Felon Voting
While felony crimes differ from U.S. state to state, they can include the serious, often violent acts of arson, assault, battery, burglary, child endangerment, domestic assault, drug dealing, fraud, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, rape, robbery, and stalking. In the United States, as Encyclopaedia Britannica explains, a felony is typically “punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or more. Misdemeanors are often defined as offenses punishable only by fines or by short terms of imprisonment in local jails.” Furthermore, for a felony conviction, “the offender may lose some civil rights. These vary from state to state, but they usually include the right to own or possess firearms, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.” [1][2][3]
American felony disenfranchisement—meaning laws that ban people with felony convictions from voting—date back to the British colonies in America, which in turn date to Ancient Athens, Ancient Rome, and Medieval Europe. “Criminal disenfranchisement has its roots in the punishment of ‘civil death,’ imposed for criminal offences under Greek, Roman, Germanic and later Anglo-Saxon law,” explains professor of law Debra Parkes. “English law developed the related punishment of attainder which resulted in forfeiture of all property, inability to inherit or devise property, and loss of all civil rights. These principles were transplanted to the British colonies which later became Canada and the United States.” [4]
When the U.S. was established as an independent country in 1776, the U.S. Constitution gave the states control of suffrage (voting rights). Individual states then began codifying disenfranchisement laws in their constitutions. For example, Kentucky’s first constitution (1792) provided the right to vote to all free male citizens, de facto disenfranchising all others including women and enslaved people. Upon revision in 1799, the constitution specifically disenfranchised free “negroes, mulattoes, and Indians.” The 1850 revision stipulated that only free white male citizens could vote. Then, in the 1891 revision of the Kentucky constitution, people with felony convictions were disenfranchised. Kentucky remains a state in which felony disenfranchisement may be permanent at the discretion of the state government. [5][6]
“It wasn’t until the end of the [American]Civil War and the expansion of suffrage to Black men that felony disenfranchisement became a significant barrier to U.S. ballot boxes. At that point, two interconnected trends combined to make disenfranchisement a major obstacle for newly enfranchised Black voters. First, lawmakers — especially in the South — implemented a slew of criminal laws designed to target Black citizens. And nearly simultaneously, many states enacted broad disenfranchisement laws that revoked voting rights from anyone convicted of any felony. These two trends laid the foundation for the form of mass disenfranchisement seen in this country today,” explains lawyer Erin Kelley. [5]
While most of these early felony disenfranchisement laws were broad, the trend quickly moved toward disenfranchising citizens for only certain felonies, specifically those believed by lawmakers to be mostly committed by Black men. For example, Mississippi disenfranchised those convicted of “bigamy, forgery, burglary, arson, and perjury” in 1890. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the law in 1896, while noting the racial discrepancy: “Restrained by the federal constitution from discriminating against the negro race, the convention discriminated against its characteristics and the offenses to which its weaker member were prone….Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications [from voting], while robbery and murders, and other crimes in which violence was the principal ingredient, were not.” [5][7]
Forty-two states had adopted felony disenfranchisement laws by 1912; another six would adopt laws later in the 20th century. [7]
The U.S. Supreme Court first weighed in on felony disenfranchisement in 1974. Per the case summary, “three individual respondents, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences and paroles, were refused registration to vote in three different California counties respectively because of their felony convictions, they brought a class petition, on behalf of themselves and all other ex-felons similarly situated.” The disenfranchisement was challenged as a violation of the California Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individuals, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows disenfranchisement “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” [7][8][9]
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court once again tackled felony disenfranchisement laws in Hunter v. Underwood, this time considering Alabama’s law that stripped the right to vote from people who committed a “crime involving moral turpitude.” In this case, the Supreme Court ruled the law had both discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact, thus overturning the law. [7][10]
The Supreme Court ruling marked a turning point in felony disenfranchisement laws. Despite the “tough on crime” trends of the 1990s, 25 states and Washington, D.C., “expanded eligibility [for voting], streamlined the restoration process [i.e., the process by which to regain the right to vote] or improved voter education” for people convicted of felonies between 1997 and 2017. [7]
As a result, as of Apr. 2023, the felony disenfranchisement landscape looks much different than a century ago. Only nine U.S. states have laws that allow the state to disenfranchise people with felony convictions permanently (though the state may also choose to allow those with felony convictions to vote), while 15 states allow re-enfranchisement after prison, parole, and probation are complete. One state allows re-enfranchisement after prison and parole are complete. And 23 states re-enfranchise people with felony convictions after completion of their prison terms. Two states and Washington, D.C., even allow voting from prison, meaning they do not disenfranchise based on conviction. [11]
Internationally, the United States is an outlier. The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch state that the organizations “know of no other democracy besides the United States in which convicted offenders who have served their sentences are nonetheless disenfranchised for life.” Only a few countries allow disenfranchisement after prison, but most of these laws are narrow, only allowing for a few years of disenfranchisement or denying the right to vote for election crimes (such as election rigging or fraud). [12]
On the other end of the spectrum, many countries allow and even encourage voting from prison, including: Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and Zimbabwe. [4]
Pros and Cons at a Glance
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: Contributing to the law-making process is an essential step in a felon’s reintegration into society. Read More. | Con 1: Because of their vicious crimes, disregard for the law, and frequent arrests, felons should lose their say in the law-making process. Read More. |
| Pro 2: Disenfranchisement is a denial of a right and often a form of racial discrimination. Read More. | Con 2: Disenfranchisement reinforces the principle that voting is a right with responsibilities. Read More. |
| Pro 3: It’s undemocratic to deny the vote to adults who pay taxes, regardless of their past. Read More. | Con 3: Far from being undemocratic, felony disenfranchisement is supported by the U.S. Constitution. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: Contributing to the law-making process is an essential step in a felon’s reintegration into society.
Some 85% of American voters believe that the criminal justice system “should focus on rehabilitating people to become productive law-abiding citizens,” according to an Aug. 2022 poll. [13]
“Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior,” explains Ethics Unwrapped. Some believe felons have irrevocably broken that contract, but the reality is that not everyone who breaks the social contract by committing crimes is disenfranchised. Consider criminals who enter plea deals instead of serving prison time, or those who commit misdemeanors. Further, the social contract depends upon restoration of benefits in order to help the person reenter the contract. [14]
Thus, disenfranchisement is not an appropriate method of ensuring someone becomes a good citizen again. As journalist Chandra Bozelko explains, “Voting is a right that belongs to all citizens, not just good or reformed ones. Denying citizens their rights isn’t an appropriate form of accountability because citizen status can’t be punished out of someone. [I]t’s not punishment. It’s power-stripping.” [15]
Further, regardless of whether the punishment is appropriate, the punishment does not work. Felony disenfranchisement has not lowered crime rates. Instead, the states with re-enfranchisement policies have lower crime rates and fewer felons per capita. [16]
Re-enfranchisement policies not only allow people convicted of felonies to vote, they have a positive ripple effect, allowing people to be involved in their communities while feeling valued. As explained by Colie Lavar Long, who voted for the first time from a D.C. prison, “I’ve been locked up 26 years on the fringes of existence. So when I actually … checked that box, and they actually said that he won—this person I voted for—it reaffirmed that I’m worthy to be back in society.” [17]
Studies have also shown connections between re-enfranchisement and the reduced likelihood of returning to prison (recidivism). “If recidivism is due in part to not being able to fully sustain one’s livelihood and fully integrate into the community by accessing key resources like housing and employment, then it would stand to reason that being barred from the vote would also be a barrier to full reintegration,” offers journalist Tamar Sarai. [17]
Pro 2: Disenfranchisement is a denial of a right and often a form of racial discrimination.
“You can’t look at the history of slavery and Jim Crow and the current fact of felony disenfranchisement without seeing it as a direct legacy of those original systems,” argues Amy Fettig, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project. “It was very deliberate, there’s no question. White people in power knew if you wanted to marginalize Black people and people of color and exclude them from political power, you can use the system to ‘legitimize’ reasons to take rights away…. [B]ut there’s no reason that laws can’t be used to target other groups. If we allow disenfranchisement to be used against one group of people, what’s going to stop people in power from targeting anyone else?” [18]
The “war on drugs, sentencing laws, and discretionary prosecution” have led to the mass incarceration of Black men in particular. In turn, studies have shown that the “greater the nonwhite prison population, the more likely a state will ban convicted felons from voting.” As a result, explains lawyer Giovanni Padilla, “whether it be for strictly political reasons, racial biases, or a mixture of both, felon disenfranchisement provisions have had the effect of keeping Black Americans in limited positions of power with limited ability to elect politicians of their choice and with little opportunity to be a part of the democracy that was promised to them.” [19]
About 4.6 million Americans (2% of the population) could not vote in 2022 due to felony disenfranchisement laws. However, more than 5% of the Black voting age population was disenfranchised nationally, compared to 1.5% of all other races. More than 10% of Black adults suffer disenfranchisement in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. [20]
Not only does felony disenfranchisement prevent more Black citizens from voting, it also affects the overall health of their communities. As a 2022 study concludes, “racialized felony disenfranchisement is associated with worse physical and mental health among Black Americans.” Thus, “enacting laws to dismantle racialized felony disenfranchisement would likely improve the health of Black people and make progress toward achieving health equity.” [21]
Pro 3: It’s undemocratic to deny the vote to adults who pay taxes, regardless of their past.
In response to the 1765 Stamp Act, American colonists famously argued that “taxation without representation” was tyranny. The act was the “first British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation of all colonial commercial and legal papers, newspapers, pamphlets, cards, almanacs, and dice.” [22][36]
John Adams believed “this tax to be unconstitutional. We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle of the constitution that no freeman should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy.” [22]
The resulting protests eventually coalesced into the American Revolution (1775-83). And, yet, as if ignoring this founding principle of the country, many with felony convictions who pay taxes are denied their representation because they are denied their right to vote.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, the government office tasked with collecting taxes, “Incarceration neither changes one’s obligation to pay taxes and tax debts nor prohibits the receipt of tax credits and deductions upon release.” [23]
Felony disenfranchisement policies also violate international law, according to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which recommends that the United States “should adopt appropriate measures to ensure that states restore voting rights to citizens who have fully served their sentences and those who have been released on parole.” [24]
A 2019 Brennan Center report “concludes that post-incarceration voting rights restoration builds a stronger democracy, advances civil rights, ends second-class citizenship, aids law enforcement, empowers family and communities, and assures fair and accurate voter rolls.” [25]
Pro Quotes
Tarra Simmons, Democratic Washington State Representative, who was formerly incarcerated for felony theft and drug crimes, stated:
“When you are told that you are not worthy of being a part of that collective decision making, it’s like another layer of stigma that you walk through the world with, and that internalized message that I am not worthy … that this community doesn’t want me here is what leads people to being isolated. In that isolation, people are more likely to relapse with their substance use disorder or commit a new crime because they’re not connected…
The years of time that people spend in prison is a sufficient deterrent, is a sufficient punishment. When we over punish people, when we saddle them with thousands of dollars of court fines and fees and we take away the right to vote and we tell them that they can’t get a job or a place to live — all of that is actually harming all of us because that’s creating more crime.”
—Quinn Scanlan, “Some States Work to Expand Voting Rights for People with Felony Convictions,” abcnews.go.com, Apr. 9, 2021
Amy Fettig, executive director of the Sentencing Project, stated:
“We also know that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor restoring voting rights to people who have either completed their sentences, or are living in the community while on probation or parole. Those voices and that commitment to democracy should be heard and reflected in our laws and policies at the local and national level…
We believe that the bedrock of any democracy is the right to vote. Laws that exclude people from voting have destabilized communities and families in America for decades by denying them a voice in determining their futures.”
—Kristen O’Toole, “The Sentencing Project Takes on Felony Disenfranchisement,” squarespace.com, Oct 30, 2020
Joel Castón, former advisory neighborhood commission 7F commissioner in Washington, DC, who was incarcerated at the time of his election, stated:
“Whenever we enfranchise the incarcerated population or someone who was once justice-involved, once that individual is fully enfranchised then they can obtain true citizenship…
If you have an incarcerated population who are functioning in the democratic process, my belief is that that same mindset will follow individuals once they transition back to society. We know the results we receive when we’re always doing the same thing. If we want something different, or get different results, we have to do something different. Enfranchisement of one of us proves that you can enfranchise all of us. Allowing one of us to have a seat proves that you can allow all of us to have a seat. We were once on the wrong side of things, now we’re on the right side of things. We were once a part of the problem, now we want to be a part of the solution.”
Joel Castón, “A Seat at the Table,” inquest.com, July 26, 2021
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: Because of their vicious crimes, disregard for the law, and frequent arrests, felons should lose their say in the law-making process.
“If you’re not willing to follow the law yourself, then you shouldn’t have a right in making the law for everyone else…. The common denominator is that we have certain objective minimum qualifications, in terms of responsibility and trustworthiness and commitment to our laws, that we require of people before they participate in the solemn enterprise of self-government,” explains Roger Clegg, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. [26]
News commentator Tucker Carlson wonders “why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives. If you’re a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why do we want people with that judgment picking our representatives?” [27]
Moreover, most convicted felons are rearrested for new crimes, affirming not a new commitment to civic responsibility but to greater criminality. As Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation points out, “a study of felons in 30 states revealed that two-thirds (67.8 percent) were arrested for a new crime within three years, and three-quarters (76.6 percent) were rearrested within five years. In fact, more than a third of all prisoners who were rearrested within five years of release were arrested within the first six months after release, with more than half arrested by the end of the first year. The high recidivism rate of felons provides strong support for states such as Nebraska that require a waiting period [before voting rights are restored] or states such as Alabama that require an individualized application process.” [28]
Why automatically re-enfranchise those who are likely to commit another crime, further harming our communities and forcing us to strip them of their voting rights yet again? Historic racism and discrimination are undeniable, but no amount of injustice in the past, going back to the Civil War period and Jim Crow era, negates the prudence of disenfranchisement and “waiting periods” today, in the 21st century. Our communities and our citizenry—indeed our democracy—deserve such prudence and caution, especially in light of rampant criminality.
Con 2: Disenfranchisement reinforces the principle that voting is a right with responsibilities.
People convicted of felonies should have to prove their commitment to following the law after prison before regaining the right to vote. “Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live,” according to Professor Celeste Friend. People convicted of felonies have broken this trust and contract with their communities and should be punished appropriately, losing their say in how our communities are governed until they have proven their ability to follow the law. Voting is a right they should have to earn back, not receive as a gift. [29][30]
Proving a renewed commitment to civility should include completing their prison sentences, parole, and probation, as well as paying financial restitution to the state and victims’ families. Some argue that requiring people convicted of felonies to pay fees, fines, and restitution constitutes a “poll tax,” but serving “all terms of a sentence means all terms….There are multiple avenues to restore rights, pay off debts, and seek financial forgiveness from one’s victims. Second chances and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive,” explains Fred Piccolo, lawyer and spokesperson for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Many felony crimes are vicious, violent acts. Asking the perpetrators of such atrocities to complete their sentences and take trackable steps toward re-enfranchisement is not only reasonable but prudent for the safety of our communities and democracy. [31][32]
“Every felony is a serious breach of the bonds that unite our society. Rather than obligate the government to initiate the restoration process, it is reasonable to require felons to ask to have their rights restored. Also, felons should demonstrate rehabilitation by living crime-free during a waiting period after the completion of their sentences,” asserts former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. [33]
Before regaining the right to vote, felons need first to take responsibility for their crimes and the impact of their crimes on society, their victims, and the families of their victims and then prove their trustworthiness and civic-mindedness over time. Only then should they earn consideration for re-enfranchisement.
Con 3: Far from being undemocratic, felony disenfranchisement is supported by the U.S. Constitution.
Denying felons the right to vote is a policy sanctioned by the founding documents of the country and upheld by courts ever since. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, prohibits the states from denying citizens “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” However, the amendment includes the caveat that the “right to vote” may be “abridged … for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” [8]
“Unlike any other voting qualification, felon disenfranchisement laws are explicitly endorsed by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment….They are presumptively constitutional. Only a narrow subset of them – those enacted with an invidious, racially discriminatory purpose – is unconstitutional,” explains Alex Kozinski, former U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. [34]
Additionally, felony disenfranchisement does not qualify as a “poll tax” that violates the 24th Amendment. “Requiring the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting is unconstitutional because it bears ‘‘no relation to voting qualifications.’ By contrast, both the federal and state constitutions recognize the State’s legitimate policy decision not to extend the right to vote to convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored,” notes former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna. [35]
He continues, “Felony convictions, unlike the applications of the poll tax, [are] linked to the individual choices and conscious behavior of the particular person. Felon disenfranchisement ‘does not deny any citizen [the] equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice.’ The cause of disenfranchisement is simply that the felon’s ‘conscious decision to commit a criminal act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment.’” [35]
Most felons were convicted because of choices they made to break the law, frequently in violent ways. The consequences of committing such crimes, which are almost as old as the country itself, are widely known and should have been considered by the criminal before engaging in the crime.
Con Quotes
Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, stated:
“If you’re not willing to follow the law yourself, then you shouldn’t have a right in making the law for everyone else… The common denominator is that we have certain objective minimum qualifications, in terms of responsibility and trustworthiness and commitment to our laws, that we require of people before they participate in the solemn enterprise of self-government.”
Daniel Gross “Why Shouldn’t Prisoners Be Voters?,” newyorker.com, Feb. 27, 2020
Mike Miller, district attorney for Lincoln and Cleveland counties in North Carolina, stated:
“While it is a right to vote, it is a privilege. I don’t think it’s unfair for society (for felons) to do what that court told them to do before their rights are restored.”
Associated Press, “Civil Rights Groups Sue North Carolina over Felon Voting Restrictions,” nbcnews.com, Dec. 27 2019
Hans A. von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, stated:
Hans A. von Spakovsky, “Ex-Cons Should Prove they Deserve the Right to Vote,” heritage.org, Mar. 15, 2013
State Voting Laws & Policies for People with Felony Convictions
Some states have laws on the books that contradict current state policy as enacted by the current governor. Here we have tried to list the current policy as it impacts those with felony convictions. States that have changed policies fairly recently have more information included below. Please note the last updated date on this page and consult your state government if you have any questions. [102]
May Lose Vote Permanently: 10 States
Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, & Wyoming
*Maryland and Missouri may permanently disenfranchise voters convicted of certain election crimes, but we’ve categorized the states according to the policy for the most people.
Alabama
Some people convicted of a felony may apply to have their vote restored immediately upon completion of their full sentence. Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement. [49]
Arizona
Automatic voting restoration upon completion of sentence and payment of all fines for first-time, single-felony offenders. Second-time felony offenders may apply for restoration with their county after completion of their sentence. [50]
Delaware
On Apr. 16, 2013 the Delaware Senate passed the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act in a 15-6 vote. The act amended the Delaware Constitution by removing the five year waiting period for most with felony convictions to regain the ability to vote. People convicted of a felony (with some exceptions) are now automatically eligible to vote after serving their full sentence including incarceration, parole, and probation.
Exceptions: People convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence, or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense remain permanently disqualified from voting.
Florida
On Nov. 6, 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 (64% in favor – 36% opposed), allowing people with prior felony convictions (other than murder and sex offenses) to automatically regain their ability to vote once they have served their terms of incarceration and completed all parole and probation. On June 28, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis signed bill SB 7066 that requires those convicted of felonies to pay all restitution, court fees, and fines before they can regain the right to vote.
The law has since undergone several rounds of court challenges. The US Supreme Court ruled on July 16, 2020, that the law requiring payment of fines prior to restoration of voting rights can be enforced by the state of Florida. On Sep. 11, 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Florida law requiring payment, stating, “Florida withholds the franchise from any felon, regardless of wealth, who has failed to complete any term of his criminal sentence—financial or otherwise.”
According to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition website (accessed Nov. 7, 2018), “If you were convicted of a felony in another state and had your civil rights restored before you became a Florida resident, you do not need to apply for RCR [restoration of civil rights] in Florida. [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]
Iowa
On Jan. 14, 2011, the Republican Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, issued executive order 70, rescinding a law allowing people convicted of a felony to automatically have their ability to vote restored after completing their sentences. The automatic voting restoration law had been instituted by former Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack’s signing of executive order 42 in 2005. People convicted of a felony in Iowa must now pay all outstanding monetary obligations to the court in addition to completing their sentence and period of parole or probation. People convicted of a felony may then apply for restoration of the ability to vote.
On Aug. 5, 2020, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed an executive order automatically restoring the vote to people convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences. People convicted of felony homicide will still have to apply for reenfranchisement. [66][67][68][69]
Kentucky
On Nov. 24, 2015, Kentucky Gov. Steven L. Beshear issued executive order 2015-871 to automatically restore the right to vote to people convicted of nonviolent felonies who have completed probation, parole, and who have no outstanding court-ordered restitution payments. On Dec. 22, 2015, newly elected Gov. Matthew G. Bevin issued executive order 2015-052, rescinding the previous Governor’s executive order. On Dec. 12, 2019, on his third day in office, newly elected Gov. Andy Beshear (son of former governor Steven Beshear) signed an executive order restoring the vote to 140,000 people who had completed their sentences for nonviolent felonies. [70][71][72][73]
Those convicted of violent felonies did not have their votes restored, leaving Kentucky categorized as a state in which people may permanently lose their votes.
Mississippi
People convicted of a felony are barred from voting only if they have been convicted of one or more of the following specific felony crimes: “murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy, armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, carjacking, or larceny under lease or rental agreement.”
To regain the ability to vote, an individual, after completion of his/her sentence, must go to his/her state representative and convince them to personally author a bill restoring the vote to that individual. Both houses of the legislature must then pass the bill. Re-enfranchisement can also be granted directly by the governor.
Individuals convicted of felonies in Mississippi remain eligible to vote for US President in federal elections. [77][78]
Tennessee
All people convicted of a felony since 1981, except for some serious felonies such as murder, rape, treason and voter fraud, may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for voting restoration upon completion of their sentence.
People convicted of a felony between Jan. 15, 1973, and May 17, 1981, are eligible to register to vote regardless of the crime committed. People convicted of certain felonies prior to Jan. 15, 1973 may be barred from voting.[90]
Virginia
Virginia law indicates that people convicted of felonies will be disenfranchised. However, Virginia governors since 2014 have restored rights to those who have completed their prison sentences with executive actions.
On Apr. 18, 2014 Governor Terry McAuliffe announced changes to Virginia’s restoration of rights process. Under the new rules, people convicted of non-violent felonies (including drug crimes) will have their ability to vote automatically restored providing that they:
- have completed their term of incarceration and all probation or parole;
- have paid all court costs, fines, and any restitution; and
- have no pending felony charges.
On June 23, 2015 Governor McAuliffe announced that “outstanding court costs and fees will no longer prohibit an individual from having his or her rights restored.”
On Apr. 22, 2016, Governor McAuliffe signed an order restoring the vote to all 200,000+ people convicted of felonies in Virginia, regardless of their charge, who had completed their term of incarceration and their term of probation or parole. The New York Times reports (Apr. 22, 2016, “Virginia Governor Restores Voting Rights to Felons”) that the governor’s action will not apply to people convicted of felonies released in the future, although the Governor’s aides say he plans “to issue similar orders on a monthly basis to cover people as they are released.”
On July 22, 2016 the Virginia Supreme Court overturned Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s blanket restoration of voting rights for over 200,000 people convicted of felonies. In a press release the Governor stated that he “will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians.”
On Mar. 16, 2021, Governor Ralph Northam issued rules that allows those with felony convictions to vote as soon as they have completed their prison sentences.
On May 20, 2022, Governor Glenn Youngkin announced he would restore voting (and other civil) rights to 3,496 people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences. The Youngkin administration stated rights would be restored “on an ongoing basis.”
In Mar. 2023, the Youngkin administration announced that people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences would have to apply to have their voting rights restored, a split from the previous three administrations during which rights were restored automatically by the governors.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Virginia is one of three states whose constitution permanently disenfranchises citizens with past felony convictions but grants the state’s governor the authority to restore voting rights. On March 16, 2021, former Gov. Ralph Northam took executive action to automatically restore the right to vote to all Virginians who are not currently incarcerated. Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who took office on January 15, 2022, quietly terminated that practice sometime after May 20, 2022. Individuals convicted of a felony who did not have their rights restored under the previous practice must now apply to the governor to have their rights restored on an individual basis. This policy change makes Virginia the only state in the nation that permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the government approves individual rights restoration.” [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][110]
Wyoming
Effective July 1, 2017, W.S. §7-13-105 allows individuals convicted, that are people convicted for the first time for nonviolent felonies, to automatically have their right to vote restored if they completed their supervision or were discharged from an institution on or after January 1, 2010. Individuals who completed their sentence prior to January 1, 2010, are required to apply for restoration of the right to vote.” All others convicted of a felony must be pardoned or have their rights restored by the governor.[100][101]
Vote Restored after Prison, Parole, & Probation: 14 States
Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, & Wisconsin
Nebraska
People convicted of a felony are automatically permitted to vote after completion of their sentence of incarceration and all parole and probation for all convictions except treason. The law previously required a two-year waiting period. A 2024 law and Nebraska Supreme Court ruling eliminated the wait, allowing felons to vote immediately after completing their sentences. [79][111]
North Carolina
On Aug. 23, 2021, a three-judge panel in North Carolina issued a preliminary injunction declaring that people convicted of felonies who have completed their prison time must be allowed to register to vote immediately. The injunction restored the right to vote to about 56,000 people who are on probation, parole or post-release supervision.
On Sep. 14, 2021, the NC Supreme Court put that ruling on hold while it was appealed. According to Democracy Docket, “Individuals in the state who are on probation, parole or a suspended sentence may no longer register to vote while the case moves through the appeals process, though those who registered to vote before the lower court’s ruling was paused are still considered registered voters.”
On Mar. 28, 2022, a NC state court ruled that people with felony convictions could vote once released from prison. However, that ruling was temporarily stayed, pending appeals to the NC State Supreme Court, by the Wake County Superior Court. The ruling states that the NC Board of Election should hold and not act upon voter registrations by people with felony convictions who are out of prison.
On Apr. 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the trial court decision. Those convicted of felonies are now required to complete prison, probation, parole, and pay all fines before they may register to vote. [83][84][85][86][87][88]
South Dakota
On Mar. 19, 2012, HB 1247 was enacted. The bill took the ability to vote away from people convicted of felonies serving terms of probation. Previously, only people on parole or incarcerated were ineligible to register to vote. Now people convicted of felonies must serve their full term of incarceration, parole, and probation before they may register to vote.[89]
Vote Restored after Prison & Parole: 1 State
Louisiana
Louisiana
On May 31, 2018, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards signed House Bill 265 into law. Once the law goes into effect on Mar. 1, 2019, all people who have been convicted of a felony in Louisiana, and who have not been incarcerated in prison during the previous five years, will be allowed to register to vote, even if they are still serving a term of probation or parole.[74]
Vote Restored after Prison: 23 States
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, & Washington
California
On Sep. 28, 2016, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 2466, a bill that allows those convicted of felonies who are serving time in county jails (rather than state prison) the ability to vote from within jail.
On Nov. 3, 2020, California voters approved Proposition 17, which allows people on parole to vote. [51][52]
Colorado
On July 1, 2019, a law went into effect that reenfranchises people convicted of felonies who have been released from prison, but who are serving parole. [53]
Connecticut
On June 23, 2021, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed legislation restoring the right to vote to all state residents who are not in prison. Previously, people with felony convictions had to have completed parole to vote. [54]
Maryland
On Feb. 9, 2016, the Maryland General Assembly overrode the Governor’s veto of SB 340 and restored the vote to all people convicted of felonies immediately upon their release from prison. Previously, people convicted of felonies in Maryland had to complete all parole and probation before they were able to vote. [75]
Minnesota
On Mar. 3, 2023, Governor Tim Walz signed SF26, which restored the right to vote to people convicted of felonies once they complete their prison sentence(s). Minnesota previously required that parole was completed. [76]
Nevada
On May 30, 2019, Nevada’s governor signed Assembly Bill 431, which allowed for the automatic restoration of voting privileges to all people upon release from prison. [80]
New Jersey
On. Dec. 18, 2019, Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation to restore voting rights to those who are on probation or parole after completing prison sentences. The law will take effect in Mar. 2020. Previously, voting was allowed only after completion of probation or parole. [81]
New York
On Apr. 18, 2018, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 181 to restore the right to vote to parolees, dependent upon review of records by the Governor’s Office. The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision will submit records for individuals released from prison in the prior month beginning on May 1, 2018 for review. Previously, voting was allowed only after completion of parole.
On May 4, 2021, Governor Cuomo signed a bill into law that automatically restores voting rights upon release from prison, even if the person is on parole. Previously, under Cuomo’s executive order, the person would have to apply for a review of records. [82][83]
Washington
All people with a felony conviction must re-register to vote after completion of their sentence and all parole and probation. However, the Secretary of State’s website states that “your voting rights can be revoked if the sentencing court determines that you have failed to comply with the terms of your legal financial obligations.”
Legislation signed on Apr. 7, 2021 by Governor Jay Inslee restores the right to vote upon release from prison and went into effect in Jan. 2022. [98][99]
Unrestricted; May Vote from Prison: 2 States & D.C.
D.C., Maine, & Vermont
State-by-State: Number of People Who Cannot Vote Due to a Felony Conviction
According to The Sentencing Project, about 4.6 million Americans were disenfranchised (not allowed to vote) because of a felony conviction in 2022, down from about 5.2 million in 2020. Each state determines voting policy for people convicted of felonies within its borders. The policies range from being allowed to vote from prison to permanently losing voting rights.
*The Sentencing Project noted that these are estimates, not head counts. [37][38]
| State | Total Disenfranchised | Voting Aged Population | % of Population Disenfranchised |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 318,681 | 3,709,180 | 8.59% |
| Alaska | 6,552 | 532,553 | 1.23% |
| Arizona | 256,636 | 5,049,926 | 5.08% |
| Arkansas | 81,658 | 2,219,479 | 3.68% |
| California | 97,328 | 25,774,911 | 0.38% |
| Colorado | 17,455 | 4,153,976 | 0.42% |
| Connecticut | 6,892 | 2,615,815 | 0.26% |
| Delaware | 7,721 | 723,159 | 1.07% |
| Florida | 1,150,944 | 15,296,734 | 7.52% |
| Georgia | 234,410 | 7,482,329 | 3.13% |
| Hawaii | 3,007 | 1,020,517 | 0.29% |
| Idaho | 27,485 | 1,255,411 | 2.19% |
| Illinois | 31,431 | 9,064,396 | 0.35% |
| Indiana | 25,801 | 4,933,505 | 0.52% |
| Iowa | 30,130 | 2,331,653 | 1.29% |
| Kansas | 19,026 | 2,097,052 | 0.91% |
| Kentucky | 152,727 | 3,362,354 | 4.54% |
| Louisiana | 52,073 | 3,467,869 | 1.50% |
| Maine | 0 | 1,070,612 | 0.00% |
| Maryland | 16,587 | 4,313,168 | 0.38% |
| Massachusetts | 7,769 | 5,030,986 | 0.15% |
| Michigan | 35,281 | 7,528,995 | 0.47% |
| Minnesota | 55,192 | 4,113,452 | 1.34% |
| Mississippi | 239,209 | 2,238,133 | 10.69% |
| Missouri | 82,782 | 4,630,115 | 1.79% |
| Montana | 4,223 | 823,797 | 0.51% |
| Nebraska | 17,960 | 1,373,561 | 1.31% |
| Nevada | 12,188 | 2,071,272 | 0.59% |
| New Hampshire | 2,524 | 1,065,299 | 0.24% |
| New Jersey | 13,999 | 6,156,380 | 0.23% |
| New Mexico | 17,572 | 1,511,406 | 1.16% |
| New York | 36,553 | 13,764,741 | 0.27% |
| North Carolina | 29,461 | 7,636,496 | 0.39% |
| North Dakota | 1,552 | 564,942 | 0.27% |
| Ohio | 47,010 | 8,855,290 | 0.53% |
| Oklahoma | 41,212 | 2,855,801 | 1.44% |
| Oregon | 13,302 | 3,108,030 | 0.43% |
| Pennsylvania | 42,976 | 9,778,957 | 0.44% |
| Rhode Island | 1,606 | 795,022 | 0.20% |
| South Carolina | 39,882 | 3,849,680 | 1.04% |
| South Dakota | 13,463 | 644,867 | 2.09% |
| Tennessee | 471,592 | 5,082,240 | 9.28% |
| Texas | 455,160 | 18,578,831 | 2.45% |
| Utah | 6,238 | 2,082,893 | 0.30% |
| Vermont | 0 | 497,391 | 0.00% |
| Virginia | 312,540 | 6,198,540 | 5.04% |
| Washington | 17,001 | 5,344,645 | 0.32% |
| West Virginia | 14,215 | 1,428,525 | 1.00% |
| Wisconsin | 65,394 | 4,392,490 | 1.49% |
| Wyoming | 10,306 | 435,357 | 2.37% |
| Total | 4,644,708 | 232,912,733 | 1.99% |
Notes:
- Murder includes non-negligent homicide.
- Other drug crimes include trafficking, other drug offenses, and unspecified drug offenses.
- Other public order crimes include court offenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency offenses; liquor-law violations; probation and parole violations; and other public-order offenses.
- Other/unspecified crimes include juvenile offenses and other unspecified offense categories.
Incarcerated Population by Type of Crime Committed
Below find the number of people incarcerated for each type of crime as well as the percent of people imprisoned for each type of crime under both state and federal jurisdictions from 2014 through 2020, which are the most recently available numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice. [103][104][105][106][107][108][109]
Sentenced Prisoners under State Jurisdictions
| 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sentenced Prisoners | |||||||
| 1,316,409 | 1,298,159 | 1,288,466 | 1,273,674 | 1,249,700 | 1,221,288 | 1,043,705 | |
| Violent Crimes | |||||||
| Total Violent Crimes | 696,900 | 707,900 | 710,900 | 709,700 | 693,300 | 710,800 | 651,800 |
| Murder | 171,700 | 177,600 | 182,400 | 182,200 | 177,700 | 162,900 | 157,000 |
| Negligent Manslaughter | 17,100 | 17,500 | 17,300 | 18,800 | 18,600 | 19,200 | 18,600 |
| Rape/Sexual assault | 162,800 | 161,900 | 164,800 | 167,000 | 162,700 | 167,800 | 161,500 |
| Robbery | 168,600 | 171,400 | 168,800 | 163,300 | 155,000 | 151,000 | 130,800 |
| Aggravated/Simple Assault | 134,400 | 135,700 | 135,400 | 137,100 | 135,900 | 165,700 | 144,600 |
| Other | 42,200 | 43,800 | 42,100 | 41,200 | 43,500 | 165,700 | 39,300 |
| Property Crimes | |||||||
| Total Property Crimes | 249,900 | 234,000 | 226,100 | 214,100 | 199,700 | 186,700 | 141,100 |
| Burglary | 132,600 | 126,000 | 121,300 | 115,800 | 106,500 | 100,500 | 79,800 |
| Larceny/Theft | 47,000 | 47,700 | 44,000 | 37,600 | 38,700 | 37,000 | 26,400 |
| Motor Vehicle Theft | 11,100 | 9,400 | 9,600 | 10,800 | 10,200 | 10,300 | 7,000 |
| Fraud | 29,700 | 24,700 | 25,900 | 25,000 | 22,400 | 19,100 | 12,900 |
| Other | 29,500 | 26,200 | 25,200 | 24,900 | 21,900 | 19,800 | 15,000 |
| Drug Crimes | |||||||
| Total Drug Crimes | 206,300 | 197,200 | 190,100 | 183,900 | 176,300 | 171,300 | 131,600 |
| Possession | 46,000 | 44,700 | 45,300 | 46,800 | 46,500 | 46,700 | 33,700 |
| Other | 160,300 | 152,500 | 144,800 | 137,100 | 129,900 | 124,600 | 97,800 |
| Public Order Crimes | |||||||
| Total Public Order Crimes | 152,800 | 153,100 | 153,100 | 157,600 | 153,100 | 145,000 | 109,100 |
| Weapons | 51,100 | 50,500 | 54,400 | 57,800 | 58,000 | 48,900 | 38,600 |
| DUI/DWI | 27,900 | 25,300 | 24,600 | 22,800 | 21,400 | 20,800 | 15,000 |
| Other | 73,900 | 74,400 | 74,100 | 77,000 | 73,800 | 75,300 | 55,500 |
| Other/Unspecified Crimes | |||||||
| Total Other/Unspecified Crimes | 10,600 | 8,900 | 8,200 | 8,300 | 7,300 | 7,500 | 6,800 |
Notes:
- Homicide includes murder and both negligent and non-negligent manslaughter.
- Fraud includes embezzlement, fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting.
- Other property crimes include larceny, motor-vehicle theft, arson and explosives, transportation of stolen property, and other property offenses.
- Drug crimes include trafficking, possession, and other drug offenses. More than 99% of federal drug offenders were sentenced for trafficking.
- Immigration public order crimes include illegal entry, smuggling and importing non-U.S. citizens, and holds for immigration officials.
- Other public order crimes include regulatory offenses; tax-law violations; bribery; perjury, contempt, and intimidation in U.S. courts; national-defense offenses; escape; racketeering and extortion; gambling; sexual offenses, excluding sexual abuse; offenses involving liquor, traffic, wildlife, and environmental matters; and all other public-order offenses.
Sentenced Prisoners under Federal Jurisdiction
| 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sentenced Prisoners | |||||||
| 185,917 | 172,554 | 172,554 | 162,904 | 158,107 | 144,553 | 142,298 | |
| Violent Crimes | |||||||
| Total Violent Crimes | 13,700 | 13,400 | 13,400 | 12,800 | 12,212 | 11,303 | 10,547 |
| Homicide | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 2,700 | 2,663 | 2,551 | 2,426 |
| Robbery | 6,900 | 6,600 | 6,600 | 6,000 | 5,521 | 4,448 | 4,448 |
| Sexual Abuse | — | — | — | 1,300 | 1,321 | 1,278 | 1,261 |
| Other | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 2,700 | 2,707 | 2,516 | 2,412 |
| Property Crimes | |||||||
| Total Property Crimes | 11,200 | 10,600 | 10,600 | 9,200 | 8,400 | 6,819 | 5,950 |
| Burglary | 400 | 400 | 400 | 300 | 292 | 254 | 224 |
| Fraud | 8,800 | 8,300 | 8,300 | 7,300 | 6,637 | 5,295 | 4,552 |
| Other | 2,000 | 1,900 | 1,900 | 1,700 | 1,471 | 1,270 | 1,174 |
| Drug Crimes | |||||||
| Total Drug Crimes | 92,000 | 81,900 | 81,900 | 76,700 | 73,210 | 67,438 | 66,474 |
| Public Order Crimes | |||||||
| Total Public Order Crimes | 67,500 | 65,900 | 65,900 | 63,600 | 63,691 | 58,503 | 58,894 |
| Immigration | 14,900 | 13,300 | 13,300 | 9,200 | 8,324 | 5,764 | 5,975 |
| Weapons | 30,200 | 28,800 | 28,800 | 28,800 | 29,327 | 28,210 | 28,537 |
| Other | 22,400 | 23,800 | 23,800 | 25,600 | 26,040 | 24,529 | 24,382 |
| Other/Unspecified Crimes | |||||||
| Total Other/Unspecified Crimes | 1,400 | 900 | 900 | 600 | 594 | 490 | 433 |
U.S. Jail, Prison, Parole, and Probation Populations
| Year | Correctional Population Total | Community Supervision Total | Probation | Parole | Incarcerated Population Total | Prison | Local Jail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 5,444,900 | 3,745,000 | 2,963,000 | 803,200 | 1,775,300 | 1,204,300 | 636,300 |
| 2020 | 5,500,600 | 3,890,400 | 3,053,700 | 862,100 | 1,691,600 | 1,215,800 | 549,100 |
| 2019 | 6,344,000 | 4,357,700 | 3,492,900 | 878,900 | 2,086,600 | 1,430,800 | 734,500 |
| 2018 | 6,409,200 | 4,399,000 | 3,540,000 | 878,000 | 2,122,300 | 1,464,400 | 738,400 |
| 2017 | 6,549,700 | 4,508,900 | 3,647,200 | 875,000 | 2,153,600 | 1,489,200 | 745,200 |
| 2016 | 6,616,200 | 4,537,100 | 3,673,100 | 874,800 | 2,165,100 | 1,508,100 | 740,700 |
| 2015 | 6,740,300 | 4,650,900 | 3,789,800 | 870,500 | 2,172,800 | 1,526,600 | 727,400 |
| 2014 | 6,856,900 | 4,713,200 | 3,868,400 | 857,700 | 2,225,100 | 1,562,300 | 744,600 |
| 2013 | 6,899,700 | 4,749,800 | 3,912,900 | 849,500 | 2,222,500 | 1,577,000 | 731,200 |
| 2012 | 6,949,800 | 4,790,700 | 3,944,900 | 858,400 | 2,231,300 | 1,570,400 | 744,500 |
| 2011 | 6,994,500 | 4,818,300 | 3,973,800 | 855,500 | 2,252,500 | 1,599,000 | 735,600 |
| 2010 | 7,089,000 | 4,888,500 | 4,055,900 | 840,800 | 2,279,100 | 1,613,800 | 748,700 |
| 2009 | 7,239,100 | 5,019,900 | 4,199,800 | 824,600 | 2,297,700 | 1,615,500 | 767,400 |
Constitutional Considerations
Is the Disenfranchisement of People with Felony Convictions Unconstitutional?
Eighth Amendment
Ratified in 1791, the amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
| PRO | CON |
|---|---|
| Pamela S. Karlan, the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford University, stated: | In Thiess v. State Administrative Board of Election Laws (1974), the Maryland 4th circuit Federal Court, stated: |
| “Given contemporary voting rights doctrine, if disenfranchisement is to be justified at all, it must be justified as an appropriate punishment. Thus it is impossible to avoid the question Trop v. Dulles set to one side: is disenfranchisement consistent with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? The Eighth Amendment ‘succinctly prohibits ‘excessive’ sanctions,’ and demands that ‘punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.’ (Atkins v. Virginia, quoting Weems v. United States) … The claim that a particular punishment violated the Eighth Amendment because it is disproportionately severe ‘is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685… or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail.’.. Thus, the states that continue to exclude all felons permanently are outliers, both within the United States and in the world.” [42] | “Unlike the penalty of expatriation [discussed in the case Trop v. Dulles], the penalty of disenfranchisement is one specifically recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment enacted subsequent to the Eighth. See Richardson v. Ramirez. In addition, Mr. Chief Justice Warren’s words in Trop [v. Dulles] suggest a marked difference in severity between total political expatriation and the more limited deprivation of the right to vote…As the Court noted in Richardson v. Ramirez, it may be that modern legislators should conclude that the concept of disenfranchisement is ‘outmoded, and that the more modern view is that it is essential to the process of rehabilitating the ex-felon that he be returned to his role in society as a fully participating citizen when he has completed the serving of his term.’ Be that as it may, as a Court, we cannot conclude that such disenfranchisement as has been decreed by the State of Maryland is a punishment so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to be proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” |
Fourteenth Amendment
Ratified in 1896, the amendment includes two relevant sections.
Section I: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The bold and italicized section above is the Equal Protection Clause.
Section II: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.”
| PRO | CON |
|---|---|
| In Hunter v. Underwood (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: | In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: |
| “Held: Section 182 [of the Alabama constitution of 1901] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] … That 182 may have been adopted to discriminate against poor whites as well as against blacks would not render nugatory [worthless, futile] the purpose to discriminate against blacks… The drafters [of Section 182] retained the general felony provision – ‘any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary’ – but also added a new catchall provision covering ‘any…crime involving moral turpitude.’ …It is alleged, and the Court of Appeals found, that the crimes selected for inclusion in 182 were believed by the delegates to be more frequently committed by blacks.” | “California, in disenfranchising convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.(a) The understanding of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of 2 of the Amendment, which exempts from the sanction of reduced congressional representation resulting from the denial of citizens’ right to vote, the denial of such right for ‘participation in rebellion, or other crime,’ and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment’s applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise that this Court has held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause.” |
| PRO | CON |
|---|---|
| Jason G. Morgan-Foster, researcher at New York University School of Law, stated: | Alex Kozinski, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, stated: |
| “Interestingly, it appears that, like the international context, the Framers [of the U.S. Constitution] also viewed disenfranchisement along a continuum, intending the phrase ‘or other crime’ to apply only to crimes of rebellion or disloyalty to the state, such as treason…[W]e should care about felon disenfranchisement because it inherently contradicts the rest of our constitutional jurisprudence on the right of every citizen to vote. This article has suggested that it is time to re-examine the original textual premise of the Ramirez decision that section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment affirmatively sanctions felon disenfranchisement.” [43] | “Unlike any other voting qualification, felon disenfranchisement laws are explicitly endorsed by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment…They are presumptively constitutional. Only a narrow subset of them – those enacted with an invidious, racially discriminatory purpose – is unconstitutional.” [44] |
Fifteenth Amendment
Ratified in 1870, the amendment includes two relevant sections.
Section I: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Section II: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
| PRO | CON |
|---|---|
| Gabriel J. Chin, professor of law, public administration, and policy at the University of Arizona, stated: | Richard L. Hasen, Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, stated: |
| “Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape – leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement ‘may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election.’ Because the Fifteenth Amendment repealed Section 2 [of the Fourteenth Amendment], courts must reconsider the treatment of felon disenfranchisement…In states that denied the vote to African-Americans, white voters had extra impact because African-Americans counted for purposes of allocating seats in Congress but did not participate in electing those who served there. Section 2 thus encouraged states to let African-Americans vote by punishing states disenfranchising African-Americans, but it left the ultimate decision to the states. Instead of merely encouraging nondiscrimination, the Fifteenth Amendment imposed it, granting the right to vote to qualified African-Americans. The Fifteenth Amendment represented a newly restrictive view of both state power and the consequences of exceeding it.”[45] | “Under today’s standards, Congress will have to come up with significant evidence of intentional state racial discrimination to justify a felon disenfranchisement ban under its 14th or 15th amendment enforcement powers. The evidence of intentional state discrimination must come either in relation to a cycle of poverty leading to a higher number of minority felons or intentional state discrimination in the criminal justice system that makes it more likely that minorities accused of felonies will be convicted than whites accused of felonies.”[46] |
Twenty-fourth Amendment
Ratified in 1964, the amendment includes two relevant sections.
Section I: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.”
Section II: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
| PRO | CON |
|---|---|
| The American Civil Liberties Union stated: | Rob McKenna, Washington State Attorney General, stated: |
| “By denying the vote to those who have not paid their LFOs [Legal Financial Obligations], the State of Washington distributes this fundamental right [to vote] on the constitutionally impermissible basis of wealth. Washington’s re-enfranchisement scheme creates two classes of ex-felons in Washington: those ex-felons who are able to pay their LFOs and regain the right to vote, and those ex-felons who are unable to pay their LFOs and remain permanently disenfranchised. By requiring payment of all LFOs as a condition for reenfranchisement, the State effectively imposes a poll tax upon Plaintiffs and all other ex-felons. This violates both the Federal and State Constitutions.”[47] | “As noted, a decision by a state not to extend the right to vote to convicted felons enjoys express constitutional sanction. The Legislature’s policy judgment that civil rights should be restored only upon completion of all terms of a felony judgment and sentence bears a rational relationship to this objective. That a different policy judgment might have been reached is no answer. The constitutional question is whether the inclusion of legal financial obligations is wholly irrelevant… Requiring the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting is unconstitutional because it bears ‘no relation to voting qualifications.’ By contrast, both the federal and state constitutions recognize the State’s legitimate policy decision not to extend the right to vote to convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored. Felony convictions, unlike the applications of the poll tax, is linked to the individual choices and conscious behavior of the particular person. Felon disenfranchisement ‘does not deny any citizen, ab initio, the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice.’ The cause of disenfranchisement is simply that the felon’s ‘conscious decision to commit a criminal act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment.’”[48] |
