close
close
Letters: A felon may not vote

Letters: A felon may not vote

3 minutes, 4 seconds Read

No vote, but a felon could run for president

Does other readers also notice the irony?

“Flah. “The Supreme Court may hear a felon’s case,” an Oct. 26 article in the Herald-Tribune quotes the case of a man who voted “illegally” in 2022 because he committed a sexual offense 35 years ago.

The constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 2018 allows felons to vote but leaves out sex offenders and murderers.

This one man's case has gone back and forth in court, costing Gov. Ron DeSantis and his henchmen at least tens of thousands of dollars to “target alleged election fraud by convicted felons.”

Yet a man convicted of sexual abuse and convicted of 34 felonies is allowed to run for president (“Jury finds Donald Trump liable in civil sex abuse case against E. Jean Carroll,” May 9, 2023)?

It's a shame Florida law-and-order lawmakers didn't commit to supporting a federal law that would ban sex offenders from running for president. If they had, we would not be in our current national situation.

Vote for the only sane person on the ballot.

Joyce Edleman, Venice

Learning from the past: Don't exclude immigrants

We've heard a lot about immigration in this political campaign.

Former President Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal immigrants, approximately 11 million people, who work and live in this country. We are not given any further information about the feasibility and consequences of such a drastic policy.

Let's take a quick look at history and talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act. Passed in 1882, it suspended immigration of Chinese labor (skilled and unskilled), with devastating consequences.

There was a labor shortage, the Chinese community became isolated, and discrimination against Asians increased. Not the most glorifying chapter of our history.

The exclusion law was only repealed in 1943. But it could be revived to end all Latino immigration or, as Donald Trump once so elegantly put it, immigration from “s——-” countries.

The rhetoric is always the same:

“They” are taking our jobs.

“You” are not to be trusted.

“Our white civilization is in danger.”

We should not again fall into the trap of exclusion towards people who just need to live. We should admit our past mistakes and not listen to the ugly chants of white nationalism again.

Christine German, Sarasota

Regulations mean quality and safety

In a guest column on October 29, Peter Dyga – the CEO of the Florida East Coast Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors – expressed his desire for a president who would dramatically reduce government regulation (“Trump's focus on cutting red tape would help businesses”).

I understand his point of view: less regulation means higher profits. However, as a consumer, I am interested in safe and high quality products, even if the short-term costs are higher.

There are many examples that affect the entire spectrum of our lives – from building codes to medical effectiveness, food and water quality to vehicle safety. I have seen many cases where inadequate regulation has had disastrous consequences.

When Florida implemented stricter building codes, i.e. more regulation, in the early 2000s, the survivability of homes, including mobile homes, during hurricanes improved significantly. Builders didn't like these new regulations because they increased construction costs.

My house was built in 1999. A major national insurance company wouldn't insure my home because it wasn't built to new, stricter standards.

While some contractors put quality first, I know from personal experience that not all are competent. Regulation helps compensate for incompetence.

In January 2001, the Herald-Tribune published a full-page article about the lessons I learned about quality problems among home builders. Adequate regulations mean accountability, quality and safety.

Joe Harb, Lakewood Ranch

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

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