TN - If you owe C$, you can't vote. Isn't this illegal???

http://fathersandfamiliesblog.org/?p=658

Poll Taxes Return to Tennessee in Guise of Child Support
June 25th, 2008 by Ned Holstein, MD, MS
Nashville, TN-Have "poll taxes" - a Jim Crow practice designed to keep
African-Americans and poor people out of the voting booth - returned to
Tennessee?

In 2006, the Tennessee legislature passed reforms to allow convicted felons
to regain voting rights after serving their time. Amendments were attached
specifying that voting rights could not be regained unless all criminal
restitution payments and child support were current. Approximately 48% of
Tennessee male prisoners are African American, and the vast majority of
those of all races who are behind on child support are indigent. So the
bottom line is, Tennessee has come up with yet another way to keep large
numbers of African Americans and poor people from voting

The American Civil Liberties Union - initially a supporter of the reform
effort - sued Tennessee state and county officials in February to eliminate
the provisions about child support and restitution. It represents three men
who have served their time but cannot regain the right to vote because of
the amendments.

Said Plaintiff Terence Johnson, "I've served my time, I am a taxpaying
citizen and I have custody of my daughter. It is wrong for the state to
punish me and other people while we get our lives back on track." Read more
about here.

Tennessee Child Support Guidelines do not specifically address incarcerated
obligors. Thus by default they are treated similarly to most other states,
i.e., imprisonment is considered "voluntary unemployment."

Let's consider a hypothetical father who paid $6,000 annually in support
prior to his three year incarceration for a property crime. Assuming that he
has the knowledge or legal assistance to get a child support modification
hearing while incarcerated, his best case scenario would be a reduction to
the state minimum Basic Support Order of $100 per month. He would still
leave prison owing $3,600 in back support and would be unable to vote. If he
did not know to seek a child support modification while in prison, he would
come out owing at least $18,000. This could mean many years without the
right to vote.

ACLU of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said, " The ability to
vote should not be based on one's financial status."

And ACLU Voting Rights Project attorney Nancy Abudu told the Memphis Flyer,
"You can't ignore the racial implications." Read the full article here.

The ACLU charges the law violates the 14th amendment equal protection
clause, 24th amendment voting rights provisions, and due process protections
in the federal and state constitutions.

The case is not expected to be heard until later this summer, at earliest.
As Tennessee is the only state with a child support restriction on
ex-offender voting rights, the outcome will have implications for other
states tempted to enact similar restrictions.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://fathersandfamiliesblog.org/?p=658

Poll Taxes Return to Tennessee in Guise of Child Support
June 25th, 2008 by Ned Holstein, MD, MS
Nashville, TN-Have "poll taxes" - a Jim Crow practice designed to keep
African-Americans and poor people out of the voting booth - returned to
Tennessee?

In 2006, the Tennessee legislature passed reforms to allow convicted
felons
to regain voting rights after serving their time. Amendments were attached
specifying that voting rights could not be regained unless all criminal
restitution payments and child support were current. Approximately 48% of
Tennessee male prisoners are African American, and the vast majority of
those of all races who are behind on child support are indigent. So the
bottom line is, Tennessee has come up with yet another way to keep large
numbers of African Americans and poor people from voting

The American Civil Liberties Union - initially a supporter of the reform
effort - sued Tennessee state and county officials in February to
eliminate
the provisions about child support and restitution. It represents three
men
who have served their time but cannot regain the right to vote because of
the amendments.

Said Plaintiff Terence Johnson, "I've served my time, I am a taxpaying
citizen and I have custody of my daughter. It is wrong for the state to
punish me and other people while we get our lives back on track." Read
more
about here.

Tennessee Child Support Guidelines do not specifically address
incarcerated
obligors. Thus by default they are treated similarly to most other states,
i.e., imprisonment is considered "voluntary unemployment."

Let's consider a hypothetical father who paid $6,000 annually in support
prior to his three year incarceration for a property crime. Assuming that
he
has the knowledge or legal assistance to get a child support modification
hearing while incarcerated, his best case scenario would be a reduction to
the state minimum Basic Support Order of $100 per month. He would still
leave prison owing $3,600 in back support and would be unable to vote. If
he
did not know to seek a child support modification while in prison, he
would
come out owing at least $18,000. This could mean many years without the
right to vote.

ACLU of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said, " The ability to
vote should not be based on one's financial status."

And ACLU Voting Rights Project attorney Nancy Abudu told the Memphis
Flyer,
"You can't ignore the racial implications." Read the full article here.

The ACLU charges the law violates the 14th amendment equal protection
clause, 24th amendment voting rights provisions, and due process
protections
in the federal and state constitutions.

The case is not expected to be heard until later this summer, at earliest.
As Tennessee is the only state with a child support restriction on
ex-offender voting rights, the outcome will have implications for other
states tempted to enact similar restrictions.

The ACLU is full of you know what! If they represented non-discrimination,
as they claim they do, then they would be defending fathers who get sued for
"child support". But they don't. And you know WHY they don't? Because
they're hipocrites! That's why.