... for we now have the Maryland version proselytizing about the poor disenfranchised felon, and endeavoring to reinstate his right to vote Donkey.

Aside from the incredible acuity Democrats exhibit by accurately identifying a large cadre of their potential electoral base, they sound simultaneously politically ridiculous, racist and hypocritical.

Behold.

"This law seriously disenfranchises a large number of African-Americans," said Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat who is gathering sponsors for a voting-rights restoration bill she plans to submit.

"Their disenfranchisement impacts the power of African-Americans in this state."

This pseudo-assessment begs several questions.

Republicans could campaign as the pro-military, anti-felon vote Party, and leave the counter supposition to the opposition.

Does not Mrs. Marriott realize that the average American voter, whether a Terrapin or not, finds it more than a bit disconcerting that someone prematurely paroled or furloughed by our overly lenient justice system, after convictions for the likes of rape and murder, has an entire political Party fighting for his vote the minute he rehits the mean street?

Is it true, as she implies, that only Blacks are convicted of felonies in the Old Line State?

Or is she only interested in restoring the vote to those felons of melanin?

In actuality,

... an estimated 150,000 felons would be able to cast ballots in Maryland. About 85,000 of them are black and likely Democrats, according to Justice Maryland, a penal reform group that supports felon voting rights.

The Land of the Free, And the Vote for the Felon

One would hope that any politician, black or not, would be a little more predicated towards addressing the woeful fact that blacks make up 13% of the Maryland general population, but consist of 57% of its felonious prison contingency.

These numbers are far too egregiously large to be merely attributable to a "racist system", as the Mrs. Marriots of the world would have it.

One would think that someone so myopically focused on skin color as is she would attempt to do something about the myriad bad life decisions made that have landed so many Maryland blacks behind bars, rather than instead worrying about their ballot ability after doing (a small fraction of) their time.

But that would require a Donkey call for the personal responsibility necessary to end the cradle to cell to grave life cycle (with ample interspersed welfare disbursement), which is anathema to the Party platform, especially when it comes to the "aggrieved" minorities who must be kept down so that Democrat elective prospects may continue to be propped up.

There are, in fact, only a few states that do not allow felons to vote.

Maryland is one of 11 states that disenfranchise some felons for life. The others are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming. Three states -- Florida, Kentucky and Virginia -- deny the vote to all felons for life.

We have to wonder why this disenfranchisement is not a more widely practiced practice.

It would be interesting to see Republicans in states with ballot-ready felons propose legislation to rescind their vote. Again, which side of that argument do you want to be making to Average Joe Voter, even more so to Average Jolene Voter?

Should Elephants wish to eradicate any Media fixation on the "gender gap" this next electoral go-round, they should campaign promise to Soccer Moms everywhere that they will work to ensure that child rapists and murderers will not be able to stand in adjacent booths and cancel out their non-felon votes in future elections.

First the Parole Board, Then the Polls

Democrats as in Maryland come across as the UnLaw and DisOrder candidates when pitching to reallow the Menendez Brothers' of the world to cast their ballots upon release, while Republicans arguing to remove felons from the voter rolls rebolsters their presentation as the Party that actually cares about protecting Average Jolene and Joe Voter, both from felons directly and the horrendous candidates they would most likely choose.

(And someone should ask these pro-malefactor suffrage Donkeys whether other pre-felony rights, such as the one to keep and bear arms, should also be reinstated. They have, after all, paid their debt to society, have they not? Why limit this societal reimmersion to just the polling booths?

Of course, these Burros do not like even lifelong law abiders to carry, so the dichotomy of this question, and the resulting squeamishness in the queried, will be more than worth the asking. Their quixotic enamor of the guilty, and their addled disdain for the innocent and the very concept of firearms, will leave them tied in a merit badge's worth of knots.)

This pitch to reenfranchise the most felonious amongst us is being made by the same gaggle of Donkeys who fought so vociferously in the 2000 Bush v. Gore overtime thriller to disqualify and disallow as many overseas military ballots as was necessary to steal victory from the jaws of defeat.

Which certainly plays less than well for the Convene du Burro. Republicans could campaign as the pro-military, anti-felon vote Party, and leave the counter supposition to the opposition.

And we think we know how Average Jolene and Joe Voter would behave in the hopefully felon-free ballot booth faced with such a selection as this.