I wish this sleeping dog would not just lie, but die. -- Voting rights for felons won't be reviewed by U.S. Supreme Ct., not quite yet anyway.

On 09-29-04 I did a post entitled "Just when things may start going right, give 'em a Willie Horton issue. First the pledge of allegiance vote, now another -- More on voting by felons." It began:

"A 9-24-04 post is titled "Say what? In neighborhoods with high % of criminals who can't vote, the political voice of the entire community is diluted, & Ga. law is the culprit.

"The post was about Reps. Tyrone Brooks and Bob Holmes, both Atlanta Democrats, announcement that they would introduce legislation they knew would not pass aimed at restoring the voting rights of convicted felons who, though out of prison, have yet to complete probation or parole."

This 9-24-04 post had some good -- okay to me good -- news, reporting that:

"State Rep. Calvin Smyre of Columbus, the highest-ranking African-American in the House, likewise put out the word. 'Georgia Democrats are opposed to any such effort. The opinions of two Democratic members of the House by no means represent the opinion of the caucus,' Smyre said. David Lucas of Macon, another African-American, was of the same opinion."
_______________

Why arouse this sleeping dog? Just to let you know that the U.S. Supreme Court voted to allow to let this sleeping dog lie, but the issue is for how long.

Georgia is not alone in not letting felons votes. 48 states, all except Maine and Vermont, have similar laws.

Yeterday the Supreme Court declined to hear cases from New York and Washington State on whether states violate the federal Voting Rights Act when they strip felons of the right to vote.

The Voting Rights Act prohibits states from applying any "voting qualification or prerequisite" in a manner that has a racially discriminatory effect. Inmates and their advocates who are bringing the lawsuits point out that the impact of the felon-disenfranchisement laws falls disproportionately on members of minority groups, particularly on black men.

Congress passed the original Voting Rights Act in 1965 and amended it in 1982 to make clear that it barred voting policies that had not only the intent but also the effect of discriminating by race.

Last month, the 11 judges of the full United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which of course sits in Atlanta, heard arguments in a case challenging Florida's life-long felon disenfranchisement law, which bans an estimated 600,000 state residents from voting. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Florida's law, which dates to 1868, was enacted with the intention of keeping the newly enfranchised blacks from voting.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit had ruled that the lawsuit could go to trial, but the full court vacated that decision and granted Florida's request for re-argument.

Many lawyers following the issue believe that this Florida case is the strongest of the lawsuits because the facts have been extensively developed and the state's history of discrimination is clear.

The Supreme Court's action Monday doesn't mean that issue won't come back before the Supreme Court. And the Florida case will probably be the case by which it does.

Stay tuned.

(11-09-04 New York Times.)