Whether one sides with Republicans or supports the Democrat-sponsored bill that would allow felons to vote, the reality is data shows nearly 200 of them voted in the 2008 presidential election.

We feel the main concern, however, is not whether criminals should be able to vote, but how to prevent them from doing so in the future.

The argument of whether or not to allow felons to votes could go both ways. On one hand, many of them return to society and hold jobs, pay taxes and are once again contributing members of society. On the other hand . well, they broke the law in a big way and should have known beforehand that consequences would follow.

However, until legislatures settle that debate, we don’t feel the state should waste time and money to track down and prosecute the felons who did vote in 2008.

Rather, stricter checks and registration policies should be used in the future to prevent these types of voting issues.

For the past year, all we have heard about is the sad state of the budget.

Spending the thousands of dollars it would cost to prosecute those felons for voting is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars. Not to mention, if felons are found guilty of voting before serving their sentences, they could face another 42 months in jail. Add the cost of housing those felons in our already crowded jails to the cost of trials, and you get a pretty substantial amount that could be used much more wisely in a recession.

Though it was only 195 votes in a state that was easily decided, it is sad that even 195 people who were not supposed to vote slipped through the cracks. What would have happened had Florida found out in late 2000 that 195 people illegally voted? Then it would have made a difference.

More than the question of whether or not felons should vote, the state’s data begs the question of just how much voter fraud actually happens in each election