Maybe, the unintended consequences tho would be republicans trumping up low-level drug offenses and other charges against minorities and the poor to keep them from holding office
Maybe, the unintended consequences tho would be republicans trumping up low-level drug offenses and other charges against minorities and the poor to keep them from holding office
Ok that’s a fair concern. How about people convicted of sex crimes (or murder-those types of crimes) should not be allowed to run for public office. Especially convicted felons.
I could get behind that with some sort of due process to ensure it is appropriately applied. Like I could see some guy who peed in the alleyway behind a bar get cited as a sex crime
Of course they would have due process (everyone should have due process) and there should be a vetting system. A one time peeing in an alley should not disqualify a person however if it’s a constant thing that would be a different story.
Yeah, as a gay man who remembers when sodomy was illegal in my state, I'm not a big fan of this one.
Good point. I didn’t think of that. But do you agree that our officials should be held to a higher standard?
I think we all agree on that point. Finding a process that wouldn't be corrupted, however, is difficult, and I'm not sure this legal test would benefit us or unintentionally cause more harm
That's a really good point
Poor people can run if they can raise money. Not good odds
We're talking about the system disproportionately and corruptly charging the poor or the marginalized with fake crimes to keep them from running for office
I’m talking about holding our public officials to a higher standard. If not a law then a better vetting process in the political parties.
Which already happens.
Sure, that's why I'm worried it would be used to keep ppl from running for office