Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Obama Backs Holder's Stand to Let Felons Vote

Bookmark and Share

"It is very important for us, if somebody has served their time, for them to be able to participate in their democracy." - Barack Obama, August 15, 2011

barackobama10.jpgEric Holder keeps making news in February.

Last week marked five years on the job, and earlier this week he stated he planned to remain in his position "well into 2014," which would make him the third longest-serving attorney general in U.S. history should he last into December.

Then on Tuesday, during a speech at Georgetown University, Holder made waves when he announced his strong support for states to repeal laws that forbid felons to vote after they've been released from prison.

Holder called such laws "unjust" and stated recidivism would be lower if these laws were abandoned as such felons would be better reintegrated into society.

The attorney general also singled out the particular deleterious impact these laws had on racial minorities.

So where does President Obama stand on this issue?

Smart Politics searched through the president's speeches and statements over his five-plus years in office and found he has mentioned felons 11 times as president.

During one speech, at a question-and-answer session in Decorah, Iowa in August 2011, the president was asked by an ex-criminal what could be done so he could "move past the past" and "have something better than an entry-level job."

Obama replied:

"Well, there are obviously a bunch of different aspects to the challenges for folks who have some sort of felony record. It affects them economically. It affects them in terms of voting in some States. One of the strengths of America has always been that this is a land of second chances. And as somebody who feels deeply about my faith, one of the things about my Christian faith is that I believe in redemption and second chances. And so as a consequence, I think it is very important for us--first of all, if somebody has served their time, for them to be able to participate in their democracy. And historically, many of these issues in terms of eligibility to vote have been set at the State level as opposed to the Federal level, but the Justice Department at the Federal level does have the capacity and the obligation to monitor what States are doing to make sure that they are not purposely exclusionary. And so we're going to be monitoring voting rights all across the country as long as I'm President of the United States, because I think that the burden of proof should be on States to provide a rationale as to why somebody shouldn't be voting, as opposed to the burden of proof on the person not voting as to why they should have a right to vote. That's my general view. - Remarks at a Town Hall Meeting and a Question-and-Answer Session in Decorah, Iowa (August 15, 2011)

But Obama hasn't consistently been on the record for giving full rights to felons.

For example, in three separate speeches in 2013, the president spoke about the need for legislation to prevent felons from owning firearms:

"If you want to buy a gun--whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller--you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one." - Remarks on Gun Violence (January 16, 2013)

"An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that anyone trying to buy a gun should at least have to prove that they're not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from owning one. That's just common sense." - The President's Weekly Address (January 19, 2013)

"By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law." - Remarks on Senate Action on Gun Control Legislation (April 17, 2013)

And when a woman asked Obama four years ago how the 'system' could be improved to help people like her brother - who had 33 felonies by the age of 27 - get a job, the president replied frankly:

"Thirty-three felonies is a lot. I mean, that's a long rap sheet, which means that it's very--I'm just being realistic. If I'm a business owner, and I'm saying to myself, right now the unemployment rate is 10 percent, so there are a whole lot of folks who've never been to jail who are looking for a job, it's hard for me to say, I'll choose the guy who went to jail instead of the person who never went to jail and has been laid off." - Remarks at a Town Hall Meeting and a Question-and-Answer Session in Tampa, Florida (January 28, 2010)

It will be interesting to see if Obama is asked directly at his next news conference to confirm his positions that felons should be allowed to vote, not be allowed to own guns, and not be shocked if they aren't hired as a result of their conviction.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Georgia's Republican US Senate Primary: A Race for the Ages?
Next post: Do Democratic Hopes of Beating Kline End with a Dayton Loss?

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Slam Dunk: Will 36 Record Presidential Winning Streaks Continue in 2016?

Three-dozen states are currently in the midst of their longest Democratic or Republican presidential winning streaks.

Political Crumbs

73 Months and Counting

January's preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers show Minnesota's unemployment rate of 3.7 percent was once again lower than Wisconsin's 5.0 percent. That marks the 73rd consecutive month in which Minnesota has boasted a lower jobless rate than its neighbor to the east dating back to January 2009 including each of the last 67 months by at least one point. The Gopher State has now edged Wisconsin in the employment border battle for 204 of the last 216 months dating back to February 1997. Wisconsin only managed a lower unemployment rate than Minnesota for the 12 months of 2008 during this 18-year span.


Two Dakotas, One Voice?

For each of the last 24 presidential elections since 1920, North and South Dakota have voted in unison - casting their ballots for the same nominee. For 21 of these cycles (including each of the last 12 since 1968) Republicans carried the Dakotas with just three cycles going to the Democrats (1932, 1936, and 1964). This streak stands in contrast to the first few decades after statehood when North and South Dakota supported different nominees in four of the first seven cycles. North Dakota narrowly backed Populist James Weaver in 1892 while South Dakota voted for incumbent Republican Benjamin Harrison. In 1896, it was North Dakota backing GOPer William McKinley while South Dakota supported Democrat William Jennings Bryan by less than 200 votes. North Dakota voted Democratic in 1912 and 1916 supporting Woodrow Wilson while South Dakota cast its Electoral College votes for Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and Republican Charles Hughes respectively.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting