 processes Constitutional “shall” amendments are administrative Constitutional Law, much like the Electoral College votes counting ceremony, denoting ministerial, not discretionary duties, and thus available for remedy via mandamus. Amendment 14, clause 2, is a replacement amendment for Article I, Clause 3, removing exceptions for Indians not taxed, and the counting of “others” (enslaved Americans originating in Africa) at 3/5ths, as well as: A Representation penalty for disenfranchisement of “citizens denied the right to vote, or had that right to vote “in any way abridged“ On the Department of Justice Website, nearly 300 cases in the last 30 years have been brought by that agency regarding violations of the Voting Rights Act, which does not include the list of cases for the prior 100 years. A generous reading here, says at a minimum, 300 arbitrary and capricious inactions, failure to execute the written text of a Constitutional amendment, which would have had a direct effect on the outcome and makeup of Congress. Further- it seems likely to have been effective- it is difficult to imagine State or county leadership surviving implementing procedures that would publicly remove national representation for illegal acts. Properly restated then, 1) says Congress has never since the Constitutional change, legally implemented Article 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution- the Enumeration clause. It follows then, that the Apportionment Map of the United States, has not been completed with mandatory, ministerial Constitutional law, nor the statutory at 2 USC 6. The Electoral College map- The Electoral College, as currently implemented, is only a slightly modified Apportionment map(Senators added to House apportionment map added to a population irrelevant value for the District of Columbia for non-existent Senators and non-voting House Representatives) provides no mechanism for its original purpose- to provide a check against the People's election of a person unqualified or dangerous for President, especially as the Presidential candidate's party selects electors. The Electoral College map, then, has not been completed with the mandatory, ministerial Constitutional law. Electoral College only Presidential Victories can and should be legally challenged in those circumstances. The cap at 435 on House members, makes 14-2 more significant, and the business of the other states- a loss of Representatives because of voting rights, is another state’s gain in Reps, and thus contains a tangible jurisdiction granting interest in other states’ legitimate voting processes. In 2016, and again 2020 nearly 10 million birthright American citizens, primarily of color, were unable to vote for President of the United States, or lacked voting representation amounting to 3% of the American population. Either condition represents a “totality of circumstances, less access to the elective franchise” of Voting Rights Act section 2. The number, 10 million, is approximately the same number of popular votes a Donald Trump lost by in 2016 and 2020- combined. This number represents approximately 3.5 times the difference in the popular vote in the 2016 Presidential election, and approximately 100x the difference in the 4 swing states that resulted in the electoral college win.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The construction of the previous sentence by form, and by common sense, indicates all people born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States, and also the State wherein they reside. The ands change here- the first one is a conjunction indicating two conditions, both of which must be true, for a person to be a citizen, and the second , a conjunction indicating another thing which also applies. Congressional power to create Statehood is an arbitrary and capricious power matching the description of that in Yick Wo vs Hopkins.

They seem intended to confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons. So that, if an applicant for such consent, being in every way a competent and qualified person, and having complied with every reasonable condition demanded by any public interest, should, failing to obtain the requisite consent of the supervisors to the prosecution of his business, apply for redress by the judicial process of mandamus, to require the supervisors to consider and act upon his case, it would be a sufficient answer for them to say that the law had conferred upon them authority to withhold their assent, without reason and without responsibility. The power given to them is not confided to their discretion in the legal sense of that term, but is granted to their mere will. It is purely arbitrary, and acknowledges neither guidance nor restraint.

The definition of “State” is arbitrary and capricious- the only specifications are Congress’s decision to make a “state” rather than a territorial corporation for management of people and resources, which is also the definition of a “state” No discernible characteristics of population or border size can be said to govern a “state” Congress is a legislature, and like the process the courts had to involve themselves in the Baker v Carr series of cases demonstrated that state legislatures have a very difficult time with Apportionment, and quite often will refuse to complete the task, which is non discretionary, and fundamental tenant to the American concept of democracy In the American system, Apportionment is by recent tradition for good reason, conducted between the legislatures and the Courts. 14-2 proscribed a Constitutionally mandated process for Congressional Apportionment. Congress was not giving itself new powers, that the legislature has responsibilities (and a predilection for dereliction of these duties a la Baker, Wesberry, etc.) for Apportionment as it sees fit should not need illumination here. The review of this amendment’s lack of implementation, the failure of Congress to follow a Constitutional mandate, necessitates a conjecture of what a good faith attempt to enforce it might look like. Instead, the scope of taking on this process, having a mandatory regular pre, and possibly also post Census reapportionment discussion of the meaning of “in any way abridged” would almost certainly provide the desired space for review of ALL of the elements of this complaint, and potentially even the Voting Rights Act, either through the 14th amendment or via Congress’s Constitutional elections powers. If there is a Census year mandatory reapportionment review and bill passed, like the budget, this would presumably be the negotiation time for the territories to make their demands/requests for Apportionment. For many reasons most elections changes should be most favored near apportionment reviews, as human distribution still does not change much over 10 years. The hope, and a reasonable tradition, would be to simply make any elections changes at that Census time. This would sharply limit the number of election law cases to a particular scheduled focus rather than an ongoing responsibility for the Courts. The fact that already an admitted violation of Constitutional standards for apportionment make the demand for review of the rest of the Apportionment map reasonable, even if participation in DC’s elections for non voting delegate to Congress did not, and it does.

Apportionment: Island territories and the District of Columbia

Wesberry vs Sanders (1964)

Justice Black, speaking for the Majority-

Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.

>5 million American citizens in the island territories and Washington DC; Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas, are considered to be minorities, have no Congressional representation, no Presidential representation and have no timetable to. This is more Americans without voting representation in Congress, than the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Lack of representation was in the top three or four reasons for the American Revolution, according to Parks department historians

Majority minority territories or States in the United States:

Washington DC;

Puerto Rico,

US Virgin Islands,

Guam,

American Samoa

the Northern Marianas

Places Congress has never designated statehood or voting representation:

Washington DC;

Puerto Rico,

US Virgin Islands,

Guam,

American Samoa

the Northern Marianas

A citizen who can vote for voting representation in the national legislature has more opportunity to affect their government than a citizen who cannot. a significant inequality of Constitutional privileges is a civil violation of the United States Constitution in the definition at Voting Rights Act section 2. Ignoring, refusing to process, or even knowing delay of a complete inequality of Constitutional privileges is for color of law officials a criminal violation of the UNited States Constitution and several Voting Rights and Obstruction statutes. The Insular cases are used to justify this lack of process for the rights of citizens of the colonies Normally, Petitioner’s modus operandi would be cut around the “Dred Scott” level case law. But careful examination of the text; if one insulates oneself from the minefield language, suggests, actually states, consistently and repeatedly, that the analysis framework was such a situation was not in any way intended to be long term. Despite the inarticulate language, the end conclusion that disparate cultures may not allow full implementation of the United States’ complex and very bureaucratic system immediately. (Emphasis Mine)

Bidwell v Downes 1903

We are also of opinion that the power to acquire territory by treaty implies not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants, and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the ‘American empire.’ There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that, if their inhabitants do not become, immediately upon annexation, citizens of the United States, their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such, and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants, however foreign they may be to our habits, traditions, and modes of life, shall become at once citizens of the United States.”

those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible, and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories may be carried out and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action,”

Whatever period “for a time” was intended, despite the problems in seeking to discern intent through the lens of a century may be, it is difficult to imagine the writers imagined that time period would stretch through 2 World Wars, a Moon Landing, instantaneous world wide communication;. Whatever burden “alienness” had, presumably this was pre- Circuit Court assignment of the territories(3rd, 2nd, and 9th I believe), one would assume that a society used to channeling their grievances through Circuit Courts, particularly American Circuit Courts would have filled that criterion.

In other words, the plausible rationale of the first of the Insular Cases, and the license granted to keep people from representation, weak as it is against the bulk of the Constitutional and case law understanding of the right to vote as vital and fully necessary, expired, decades ago.

From the John Marshall quotes, to Bidwell vs Downes, to Tuaua vs United States, all note the Constitution is sparse in discussing acquisition of new territory, and people’s rights within that territory.

Tiptoeing into the murky territory of divining original intent, here, the reason for this seems obvious. Why would the Founders, having lived in an Empires’ acquired territories without representation, having spent nearly a decade fighting their former country, not include a mechanism for acquiring territories (colonies) and not extending rights to them? How would they have felt about a national legislature, located across a large body of water with sovereign authority that refused to allow their representatives a voting say? Petitioner holds this to be self-evident- the notion of not extending people rights, but administration, and justice goes against the principles of the nation in ways that even men of a very different era conceded were rife with problems.

Slightly different, be dealt with in the same reapportionment is Washington DC’s 750,000 with 0 voting Congressional representation despite 3 Electoral College votes, as the area which needs voting representation more than any other, as Washington, DC is literally centered around Congress. This is still covered by the scope of the Presidential and Congressional Apportionment; with the 435 cap on House Reps, changes in size of Washington, DC also would shift representation in the United States, taking at least one, and just as likely to shift the decimals to affect the representation in several states. More than 4 million people without voting representation are roughly the same population as Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alaska COMBINED, with 10 Senators, 15 Electoral College votes and 5 House reps.

What differentiates these 2 sets of 4 million people, that one should have 0 representation for a full century plus 20 years, and the other, double the average US representation and 10 Senators?

There is a provision in the Constitution about a non-voting Federal district; there’s also, with the later amendment prioritization, mention in there about “privileges and immunities”, “due process”, “equal protection under the law” but to think that disenfranchising the population the size of each of 7 states rather than, say, drawing a line around the federal buildings in DC, is absurd.

Either the right to vote is a Constitutional one, requisite for citizenship or it is not. Either the people in the Islands are Americans or they are not. Either the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies, or it does not. Either the Supreme Court’s words have meaning which must be carried through into effect, or Congress and the Judiciary, are the tyrant spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.

Apportionment: Felony Disenfranchisement





More than 6 Million Americans- 2.47% of the United States voting age population are ineligible to vote due to felony disenfranchisement. A de facto life sentence as a second class citizen. The 14th Amendment Clause 2’s exception is used to justify this status, qualifies as a “test or device” used to determine 3. moral character 52 USC 10304 3 million of these post sentence completion. Normally this is thought to be a side effect of the United State’s (colloquially known as “the land of the free”) role as the number 1 jailer in the world in terms of 1)total numbers of citizens jailed and 2) per capita in the world today, and likely in human history. In 5 states, African American disenfranchisement reaches 20% of the black male voting age population. In Florida felony voter disenfranchisement it reaches 10% of the TOTAL population of the state. This is a clear red flag, especially in states where Voting Rights Act preclearance prior to Shelby vs Holder, held sway. It is fairly clear, from the intent, is that this possible loop hole has morphed into the exact thing it was designed to prevent - the disenfranchisement of black voters by southern states through state action. In this case, it seems there may be disproportionate enforcement of crimes against minority populations. In a manner that is now worse than slavery- the infamous 3/5 the compromise gave slave states less credit for the disenfranchised people. Felony disenfranchisement is now the transfer of 5/5th’s agency and voting representation rights to a non voting person. With the person charged with a crime, they are counted as part of the census for the community, but cannot vote. Further, it is hardly clear that today’s interpretation is the correct one from a textualist-constructionist or an intentionalist view of the Constitution.

Justice Marshall- Richardson vs Ramirez The Court construes § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment as an express authorization for the States to disenfranchise former felons. Section 2 does exempt disenfranchisement for "participation in rebellion, or other crime" from the operation of its penalty provision. As the Court notes, however, there is little independent legislative history as to the crucial words "or 73*73 other crime"; the proposed § 2 went to a joint committee containing only the phrase "participation in rebellion" and emerged with "or other crime" inexplicably tacked on. [16] In its exhaustive review of the lengthy legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has come upon only one explanatory reference for the "other crimes" provision—a reference which is unilluminating at best.

The historical purpose for § 2 itself is, however, relatively clear and in my view, dispositive of this case. The Republicans who controlled the 39th Congress were concerned that the additional congressional representation of the Southern States which would result from the abolition of slavery might weaken their own political dominance. [18] There were two alternatives available—either to limit southern representation, which was unacceptable on a long-term basis, [19] or to insure that southern Negroes, sympathetic to the Republican cause, would be enfranchised; but an explicit grant of suffrage to Negroes was thought politically unpalatable at the time. [20] Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment was the resultant compromise. 74*74 It put Southern States to a choice—enfranchise Negro voters or lose congressional representation.

Petitioner would say that the meaning of the passage to be a modifier probably best expressed as “rebellion or other such crime” would have been a less ambiguous way of stating the meaning, meant to encompass other, similar treasonous acts for which participation in democratic society would be dangerous, and likely to be manipulated to the detriment of the people of the state/country. Given the time period, it seems inconceivable that the framers of the 14th Amendment were unaware that rebellion is in fact a crime,and thus would have said, simply, crime, were that the true intent.

United States vs. Williams, 1951

“The dominant conditions of the Reconstruction Period were not conducive to the enactment of carefully considered and coherent legislation. Strong post-war feeling caused inadequate deliberation, and led to loose and careless phrasing of laws relating to the new political issues.” Are we to believe then, that a loophole in a passage meant to ensure national reapportionment as a check on voter disenfranchisement in an amendment, THE amendment, to ensure equal protection for all men(not being quite enlightened yet to include the fairer sex), after the bloody and protracted war was then meant to have the effect of millions enumerated, for 5/5ths representation, or an even better deal for the “real” citizens in terms of national power, than slavery? It strains the credibility that in developing a remedy to ensure southern black people had the right to vote, and a penalty paid for removing voter rights, should become the very instrument of voter right suppression through an ill-defined word. The following section- 14-3 explicitly describes a methodology by which rights, specifically removed for participation in “rebellion or insurrection” can be restored- but says nothing at all about restoration of criminal rights. Is it that the post bellum Congress thought that rebellion was the only redeemable crime, more so than petty larceny? Or that one or two beat the committee and refused to let it adjourn on their section of the amendment. It seems simpler- and far more congruent with equal protection under the law, and the protection of the right to assuming “treason or other crime” means “treason or other such crime” than “any crime.” Felony disenfranchised- 6,100,000 American citizens were felony disenfranchised in 2016, according to the Sentencing Project.

Top 10 Countries with the most people in prison

United States — 2,068,800 China — 1,690,000 Brazil — 811,707 India — 478,600 Russia — 471,490 Thailand — 309,282 Turkey — 291,198 Indonesia — 266,259 Mexico — 220,866 Iran — 189,000

Top 10 Countries with the highest rate of incarceration

United States — 629 Rwanda — 580 Turkmenistan — 576 El Salvador — 564 Cuba — 510 Palau — 478 British Virgin Islands (U.K. territory) — 477 Thailand — 445 Panama — 423 Saint Kitts and Nevis — 421

Element removed

Shelby vs Holder (2014)

"The first century of congressional enforcement of the Amendment, however, can only be regarded as a failure." Id., at 197, 129 S.Ct. 2504. In the 1890s, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia began to enact literacy tests for voter registration and to employ other methods designed to prevent African-Americans from voting. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 310, 86 S.Ct. 803. Congress passed statutes outlawing some of these practices and facilitating litigation against them, but litigation remained slow and expensive, and the States came up with new ways to discriminate as soon as existing ones were struck down. Voter registration of African-Americans barely improved. Id., at 313-314, 86 S.Ct. 803.

Inspired to action by the civil rights movement, Congress responded in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 was enacted to forbid, in all 50 States, any "standard, practice, or procedure ... imposed or applied ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." 79 Stat. 437. The current version forbids any "standard, practice, or procedure" that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). Both the Federal Government and individuals have sued to enforce § 2, see, e.g., Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994), and injunctive relief is available in appropriate cases to block voting laws from going into effect, see 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(d). Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.

The current version forbids any "standard, practice, or procedure" that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

52 USC 10303

- Application of prohibition to other States; “test or device” defined

(a)No citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election conducted in any State or political subdivision of a State.

(b)As used in this section, the term “test or device” means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject,, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.

14th Amendment clause 2, “for felony or other crime” is used as a 52 U.S. Code § 10501 (b) “test or device” (3) possess good moral character Any final ruling, per Voting Rights Act § 10303 must come from a DC District 3 judge panel to justify the post sentence disenfranchisement of voting rights for the 6 mill This voids, or perhaps requires further of review of Jones vs Florida, pursuing the requirements of the Voting Rights Act Floridians passed overwhelmingly to restore the voting rights which stated unequivocally that former felons would have their rights to vote restored. the Florida State Legislature passed a law adding Florida’s fees for Justice to be paid for before Fla. Const. art. VI, § 4(a), which left in the neighborhood of a million without voter registration The “rights restoration” path including even the amount of fees owed to the state, appears unclear. Felony disenfranchisement also distorts statistics like, Voter Registration rate, used in Shelby vs Holder, and the Voting Rights Act From Shelby vs Holder

*2626 The following chart, compiled from the Senate and House Reports, compares voter registration numbers from 1965 to those from 2004 in the six originally covered States. These are the numbers that were before Congress when it reauthorized the Act in 2006, used by the Courts to justify overturn of Shelby vs holder preclearance modes





2004 Voter registration

White Black Gap

Alabama 73.8 72.9 0.9 Georgia 63.5 64.2 -0.7

Mississippi 72.3 76.1 -3.8

Disenfranchisement rate

Disenfrancisement x black incarceration rate

Adjusted voter registration gap

2004 Felony disenfranchisement adjusted Voter registration

White Black Gap

Alabama -7.19 -20.3 66% 51% 14%

Georgia -3.83 –10.7 59% 54% 5%

Mississippi -8.27 -18 65% 58% 10%





Adjusted ball park numbers with the numbers of felony disenfranchisement tells a different story, and an electoral advantage that would be an electoral advantage that $$$ can and has paid for .

17.

I. Top 10 States with the Highest Percentage of Disenfranchised Voters, 2010

State Total Number of Disenfranchised Voters Black/White incarceration rate (vera.org) Percent of Disenfranchised Voters Florida 1,541,602 2.6 10.42% Mississippi 182,814 2.2 8.27% Kentucky 243,842 3.1 7.35% Virginia 451,471 3.2 7.34% Alabama 262,354 2.8 7.19% Tennessee 341,815 3.1 7.05% Wyoming 25,657 3.8 5.99% Nevada 86,321 3.7 4.24% Arizona 199,734 4.9 4.19% Georgia 275,866 2.7 3.83%

In all of these states- a sizable enough percentage of their total population- an astonishing percentage of their voting age population has a felony, and voting rights stripped, more than the usual difference in elections- which Petitioner expect to be about 3-4%

Since men are, in the United States incarcerated at 6 to 1 rate compared to women, of black adult males in Florida have been disenfranchised from the vote for felonies. Most of these states were listed in Shelby vs Holder as “usual suspects” with voter rights disenfranchisement





“any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” The matter went to Federal Court, but was already in the wrong Jurisdiction. Congress mandated in 52 USC 10303- the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such alleged violations of voting rights were to be special Jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, with both the Circuit Court and District Court judges. Jones vs Florida, is not final and can be reviewed by the District of Columbia Courts in any This is the sort of practice for which the 14-2 penalty can and should be applied; the votes were withheld. This would likely lose Florida three seats in the United States House of Representatives. As this appears to be singularly the work of the Florida GOP, representation from that party is what should be redacted.

13 th &15 th Amendment Involuntary Servitude

13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

15th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It is well established that the legal justification for the involuntary servitude of prison labor is contained within the 13th amendment.(Richardson vs Ramirez) Jailhouse involuntary servitude, allowed by the 13th Amendment, after it stops, due to release of the prisoner becomes a previous condition of servitude. The 15th amendment prohibits voting rights being denied on the basis of previous conditions of servitude. The 15th amendment also is more recent than 14-2 “or other crime”, and would be considered more important in clarifying Constitutional intent. Further, given the moral hazard presented by the awkwardly phrased, and intent inverted Amendment, we must also look to see the limits of the right. Much like the Petitioner’s right to free speech not extending to the practice of lyrical prose (not “pro se”) from the benches in the audience while in the Supreme Court while in session, there are necessary limits to even Constitutional rights, and the states’ rights under the Constitution therefore can also be held to have limits.

The last remaining loophole to legally and permanently remove voters permanently from the rolls- disproportionate enforcement of the same laws, would yield a significant advantage, and represents a moral hazard that can be used to permanently silence That after completing penance, people are to be forgiven, and given normal responsibilities again is certainly a Christian value, though those rules do not reign, they are in alignment with the 15th amendment, previous condition of servitude shall not bar voting participation.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/15/2164638/-5-million-Americans-denied-Constitutional-voting-representation-violating-14-1-14-2-14-3-15

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.