
Alabama blocked a man from voting because he owed $4 - smacktoward
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/27/alabama-voting-rights-alfonzo-tucker
======
Noumenon72
He owed $5,670.57, but most of it was the kind of debt that isn't supposed to
prevent you from voting. Could be a screwup, could be a subtle screw-you to
poor people. In the first case the racial bias here is that black people don't
always have the clout to get this kind of technical screw-up changed. Good for
him for going to the media to fix it.

Or maybe the policy was read that way purposely without regard for the
poor/undeserving. I don't want to be too trusting.

------
mamon
It doesn't really matter how much he owed, and for what reason. Believe it or
not, my country has a poll stations even in prisons and psychiatric hospitals,
because every citizen has a right to vote.

EDIT: no, not babies. Every citizen over 18 years old. Point is: no one can be
stripped of this right.

~~~
typescriptfan1
Even babies? (To illustrate the extreme end of the spectrum.)

~~~
randyrand
Not sure why he's downvoted. It's reasonable to question whether 18 years old
is the correct voting restriction.

~~~
grawprog
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age)

The lowest voting age globally is 16, a quick search found this. Asking if
babies can vote is being facetious.

------
jsjddbbwj
Racially biased system? Was he fined $4 for being black?

~~~
tstrimple
The criminal justice system in this country is racially biased. Any fines
which prevent voting rights based off of a racially biased system will also
reflect that racial bias.

------
masonic
Ckickbait title. He wasn't disenfranchised because he "owed $4" (or any given
amount); he was disenfranchised _because he is a felon_ who had not made
restitution.

His state, to its credit, _provides a path to reenfranchisement_ simply by
repaying his victims; he just hadn't completed that process.

------
lowdose
4 dollar democracy. It is all a show to get people to pay their taxes. I have
noticed a pattern in all the versions of the human experiment. The man says
give me your money because than I will do X. After some time X is not relevant
or mentioned by the man himself and because the man now has a gigantic
cashflow he also has the means to defend what he think is his share of
everything.

