ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: You May Be Eligible to Vote (CA)

The mid-term election will take place in about two months. And it is important that your voice as well as the voices of all eligible registrants be heard in that important election.

Many, although not all, registrants in the State of California are eligible to vote. For example, you are eligible to vote if you are currently in jail provided that you are serving a misdemeanor sentence or are awaiting trial. You are also eligible to vote if you are on federal supervised release, mandatory supervision or probation. Finally, you are eligible to vote if you have completed your parole term.

You are not eligible to vote, however, if you are currently serving a prison sentence in either state or federal prison. You are also not eligible to vote if you are either currently on parole or in jail due to a parole violation. Finally, you are not eligible to vote if you are currently in a county jail awaiting transfer to a state or federal prison after being convicted of a felony.

It is important to know your voting rights because it is possible, and perhaps probable, that a law enforcement official or probation officer may tell you that you are not eligible to vote. That is, in fact, what happened very recently when a probation officer told a registrant he supervised that he could not vote in the upcoming mid-term election on November 6. The registrant knew better and provided his probation officer with printed information from the website of the Office of the Secretary of State, a copy of which is linked to the article. After reading the information, the probation officer admitted that he was wrong. We can only hope that he shared that information with his colleagues.

In addition to being eligible to vote, you must also register to vote. Fortunately, there are currently many ways to register to vote including going to your county elections office or applying online at www.RegisterToVote.ca.gov. The deadline for registering to vote for the mid-term election is October 22.

Voting for registrants can also pose a challenge if their polling place is located at a school. That is because a state law requires registrants to obtain prior written permission to enter a school campus even for voting purposes. In order to avoid that challenge, you can request a vote-by-mail ballot that will be sent to your home.

In the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.”

Let your voice be heard! Vote on November 6.

 

Click here to see the official California document:

California voting rights for those with a criminal history

 

Join the discussion

  1. Lake County

    Thank you for this post. I have made sure to vote in every election since my conviction. It it is much more important to vote since we were forced to register. Most of the public think felons cannot vote in CA. Now if we could just get every registrant to vote, we would have great power. Usually, 95,000 votes is enough to sway most ballot choices.

  2. Eric Knight

    Please put out a list of all candidates in all offices officially supported by ACSOL; otherwise members may be voting against their own interests. In particular, pay attention to close races. We can discuss the candidates in this thread as well. Thanks.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Eric – In order to maintain our status with the IRS as a non-profit organization, ACSOL cannot support or oppose any person running for office.

      • Timothy RE Lawver

        Janice makes the point 501(c) may not but other private sites may. The trick is to find like minded individual to do it in place of ACSOL\NARSOL ETC.ETC.

        NO way I vote D or R, each are corrupted and derive benefit from SOR. Big data &big labor, but not the people. That’s the U.S. today, sadly!

  3. American Detained in America

    Sadly, there will be some here who vote for liberal Democrats under the misguided belief that they are the our only chance to see legislation that goes our way. However, we need to remember that our predominately liberal Dem state Congress has passed quite a bit of legislation that wasn’t very good for us, and Jerry Brown, possibly the most liberal governor in the nation, has every time signed these bills into law. The bottom line, we can’t trust either party to do the right thing!

    THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE OFFENDER REGISTRY IS AN ABOLISHED REGISTRY!

    • Timothy

      @Mr. Detained,
      Yes the practice must be abandoned its bad policy, but politically useful and profitable for some. What you say is the same way, the leftist fooled the immigrants. I kinda of expect big data to sell everyone out, but like you say the left sell out too. NAFTA was the example, Ross Perot warned the people but they ignored him. They’ll ignore Janice too until it is too late.

      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/nsa-continues-blame-technology-breaking-law.

      The sex offender was the main propaganda tool utilized to advance the causes of the surveillance saints. GRADYII talks of the unconstitutional notion of continuous searches. That is the golden goose for the surveillance saints.

  4. Tim Moore

    There are many good reasons for registrants voting, but swaying elections may not be one of them. Simply voting may not be possible to turn the most draconian referendums like Jessica’s law. Even if we had the full 95k registrants as you say voting in the last election, registrants would only be 1.4% of the voters (6.6 million). For a law like Jessica’s Law that received over 70% of the vote, registrant no votes at most would reduce the yes vote 2%. We may be able to sway some close races between candidates, or some local matters, but do we have the research about, and can we disseminate the info on which candidate is less harmful to registrants to, enough registrants to make an impact? Some are always going to vote their party anyway, especially when it is unclear which candidate is more registrant friendly.
    I think it would be more effective for each registrant to give $1 each for something like a media campaign to fight laws or change public opinion. Media drives all these laws and gives moral cover to judges and lawmakers, as they enact more pain upon us.

  5. Sunny

    https://www.rockthevote.org/voting-information/california/2018-ca-primary-voter-guide/

    RockTheVote.org is a good resource for finding out where candidates stand on issues. Criminal Justice would probably be the most relevant topic to select on that site.

    For searching in general, I would look for candidates who support restorative justice. Most restorative justice programs oppose the use of shaming methods.

    Also keep in mind that although Republicans tend to be the party of severe law enforcement, don’t forget it was the Democrats and Obama who signed the IML into law. I register Green. I suspect the only party that has our interests in mind may be Libertarians because they would oppose registering citizens. Any thoughts on this?

    • Tim Moore

      I’m Green, too, by preference, and everthing isn’t about registration. I mean it is not the only thing wrong with this country. But voting by itself is not going to do much good. There has to be some concerted action on our behalf. What powers do we have and how can we best use them? ACSOL is one power greater than ourselves and we should try to build it up with money, with our time, with our knowledge. They may not be able to endorse candidates, be they can be our voice to them.

      • WD

        I agree. ACSOL is our best hope. Short of the idea to move a majority ,for purposes of capture, to a state where registrants can be the dominant majority. I have many reservations about that idea’s plausibility because it would probably be met with too much resistance. Moving a bunch of similarly minded people to take over a state didn’t even work out when it was tried to move Libertarians to New Hampshire. The Libertarian Free State Project didn’t even achieve its goal and New Hampshire is known to be a Libertarian minded state already. Some inroads were made there, however. The project did do some things that I consider achievements, like getting Kelly Ayotte out of office. Though that may have just been a collateral consequence and not the goal of the project itself. As a response to the Libertarians trying to take over NH, extreme social conservatives tried to take over SC. It’s not apparent how effective that takeover was because SC is so socially conservative already it’s kind of hard to tell. I wouldn’t put too much faith in the current residents of WY or another low population Mountain state being enthusiastic about or tolerant to registrants capturing their political system. I would expect them to throw up roadblocks and lay down spike strips anywhere they could.

        • Tim Moore

          You’re right about taking over a state. I don’t know for sure, but it sounds like most registrants or felons can’t vote in Wyoming. https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-is-one-of-toughest-states-for-ex-felon-voting/article_45b90f9c-b6b7-5229-800a-ebfe34dac548.html
          Even if there were some registrants that could run for office, they wouldn’t get any votes.
          You might be able to exert your power through work stoppages or strikes or boycotts, if you had enough bodies in the economy, that withholding labor would make an impact.

        • CR

          Most registrants have families. If the registrant isn’t eligible to vote or to run for public office, then their relatives are the ones who need to run.

          Even so, a low population state that allows people with felony convictions to vote could be a better choice than Wyoming, if there are any such.

          It’s extremely difficult to get people to uproot their lives and spend thousands of dollars to move somewhere that they or their families may not otherwise desire to live. Many registrants couldn’t afford to do so, even if they wished to. As WD noted, the Free State Project failed to achieve its goal. Even though I joined the project back in its early days, I didn’t move to NH because I didn’t think the FSP could achieve its political goal there. But besides that, there was no way I could conceive of living in such a frigid climate simply to pursue a political objective. As a registrant, though, I’m considerably more motivated. If I thought it possible to take over a state, I would go.

    • David Kennerly's Government-Driven Life

      ” don’t forget it was the Democrats and Obama who signed the IML into law. ” Do we really have to cover this again? No, it was not “the Democrats” who imposed IML on us, it was REPUBLICANS. Obama signed the law, yes. He didn’t have to do it but he did. He’s that much of an asshole. However, this was, in no way a Democratic law. It was a Republican law and one which had failed in every year in which Democrats controlled Congress and successful only when the Republicans took that control. The champions of the bill were Republicans. A couple of sex-hating dino-Democrats, like the horrid Barbara Mikulski, hardly make that bill’s history bipartisan; it was a totally Republican bill. I have no good feelings for either party (I’m a Libertarian) but let’s try to keep the history of sex laws honest.

      • brunello

        I have little doubt, as Obama must have had, that his veto of this bill would have been overwhelmingly, probably unanimously, overridden.

      • Tim Moore

        It was a hand vote. Basically no one of the spineless bastards wanted to challenge it because it meant political death once it got sneaked on to the House floor by Republican controled committees. This is the same with Adam Walsh Act. The Republicans introduced the bill and a Republican president, Bush, approved it. Unfortunately Republicans aren’t small government when it comes to military or crime. Democrats, except for one Cory Booker, again were spineless, or practical, if you wish to use a nicer word. Apathy is not a problem just with voters. It’s a problem steeped into the system. So this is how fascism infects an otherwise Constitutional democracy. There needs to be a pan partisan effort to stop it.

  6. Nicholas Maietta

    Janice, Thank you for this. I submitted a request a while back to consider writing an article and i’m so glad to see it. When i’m voting, i “proudly” tell the staff in front of everyone that i’m glad to be able to vote again and that I was previously told by staff in another county that I could not vote because I am a felon.I’ve had a person pull me aside and say “I overheard you say you are a felon, and I too did not know felons could vote. My son is a felon but not in prison nor on parole. I will let him know.”. While it is sad that the chances of finding someone in a room of people with someone they know having a felony is high, it is satisfying to know the chances of successfully spreading the news is also high. I wonder just how many people don’t vote simply because they have a felony on their record from years ago who have their right to vote restored once “off paper”.

    I can’t wait to vote again.

  7. AnotherAnon

    San Francisco was the only county to vote against Jessica’s Law and it is no coincidence that the author of the tiered registry, a Democrat, is from there. Let’s not forget the Republicans accused the Democrats of blocking the original national registry for a long time. Soft on crime, they were called then. The Dems had constitutional concerns but the Republicans won out. Since then it’s been a teeter-totter, so I vote on who sponsored a law and for or against a law.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *