“The right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people.” – Senator Bernie Sanders
The U.S. Constitution set up the United States to be a representative democracy, meaning that our government is determined and elected by the people. This is what makes our right to vote, as citizens, so essential. This is why marginalized groups have fought so hard throughout history to pass policies like The Voting Rights Act of 1965—which forbade states from placing further restrictions on voting to exclude Black people—and the 26th amendment, which gave 18-year-olds the right to vote because they were “old enough to fight.” Time and time again, groups have pushed for this fundamental right because it serves as the foundation of our democracy—the birth and structure of our entire government is centered around the common person’s right to vote. This is what gives us, the people, a voice.
Disenfranchisement is defined by Merriam-Webster as the deprivation of a “franchise, of a legal right… especially: to deprive of the right to vote.” Even today, there are state restrictions across the country set to exclude certain groups of people from our democracy. As of 2020, over 5 million Americans were forbidden from voting due to felony disenfranchisement— the suspension of the right to vote due to a criminal offense making one a convincted felon. With such a large amount of people being directly impacted by these restrictions, it’s now essential that we realize how felony disenfranchisement doesn’t only affect our community members, but also how it affects our country as a whole.
Felony disenfranchisement derives from racist roots, with the intent of silencing the voices of people of color—especially Black people—in our country. Today, these restrictions still disproportionately affect Black people at outrageous rates. Furthermore, these restrictions allow for a potential impact on both federal and, more prominently, state election results. Lastly, felony disenfranchisement obstructs felons from reintegrating into society—starkly going against imprisonment’s purpose of rehabilitation. Overall, felony disenfranchisement serves as a threat to our democracy, while also directly hurting communities and individuals nationwide.
As stated earlier, felony disenfranchisement prevents over 5 million Americans from voting annually. In fact, in 2016, 6.1 million people nationwide were prohibited from voting (Chung). There are less than 6.1 million people currently living in Maryland, and just over half as many living in Connecticut (U.S. Census Bureau). However, the number of affected people fluctuates between each election, because felony disenfranchisement laws vary by state. This further creates a lack of consistency regarding felons’ right to vote federally. In fact, while some states have no set restrictions on felons, others don’t grant the right to vote to a felon even post-sentence.
Maine and Vermont are the only two states where felons always retain their right to vote, even while in prison (Brennan Center). In 18 states, including New York as of 2018 and California, a felon’s right to vote is automatically restored upon release from prison (ibid.). In 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo restored this right to New Yorkers on state parole—as they were previously forbidden until post-sentence—granting over 24,000 people this right (Potyondy). In most states, 19 including Texas and Georgia, felons are forbidden from voting during incarceration and for a period of time after—typically including parole or probation (ibid.). After that, a felon’s right to vote is automatically restored.
However, there are 11 states that hold the most extreme voting laws—where some felons never regain their right to vote with the exception of certain offenses, or if the government individually approves restoration. Even though these extreme restrictions are only held in 11 states, including Alabama, Virginia, and Florida, disenfranchised felons in these states “make up over 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population,” Chung asserts in “Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer.” This means that a majority of disenfranchised felons—over 3 million people—will never be able to regain their right to vote, simply because of the policies of the state they committed a felony in. Furthermore, Chung claims that 77% of disenfranchised felons currently live in their communities, whether under probation, parole supervision, or living post-sentence. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, this percentage of disenfranchised felons accounts for “nearly 4.7 million people… [all of whom are] working, paying taxes, and raising families.”
Although the subjects of prison reform and prisoner rights have gained traction with progressive social movements of the more recent decades, disenfranchised felons as a percentage of the voting age population have more than doubled between 1974 and 2000, according to Uggen and Manza, co-authors of “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States” (782). Uggen and Manza emphasize that this substantial increase in the disenfranchised population can be attributed to the relationship between the increasing number of convictions and the increasing number of state policies setting further restrictions on felons. Working together, these two factors have formed a disenfranchised population that’s reached new maximums in the last decade.
Although state laws regarding felons’ rights continue to be modified today, felony disenfranchisement has had a long and troublesome history in the U.S. It roots back to a colonial practice called “civil death,” according to which “those who commit[ed] a serious crime against society forfeit their civic personhood, including their right to vote” as well as other penalties (Rivers). Following the Civil War, many states began expanding felony disenfranchisement laws. By this time, states had already started “incarcerating African Americans at a higher rate than whites” (Kelley). This served as the optimum time period for white government officials to utilize the prison complex and relevant policies to silence Black people and keep them away from society. In fact, American political scientist Ward Elliot explained that “the elimination of the property test as a voting qualification may help to explain the popularity of felony disenfranchisement… [another means for] wealthy elites to constrict the political power of the lower classes” (Chung). Ward’s explanation reminds us that felony disenfranchisement roots from racism, and was created with the intent of furthering racism— it was created as another legal means to silence the lower class, which typically consisted of people of color, and especially Black people.
In the following years, disenfranchisement laws in certain states were specifically tailored to target Black male voters and exclude them from the fundamental right to vote. For example, in Alabama, disenfranchisement was one of the punishments for “wife-beaters,” because they allegedly made up around 60% of the Black felon population at the time, according to their local government (Chung). However, crimes like murder and robbery—which white people were more frequently convicted for—did not qualify for disenfranchisement. The landmark Supreme Court case Hunter v. Underwood (1985) proved that voting rights laws in Alabama were created as a form of systemic, or institutionalized, racism. In this case, it was ruled that Alabama’s criminal disenfranchisement laws violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which asserts that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege…of citizens of the United States (Constitution of the United States).” The 1901 Alabama Constitution expanded disenfranchisement to felonies and misdemeanors “involving moral turpitude,” but it was found that these crimes “involving moral turpitude” only included ones that more Black people had been convicted for at the time, like adultery (Nelson). The Supreme Court ruled that this constitutional change was specifically meant to further racism by targeting Black voters (ibid.). Furthermore, in 1860, New York was the only remaining state that required property ownership for Black voters—but this rule was exclusive to Black voters (Kelley). In 1874, this property law was finally “struck down… but in the same stroke quietly amended New York’s constitution to impose felony disenfranchisement” (ibid.).
There was even a visible link present nationwide—between the population of eligible African American voters by state, and that state’s corresponding policies on felony disenfranchisement. Authors Uggen and Manza found that “when African Americans made up a larger proportion of a state’s prison population, that state [was] significantly more likely to adopt or extend felon disenfranchisement (67).” The reverse also stood true— states with a smaller proportion of Black prisoners were more likely to abolish disenfranchisement laws (Kelley). Felony disenfranchisement, across the states, had a clear purpose of putting down this newfound “threat” African American voters posed to the government’s existing racial hierarchies.
A system built on racist values, no matter how many provisions are made, will always unjustly target those marginalized groups. Today, this still stands true. According to author Christina Rivers in “A Brief History of Felon Disenfranchisement and Prison Gerrymanders,” close to 8% of the entire African American population is disenfranchised in the U.S., as compared to a mere 2% of the overall population. This accounts for the outrageous rates of one out of every 13 Black adults being disenfranchised nationally—and Black Americans of voting age being “more than four times as likely to lose their voting rights,” as compared to the rest of the adult population (Chung).
Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia make up four out of the eleven most severe states in regards to felony disenfranchisement laws. It’s no coincidence that in these states, over one in five Black voters were disenfranchised in 2016 (Chung). Furthermore, as stated earlier, Alabama was legally proven to have racist intents behind their past felony disenfranchisement laws—and today it is one of the eleven states with the most restrictive laws. Felony disenfranchisement was birthed to further systemic racism, and it still fulfills that task today.
Aside from disproportionately impacting Black people, felony disenfranchisement has also been known to potentially alter election results throughout history. In fact, a study revealed that the results of least seven recent U.S. Senate elections, and one presidential election, were tainted by felony disenfranchisement (Uggen and Manza pp. 794). Furthermore, it was the infamous 2000 election between President Bush and Al Gore that was found to have been impacted by the great number of disenfranchised felons. It was found that the results would have been reversed if even just ex-felons were granted the right to vote—meaning felons who already completed their sentence, potentially including parole and/or probation. What’s more surprising is that even if “disenfranchised voters in Florida alone had been permitted to vote” during the 2000 election, the results would have been reversed, ending in a victory for the Democratic Party (Chung).
Lastly, one of the most unfavorable aspects of felony disenfranchisement is the way it obstructs felons from reintegrating into society after serving time in prison. Over the years, it’s been widely agreed that the four theories, or attributes, of punishment are deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation. The American prison system efficiently targets the first three goals, by serving as a punishment that keeps criminals “locked away” from society, and by creating a reality that most people would not want to relive. However, the American prison complex disregards the rehabilitative aspect of punishment, and disenfranchisement only adds to this exclusion.
Prohibiting felons from voting makes it much more challenging for them to transition back into community life and society. It stands as a constant reminder of the difference between ex-felons and their respective community—further isolating them from the entire population around them. Furthermore, civic participation has been proven to decrease the likelihood of recidivism—the “tendency to relapse into a… mode of behavior; especially: [for convicted criminals to] relapse into criminal behavior” according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. A study done by Christopher Uggen in 1996 showed that within a group of previously arrested individuals, 27% of non-voters were later rearrested, while 12% of voters were rearrested (Chung). Although this relationship may not be a direct cause and effect, the enfranchisement of felons is more likely to aid with their transition into society, as well as further deter them from committing future crimes.
Ex-felons have spoken about how disenfranchisement impacts their lives to several sources, including The Washington Post and CBS Minnesota. Perry Hopkins, an ex-felon, presently spends his time as a community organizer targeting social justice issues in Maryland. He told The Washington Post that he doesn’t feel like a normal citizen, or a part of his community. He emphasized that, “There is enough discrimination against us, and feeling alienated leads to recidivism. I served my sentence. I paid my debt to society.” Hopkins isn’t the only ex-convict who feels that disenfranchisement is unfair. Jason Sole argues that he should have the right to vote, as he only spent one year in prison, but is under 20 years of probation—which is currently preventing him from enfranchisement. He told CBS Minnesota, “I am a criminal justice educator, a Ph.D. candidate, an author, a national trainer and speaker, and most importantly, I am a taxpayer.” The majority of these ex-felons are living in their communities, attempting to live a normal life again. State policies should not stand in the way of these people’s attempts, especially considering punishment is meant to deter criminals from reoffending. Even for those people who do reoffend again and again after their first conviction, their enfranchisement could potentially deepen their connection to society, and eventually help them through deterrence, or through a smoother reintegration into community life.
There is currently no democracy in the world, aside from the U.S., that disenfranchises ex-felons who have completed their sentence. While some countries like Finland and New Zealand temporarily prohibit felons from voting after the completion of their sentence in the situation that they were charged with corruptly buying or selling votes, America has the most restrictive disenfranchisement laws (Fellner and Mauer). While American history teaches the public that the U.S. was built with the purpose of democracy, these statistics assert that, in regards to criminals and their right to vote, America is far behind fellow democratic nations.
However, it can’t be ignored that several states have recently made provisions to felon voting right laws, in order to expand their rights. For example, Washington D.C., although not a state, joined Maine and Vermont in allowing felons to vote while incarcerated in 2020 (Potyondy). That same year, California granted voting rights to felons on parole, following Governor Cuomo’s 2018 action in New York. Similarly, states like New Jersey and Iowa enforced orders partially expanding the enfranchisement of ex-felons, although Iowa excluded felons convicted of certain crimes like homicide and sexual abuse (ibid.).
Despite these attempts, there is more to be done. The Democracy Restoration Act has been reintroduced into the Senate time and time again. It is a federal legislative act seeking to restore the right to vote in federal elections to those convicts who have been released from prison, and are currently living in their community (Nelson). It was first introduced into Congress in 2008, and yet it still has not been passed. Furthermore, our congress has the constitutional authority to federally restore voting rights to people with criminal histories. The Election Clause from Section 4, Article 1 of the Constitution has been extended with changing times, to include Congress’ authority to regulate federal elections, voting requirements, and voter eligibility (Brennan Center). It’s been done before in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), which concluded that Congress had the ability to lower the voting age for federal elections. With changing times, congressional powers can, and should, be tailored to federally grant the right to vote to felons, for the sake of our democracy.
Although the topic of felony disenfranchisement does not directly pertain to every citizen of the U.S., I’ve witnessed how it can impact the lives of nonviolent, hardworking individuals. My uncle was arrested two years ago, with several counts of bribery. Although he’s a resident of New Jersey, he was tried in New York City. Because he’s still under probation, he did not have the chance to vote in the essential 2020 election. Similarly, my dad was originally charged with several felonies back in 2018. Although they’ve now been changed to misdemeanors, I remember him telling me the irony of potential disenfranchisement in his case, given that he spent hours daily talking politics with his family and friends. My uncle’s disenfranchisement serves as an (at least) annual reminder that his complete reintegration into society still cannot be fulfilled today. Even though I’m not directly impacted by this, it impacts my community, the people I admire, and the people I love. It strips the American people of their voice, and it hurts our power and solidarity as a common group in response to the government.
When considering the topic of felony disenfranchisement, it’s essential to acknowledge all the other flaws that accompany our criminal justice system, like systemic racism, and how this disproportionately excludes Black people from the basic function of our democracy. Furthermore, it isolates ex-felons from their community, and potentially alters the result of both state and federal elections. While we aren’t each directly impacted by these laws, a threat to democracy for some, threatens America’s democracy in its entirety.
Works Cited
Ember, Sydney, and Matt Stevens. “Bernie Sanders Opens Space for Debate on Voting Rights for Incarcerated People.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Apr. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-prison-voting.html?searchResultPosition=1 .
Potyondy, Patrick. Felon Voting Rights, NCSL, Jan. 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx .
Uggen, Christopher, and Jeff Manza. “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” American Sociological Review, vol. 67, no. 6, 2002, pp. 777–803. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3088970 . Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.
Brennan Center. “Criminal Disenfranchisement Laws Across the United States.” Brennan Center for Justice, Dec. 2020, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/criminal-disenfranchisement-laws-across-united-states.
Chung, Jean. “Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer.” Sentencing Project, The Sentencing Project, Dec. 2019, sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Felony-Disenfranchisement-Primer.pdf#page=2 .
Rivers, Christina. “A Brief History of Felon Disenfranchisement and Prison Gerrymanders.” The American Historian, Organization of American Historians, www.oah.org/tah/issues/2017/november/a-brief-history-of-felon-disenfranchisement-and-prison-gerrymanders/ .
Kelley, Erin. “Racism & Felony Disenfranchisement: An Intertwined History.” Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 2020, www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Disenfranchisement_History.pdf .
Kifer, Misty, et al. “The Goals of Corrections: Perspectives from the Line.” Criminal Justice Review, SAGE Journals, 2003, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/073401680302800104#:~:text=Four%20different%20goals%20of%20corrections,and%20professional%20support%20over%20time .
Ridder, Karen. “6 Quotes by Ex-Offenders on Restoring Voting Rights to Felons.” Newsmax, Newsmax Media, Inc., 15 Apr. 2015, www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/felons-voting-rights-ex-offenders-quotes/2015/04/15/id/638704/ .
Nelson, Janai. “Felon Disenfranchisement Is Anti-Democratic.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2016, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/22/should-felons-ever-be-allowed-to-vote/felon-disenfranchisement-is-anti-democratic .
Fellner, Jamie, and Marc Mauer. “VI. DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES.” Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, Human Rights Watch; The Sentencing Project, www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o-04.htm .
“Legal Analysis of Congress's Constitutional Authority to Restore Voting Rights.” Brennan Center for Justice, 2009, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/legal-analysis-congress-constitutional-authority-restore-voting-rights
“State Population by Rank.” Infoplease, U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank.
“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription.” National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.
Manza, Jeff, and Christopher Uggen. “Locked Out- Felony Disenfranchisement and American Democracy.” pp. 41-68. New York Public Library, Oxford University Press, 2006, www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/manza_uggen_-_chapter_2.pdf.
Comments