I'm not sure when this "it's my right" ideology crept in, but the United States has never treated voting as a "personal right". This is not to say that our country's track record of denying voting privileges is stellar. The exclusion of blacks and women is a perfect example of our vast historical shortcomings. Yet, even in the early days of America, when voting was a privilege only afforded to landowners, there was a direct correlation between responsibility and privilege.

Today is really no different. One of the few circumstances under which a person can lose their voting privilege is felony. When people don't uphold their responsibilities to the law, there is potential that they could lose the ability to have say in that same law. Under the 14th Amendment, states have the authority to make laws that deny voting rights to inmates and ex-felons, and many states do. Good thing for Martha Stewart that under Connecticut law, her later probationary status will once again afford her voting privileges.

According to "The Sentencing Project" an advocacy group that researches racial inequalities in sentencing (a breeding ground for bias), we live in the only democracy that "denies the vote to ex-offenders who have completed their prison sentences." In that respect, they are correct. Other countries only have enforced laws that may temporarily deny privileges depending on the seriousness of the crime.

In her speech, Coretta Scott King praised Maine and Vermont, as the only two states that have passed legislation allowing prison inmates to vote. That's right, in prison, bars and all. I have mixed feelings about voter disenfranchisement, but allowing inmates to exercise any type of privilege is utterly ridiculous.

The reality is, if you want to commit crimes and still keep your right to vote, you can find a state that will allow you to do so. Out of the 50 states, only 14 take away the lifetime voting rights of ex-felons. The rest of the states may disenfranchise on the basis of probationary or parole status. According to a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch,

"Nationally, 35 states prohibit felons from voting while on parole, and seven states do not allow ex-convicts to vote after serving their sentences. The result is 4 million disenfranchised felons, including 1.4 million black men..."

The subject is touchy. Many voter disenfranchisement laws are almost 200 years old and since the early 90s, certain Democrats have been working feverishly to update them. Howard Dean has been one known to champion this cause, but don't let that sway you.

The issues Ms. King brings up are not quite so simple.

The pro-voter disenfranchisement argument is simple. According to Dr. John Lott, American Enterprise Institute scholar,

"People who have committed violent crimes — rape, murder, aggravated assault — in my opinion, do not have [society's best interests in mind]...We don't want to have those kinds of people determining public policy that affects the lives of other citizens."

Lott makes a good point. On top of which, it should also be noted that high recidivism rates and the cyclical nature of the prison system only make matters worse. If two thirds of ex-felons are re-arrested within three years after release, allowing them to vote wouldn't be wise, right?

That's not what anti-voter disenfranchisement folks are saying. The overwhelming argument of those against the "voting is a privilege" worldview is that voter disenfranchisement laws are inherently discriminatory. Men and certain ethnic "minority" groups are being convicted of felonies far more frequently than others. In this part of the argument there is merit, but it goes downhill from there.

In the case of Coretta Scott King, this issues gets rolled into the "black vote conspiracy". A recent Reuters article reports,

" The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

I can't argue with that. But U.S. Commission on Human Rights (also know as cow dung) head, Mary Frances Berry has her own pathetic take on the issue:

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic."

Right. Because surely, we all know how desperate the Democrats are for the black vote. Hardly. Those "individuals" and "officials" about which Berry speaks are by my best estimation, Republican. Too bad this shady logic weighs down the somewhat credible argument that the votes of certain groups are being systematically silenced.

Both sides make valid arguments. In many cases, they are both correct. True, convincted felons are not always the best ones to be making political decisions, and true, large groups of people are being silenced by voter disenfranchisement. But the biggest group is actually white males, as they make up the biggest population of the prison system. That doesn't mean that there isn't disproportionality. As a black person, I can say that the amount of black men in the prison system is most definitely disheartening. And to be quite honest, I don't exactly have faith that the system is working as it should. (As a side note, this talk of prison privatization doesn't sit well with me in the least).

All valid arguments aside, the reality is, the laws in some states are not as strict as certain voters rights groups make them out to be. Rumors often fly about ex-felons losing their right to vote. Rumors recently flew in Montana as a result of improper communication and ignorance. Proper education about these issues is paramount.

More importantly, we are going to need to do more to address an entire group of people who are left without the privilege to vote. I'm not saying they should be allowed to vote, but I think we need to re-examine this issue. As far as I'm concerned, inmates and parolees simply should not be voting. Why certain states allow this, I don't understand. But ex-felons who've completed their requirements by law and have become contributing members of society may potentially be worthy of redemption. We shouldn't be so quick to write them off. America is hardly in a position to be eternally judging the righteousness of others.

Still, it should be said that the discussion here is about the restoration of a privilege, not the enactment of a right. But for Coretta Scott King, and the others who desire to eternally harp on voting as a "right", let it be know that even rights are prefaced with responsibilities and unfortunately, that's the discussion no one is prepared to enter into.