Why can a convict run for senate, but not vote?

Because the 14th amendment allows states to deny citizens the right to vote as punishment for committing crimes. No such amendment allows states the ability to deny citizens the right to hold office.

Changing the constitution to have such an amendment would be ludicrously difficult, and most would say, a waste of time, money, and effort.

It is surreal, though, isn’t it?

@MrItty: Thanks. Why would most people call it a waste? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

It assumes that the voters will sanction criminals.

Amending the constitution requires a very large percentage of votes, in multiple platforms. First it has to be passed by 2/3 majority of the Senate, and 2/3 majority of the House. Then it has to be voted for by 3/4 of all 50 states in their state legislatures. Getting that many representatives to agree with each other is never an easy task. Look how hard it is to get just one body, like the Senate, to agree on any one issue.

It is a waste because “Why bother?” How many criminals, if they run for office, are likely to actually be elected? Yes, there may be the odd man out, like the current issue with Stevens. But why spend so much time, energy, and money trying to make illegal something that is not very likely to happen in the first place?

also, if someone with a known criminal record gets elected, you have to assume that people voted for that person despite knowing their past, and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to hold office.

Convicts can get their voting rights back in some states (Michigan is one, don’t know about Alaska) by being good citizens for a long enough time and then petitioning the state. I know a guy who spent several years in prison for manslaughter, who can vote because of this.

It’s all about where you live.