>I agree with this article:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html
>
>I think while incarcerated, the states can indeed suspend the right to vote, but only suspend it during incarceration.
>
>I agree with the article's last paragraph:
>
>Voting is not a privilege; it is the basic right that defines a citizen. Those denied it are, in effect, stateless -- people without a country. This is not a partisan issue, but one of basic human rights. People who have paid their debt to society should have their rights restored.
>
>I can see the logic behind not allowing criminals currently incarcerated to vote. Still, the article was spot-on when with this: (That "anti-law enforcement bloc" notwithstanding, we've managed very nicely to elect plenty of criminals to office without any help from ex-felons).
>
>Interesting it focuses on 'ex-felons' not 'felons.' I don't think anyone wants to tackle discussing allowing those currently serving time to vote - that would be political death.
>

No surprise. I'm with you on this one. Once someone has served his time, restoring his right to vote is part of making him part of society, that is, part of his rehabilitation.

Tamar