I understand your point, but how does paying money make the ex-con more likely to be a better citizen if paying taxes owed has no bearing on being a good citizen? I feel serving the time is plenty enough punishment on the individual. By refusing them the vote, we condone taxation without representation. I am certain, the ex-cons would’ve chosen to just do another month rather than to have their vote infringed upon over money. I saw a judge offer a defendant the opportunity to do 10 days in jail in lieu of paying his large fine. The defendant told the judge he was unable to find work due to his background and he didn’t have any other way to pay the court’s fines. The judge felt his sincerity and offered him 10 days, and the man gladly accepted. We can pretend like finding a job is simple for an ex-con, but it isn’t. Some of the fines are large and realistically can’t be paid down with min wage jobs or daily labor. The way this law is set up is akin to a poll tax or a literacy test from years past that I think we all want to put behind us. What better way to integrate ex-cons into society than to give them back their voices? If they’re out of prison, they’re paying sales tax at the very minimum and have skin in the game. Continuously treating them like they’re less than does nothing for their morale and may encourage them to return to the underworld. Also, the type of citizens who are delinquent in taxes are also criminals, in my opinion and the federal governement’s opinion. They also take from society and over burden the rest of us. How are they any more qualified to vote? The IRS doesn’t prosecute small dollar tax evasion, but it is still a crime.

The amendment doesn’t apply to felons convicted of murder or sexual offenses…

Your comments go beyond the subject at hand. There’s nothing to debate.

Without formal charges being filed, trial, or pleading-out-to or adjudication of guilt to a felony charge, and sentencing, under the law, by a judge, a person is not a convicted felon.

I am grateful that a real attempt has been made to move the conversation forward, and for the sake of civility, let us all in “flyover America”, agree to keep doing so in a manner that restores constructive discourse on any of the myriad of issues that we face.

A conviction of an individual on a felony charge removes their civil rights. What follows is sentencing, the terms of which must be completed. Upon satisfying ALL of the sentence requirements, our new constitutional amendment stipulates civil rights being restored to the convicted individual, again, post-completion of sentence requirements.

The notion that financial restitution can be ignored can be extrapolated into the notion that incarceration is also optional when ordered by a judge at sentencing.

So, Pretty Petty, not much of a debate, but that’s the way I feel.

P.S.
For the record, I did vote against this amendment as I feel restoration of civil rights to felons ought to have remained within the purview of our state executive branch, as I do not agree with the voting majority this past election that a persons character, and likelihood to carry-on in society in a lawful and honorable fashion, can be fairly determined by completion of sentence requirements alone. For the convicted felon, the final step to restoration of voting rights was to appeal to and appear before our governor, as I feel it ought to have remained. (I admit to a huge lack of procedural knowledge here, enlighten me if needed. I do clearly recall that process being described as limited, which maybe could have been a bit more user-friendly for the person rebuilding their life post-conviction.) My vote being in the minority still allows for me to participate in the process going forward. As an aside, allow me to share that I find it helpful to myself that I swore-off moral relativism in all conversations. 1980-ish.

“how many of them actually DO Vote?”
Doesn’t really matter to the law.