![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Felony disenfranchisement in the United States. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Disfranchisement. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Felony disenfranchisement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Felony disenfranchisement at the Reference desk. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
KyraAG326.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The author states: "The practice of disenfranchisement was transplanted to America by English settlers." For many reasons, this seems unlikely. The author should substantiate this or remove it. -- Kjb 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the section "other countries", but this is still to little for a global encyclopedia.-- ExpImp talk con 16:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the charge of racism is a bit of a stretch. Maybe racial discrimination would be more appropriate, but even then one may argue that just because somebody argued that it is racially motivated does not make it true. User:Kotika98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.94.211.118 ( talk) 08:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Both mean the same thing, but which is preferable? As a legal term, the former is prefered in law, but the latter lay distortion appears to be gaining ground in general media. Can we get a ruling from the judges, please? Thanks. Foofighter20x ( talk) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Third-party response per RfC: This doesn't really belong in RfC and probably should be removed. Typically RfC is used for entrenched disagreements (ie discussions with more than two comments), discussions with wider significance (naming conventions), and such like. In any case this a disagreement over spelling rather than style.
But since I began a response anyway...
Well for starters, disenfranchisement sounds much more natural to me. On a most objective measure:
Usage: Disenfranchisement gets 2,840,000 hits in Google while disfranchisement gets 89,000. I get similar results on Google Scholar: 22,600 for disenfranchisement and 6,470 for disfranchisement. And while the results on Google Books are 2,060 on disenfranchisement and 3,290 on disfranchisement, the results are disfranchisement mostly relate to books published before 1950. When you only count books published in 1950 or later, the figures are essentially equal 2,010 to 2,030.
Dictionaries: My American Oxford English Dictionary (it comes with my Mac) gives priority to disenfranchisement while listing disfranchisement as an alternative spelling. And my Oxford English Dictionary does the same.
As far as I can see disfranchisement is mainly archaic but does enjoy some current academic (and possibly legal) use. Disenfranchisement is by far the most used and its use in academic works outnumbers disfranchisement by more than three to one. Disenfranchisement should be used and its alternative spelling noted. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Just being a stickler for terms, I suppose, but the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom; hence, any discussion of it belongs in a different section. Perhaps this would be fixed by previous assertions on the organization of the article, however. 74.141.107.176 ( talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That other article seems to cover other issues such as not allowing felons to possess firearms that are not the same as disenfranchisement as people usually think of it, so I would recommend against the merge. Tisane talk/ stalk 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The arguments section is a bit thin. There is a very fundamental reason why prisoners should be allowed to vote. Many rights exist as firewalls against potential state exploitation. For example, the English right to silence (right against self-incrimination in the US) came into being because confessions were being forced out of people. The protection against being tried twice for the same crime exists to prevent weak cases being forced through by just prosecuting until there is a conviction. In exactly the same way, the universal right to vote protects democracy because it prevents the state from deciding who does and does not have a voice. In the Soviet Union for example, dissidents lost their rights because the state had the power to declare them insane. Once the state has the power to decide who does and does not get a vote then it is no longer democratic. If I do not like the way that somebody else votes, then I must use my vote to silence them. And this is where the responsibility should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
THIS GUY IS RIGHT — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.131.48.100 (
talk)
05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
When in the "for" section citations are asked for(multiple Who?'s), but not in the against, it seems to reduce the objectivity of the arguments section. Fyrfytr1434 05:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrfytr1434 ( talk • contribs)
Few of the points in the "Arguments" section seem to be sourced and some look suspiciously like original reflections. Elsewhere, the article seems more subtley biased: "Currently, over 5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement" (not "because they have committed felonies"). -- Lo2u ( T • C) 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, very bias. Clearly the person who wrote this is against felony disenfranchisement. "Is at the forefront of this issue"? What issue? There is no issue. The whole inflation section is worthless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.48 ( talk) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a very popular topic and I will be interested to see the different type of feedback you receive, because of the strong opinions on the subject. SIde effeX08 ( talk) 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)SIde effeX08
I think that the phrase: "Also argued is allowing ex-offenders the right to vote hurts women (and others) who are victimized by crime." should be removed, unless someone can elaborate on this point or provide a good source. The current reference is to a poorly written FOX news article that use this argument to appeal to emotion, and doesn't make clear why the rights of women need to be singled out in a discussion of felony disenfranchisement. The only reason it is mentioned in the linked article is because the article discusses Obama and Romney's policies regarding women. L.livnev ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
these comments about it not being a racist practice in the US are incredible * ask a lower income black about this * just as in the old days people protesting against being kept away from voting polls or even registering were "disturbing the peace" and the federal government did nothing * that also was not racism * comfort distorts the mind * 74.78.15.101 ( talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)grumpy
The third paragraph (and a few other spots) in the united states section does not seem very neutral. Its purpose seems to infer upon the reader one of (or combination of) the following two things.
1. that the american justice system is racist. 2. that the mentioned races commit far more crime than others- how can this not be neutral? are facts and statistics racist?
both of which are not particularly 'neutral'.
Why, exactly, are these statistics mentioned? They don't seem to contribute to explaining the terms of what felony disenfranchisement means in the united states, and simply inject race arguments into an article not about race. I propose removing them.
2601:B:3100:9C8:2030:8380:4E32:AF48 (
talk)
18:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Felony disenfranchisement has direct roots in the Jim Crow Era. In the late 19th century, states above and below the Mason-Dixon Line began to find new and creative ways to keep black voters away from the polls. Banning people with felony convictions was one of the solutions.
For example, in 1901 the Commonwealth of Virginia had 147,000 black voters on the rolls. But many lawmakers saw this growing political block as a threat. At that year's Constitutional Convention, they hatched a plan to disenfranchise African Americans through a combination of black codes and felony disenfranchisement. One legislator said on the record that the plan would "eliminate the darkey as a political factor."
Ben Jealous, " Felony Disenfranchisement: A Holdover from the Jim Crow Era", Huffington Post (April 26, 2013).
Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Rick Santorum argued for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons.[7] Santorum's position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for felons while incarcerated rather than Santorum's stated position of restoring voting rights only after the completion of sentence, probation and parole.[7][8] President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders.[9]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Virginia's situation has been changing as there have been shifts in the Governor's policy and various court decisions have been handed down. Governor McAuliffe attempts to restore rights to any felons who are off of supervision, that he knows of. But there's still an individualized review before he signs off, which imposes a delay between when the felon becomes eligible under the Governor's restoration conditions, and when his rights actually get restored. Also, some felons may slip through the cracks and have to bring their situation to the Governor's attention in order to get their rights restored. Restoration is at the Governor's discretion, and if a Republican like Ed Gillespie gets elected, probably there will be some dramatic changes in restoration policy. St. claires fire ( talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that this article should be re-named. The concept of a felony is only used in the United States, so far as I know, making it a US-centric title, even though it covers other countries. Most other common law countries no longer use this term in their criminal procedure, and certainly no civil law countries do, since it is derived from the common law. Note that the article Loss of rights due to felony conviction was re-named Loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offence some time ago. I would suggest as a new title: "Disenfranchisement for conviction for criminal offence". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, because the US part of the article dwarfs everything else, it might as well be split off into an article specifically about the US, one that could also resolve the duplication with the content at disenfranchisement. I haven't examined article history - if it actually spent most of its lifetime as a US-centric article, it should just be renamed, and the info about other countries moved back "up" to the disenfranchisement article. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1995&id=167When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The map needs to be changed. Oregon does not allow convicted felons to vote while they are incarcerated. See https://sos.oregon.gov/voting-elections/Documents/Voter-Status-FAQ.pdf [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.151.182 ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Felony disenfranchisement in the United States. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Disfranchisement. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Felony disenfranchisement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Felony disenfranchisement at the Reference desk. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
KyraAG326.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The author states: "The practice of disenfranchisement was transplanted to America by English settlers." For many reasons, this seems unlikely. The author should substantiate this or remove it. -- Kjb 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the section "other countries", but this is still to little for a global encyclopedia.-- ExpImp talk con 16:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the charge of racism is a bit of a stretch. Maybe racial discrimination would be more appropriate, but even then one may argue that just because somebody argued that it is racially motivated does not make it true. User:Kotika98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.94.211.118 ( talk) 08:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Both mean the same thing, but which is preferable? As a legal term, the former is prefered in law, but the latter lay distortion appears to be gaining ground in general media. Can we get a ruling from the judges, please? Thanks. Foofighter20x ( talk) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Third-party response per RfC: This doesn't really belong in RfC and probably should be removed. Typically RfC is used for entrenched disagreements (ie discussions with more than two comments), discussions with wider significance (naming conventions), and such like. In any case this a disagreement over spelling rather than style.
But since I began a response anyway...
Well for starters, disenfranchisement sounds much more natural to me. On a most objective measure:
Usage: Disenfranchisement gets 2,840,000 hits in Google while disfranchisement gets 89,000. I get similar results on Google Scholar: 22,600 for disenfranchisement and 6,470 for disfranchisement. And while the results on Google Books are 2,060 on disenfranchisement and 3,290 on disfranchisement, the results are disfranchisement mostly relate to books published before 1950. When you only count books published in 1950 or later, the figures are essentially equal 2,010 to 2,030.
Dictionaries: My American Oxford English Dictionary (it comes with my Mac) gives priority to disenfranchisement while listing disfranchisement as an alternative spelling. And my Oxford English Dictionary does the same.
As far as I can see disfranchisement is mainly archaic but does enjoy some current academic (and possibly legal) use. Disenfranchisement is by far the most used and its use in academic works outnumbers disfranchisement by more than three to one. Disenfranchisement should be used and its alternative spelling noted. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Just being a stickler for terms, I suppose, but the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom; hence, any discussion of it belongs in a different section. Perhaps this would be fixed by previous assertions on the organization of the article, however. 74.141.107.176 ( talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That other article seems to cover other issues such as not allowing felons to possess firearms that are not the same as disenfranchisement as people usually think of it, so I would recommend against the merge. Tisane talk/ stalk 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The arguments section is a bit thin. There is a very fundamental reason why prisoners should be allowed to vote. Many rights exist as firewalls against potential state exploitation. For example, the English right to silence (right against self-incrimination in the US) came into being because confessions were being forced out of people. The protection against being tried twice for the same crime exists to prevent weak cases being forced through by just prosecuting until there is a conviction. In exactly the same way, the universal right to vote protects democracy because it prevents the state from deciding who does and does not have a voice. In the Soviet Union for example, dissidents lost their rights because the state had the power to declare them insane. Once the state has the power to decide who does and does not get a vote then it is no longer democratic. If I do not like the way that somebody else votes, then I must use my vote to silence them. And this is where the responsibility should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
THIS GUY IS RIGHT — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.131.48.100 (
talk)
05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
When in the "for" section citations are asked for(multiple Who?'s), but not in the against, it seems to reduce the objectivity of the arguments section. Fyrfytr1434 05:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrfytr1434 ( talk • contribs)
Few of the points in the "Arguments" section seem to be sourced and some look suspiciously like original reflections. Elsewhere, the article seems more subtley biased: "Currently, over 5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement" (not "because they have committed felonies"). -- Lo2u ( T • C) 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, very bias. Clearly the person who wrote this is against felony disenfranchisement. "Is at the forefront of this issue"? What issue? There is no issue. The whole inflation section is worthless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.48 ( talk) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a very popular topic and I will be interested to see the different type of feedback you receive, because of the strong opinions on the subject. SIde effeX08 ( talk) 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)SIde effeX08
I think that the phrase: "Also argued is allowing ex-offenders the right to vote hurts women (and others) who are victimized by crime." should be removed, unless someone can elaborate on this point or provide a good source. The current reference is to a poorly written FOX news article that use this argument to appeal to emotion, and doesn't make clear why the rights of women need to be singled out in a discussion of felony disenfranchisement. The only reason it is mentioned in the linked article is because the article discusses Obama and Romney's policies regarding women. L.livnev ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
these comments about it not being a racist practice in the US are incredible * ask a lower income black about this * just as in the old days people protesting against being kept away from voting polls or even registering were "disturbing the peace" and the federal government did nothing * that also was not racism * comfort distorts the mind * 74.78.15.101 ( talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)grumpy
The third paragraph (and a few other spots) in the united states section does not seem very neutral. Its purpose seems to infer upon the reader one of (or combination of) the following two things.
1. that the american justice system is racist. 2. that the mentioned races commit far more crime than others- how can this not be neutral? are facts and statistics racist?
both of which are not particularly 'neutral'.
Why, exactly, are these statistics mentioned? They don't seem to contribute to explaining the terms of what felony disenfranchisement means in the united states, and simply inject race arguments into an article not about race. I propose removing them.
2601:B:3100:9C8:2030:8380:4E32:AF48 (
talk)
18:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Felony disenfranchisement has direct roots in the Jim Crow Era. In the late 19th century, states above and below the Mason-Dixon Line began to find new and creative ways to keep black voters away from the polls. Banning people with felony convictions was one of the solutions.
For example, in 1901 the Commonwealth of Virginia had 147,000 black voters on the rolls. But many lawmakers saw this growing political block as a threat. At that year's Constitutional Convention, they hatched a plan to disenfranchise African Americans through a combination of black codes and felony disenfranchisement. One legislator said on the record that the plan would "eliminate the darkey as a political factor."
Ben Jealous, " Felony Disenfranchisement: A Holdover from the Jim Crow Era", Huffington Post (April 26, 2013).
Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Rick Santorum argued for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons.[7] Santorum's position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for felons while incarcerated rather than Santorum's stated position of restoring voting rights only after the completion of sentence, probation and parole.[7][8] President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders.[9]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Virginia's situation has been changing as there have been shifts in the Governor's policy and various court decisions have been handed down. Governor McAuliffe attempts to restore rights to any felons who are off of supervision, that he knows of. But there's still an individualized review before he signs off, which imposes a delay between when the felon becomes eligible under the Governor's restoration conditions, and when his rights actually get restored. Also, some felons may slip through the cracks and have to bring their situation to the Governor's attention in order to get their rights restored. Restoration is at the Governor's discretion, and if a Republican like Ed Gillespie gets elected, probably there will be some dramatic changes in restoration policy. St. claires fire ( talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that this article should be re-named. The concept of a felony is only used in the United States, so far as I know, making it a US-centric title, even though it covers other countries. Most other common law countries no longer use this term in their criminal procedure, and certainly no civil law countries do, since it is derived from the common law. Note that the article Loss of rights due to felony conviction was re-named Loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offence some time ago. I would suggest as a new title: "Disenfranchisement for conviction for criminal offence". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, because the US part of the article dwarfs everything else, it might as well be split off into an article specifically about the US, one that could also resolve the duplication with the content at disenfranchisement. I haven't examined article history - if it actually spent most of its lifetime as a US-centric article, it should just be renamed, and the info about other countries moved back "up" to the disenfranchisement article. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1995&id=167When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Felony disenfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The map needs to be changed. Oregon does not allow convicted felons to vote while they are incarcerated. See https://sos.oregon.gov/voting-elections/Documents/Voter-Status-FAQ.pdf [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.151.182 ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)