Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization, and The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice organization promoting alternatives to incarceration, stated the following in their Oct. 1998 article "Losing The Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" available at www.sentencingproject.org:
"Felony voting restrictions in the U.S. are political anachronisms reflecting values incompatible with modern democratic principles. At the edge of the millennium these laws have no purpose. To the contrary, they arbitrarily deny convicted offenders the ability to vote regardless of the nature of their crimes or the severity of their sentences, they create political 'outcasts' from taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who are ex-offenders, they distort the country’s electoral process and they diminish the black vote, countering decades of voting rights gains...
Given the major impact of felony disenfranchisement laws on the voting population, and in particular their strikingly disproportionate impact on African Americans, policymakers should consider alternative policies that will better protect voting rights without injury to legitimate state criminal justice interests. We believe the best course of action would be to remove conviction-based restrictions on voting rights. At the federal level, Congress should enact legislation to restore voting rights in federal elections to citizens convicted of a felony, so that the ability to vote in federal elections is not subject to varying state laws. State legislatures should also eliminate state laws that curtail the franchise for persons with felony convictions within their states."
John Conyers, Jr., LLB, Member of the US House of Representatives (D-MI), stated the following during a Mar. 16, 2005 congressional address:
"The United States may have the most restrictive disenfranchisement policy in the world. Such prohibitions on the right to vote undermine both the voting system and the fundamental rights of ex-offenders."
Jeff Manza, PhD, Professor of Sociology at New York University, and Christopher Uggen, PhD, Distinguished McKnight Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, stated the following in their 2006 book Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy:
"In the United States today, by far the largest group of citizens who are denied the right to vote are those who have received a felony conviction... The disenfranchisement of such a large group of felons, and former felons, from participation in democratic elections threatens the health of American democracy in a number of ways....
While states have legitimate reasons to compel felons to make restitution to their victims, and to punish recidivists or violent offenders more harshly than others, there are no logical reasons for imposing disenfranchisement in such cases."
Marc Mauer, MSW, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, stated the following in his Winter 2004 article "Felony Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?," published in Human Rights:
"The traditional goals of sentencing also leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction. Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote.
Placing a character test on voting eligibility also is reminiscent of past practices that run counter to modern notions of democratic procedure. Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful."
Charlie Crist, Jr., JD, Governor (R) of the State of Florida, stated the following in his Apr. 3, 2007 article "Wednesday My View: Florida Must Begin Automatic Restoration of Ex-offender Rights," available at www.tallahassee.com:
"Like Florida, many Southern states struggling through the Jim Crow era resisted calls to change their laws denying the restoration of civil rights. Since then, all but five of these states have realized the historical underpinning for denying the restoration of civil rights and repealed these unjust laws.
Some who favor the current system argue that restoring civil rights is somehow 'weak on crime,' as if restoring the right to vote, to serve on a jury or to work lessens the punishment or encourages a person to commit new crimes.
In fact, the opposite should be true. Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society, make a living and participate in our democracy will incentivize good behavior."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated the following in the introduction to its webpage "Felon Enfranchisement," accessible at www.aclu.org (accessed Jan. 20, 2009):
"Millions of Americans are barred from the polls because of felony convictions. Voting is a fundamental right and a cornerstone of our democracy, yet millions of Americans have had their right to vote revoked for periods ranging from the time spent incarcerated to a lifetime. In 10 states, you can lose your right to vote for life. The ACLU is fighting to restore the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people so that they, like all Americans, will be heard."
Sasha Abramsky, MA, Senior Fellow for Democracy at Demos, stated the following in his Apr. 2006 book Conned: How Millions Went to Prison, Lost the Vote, and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House:
"In the real world, however, where a young, poor, black, or Latino man is far more likely to be arrested, incarcerated, and disenfranchised than a more affluent white man, where the fairness of many of the contemporary laws -- in particular those relating to drug sentencing -- that put people in prison is hotly contested, I would contend that disenfranchisement, even temporarily, overall does more societal harm than good. It is too heavily laden with the baggage of a culture divided along racial and class lines ever to be viewed as simply a criminal justice matter; its impact is too predictably absorbed by the economically marginal and the racially discriminated against to be viewed in isolation from broader social tensions."
Alec C. Ewald, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, stated the following in his Mar. 7, 2005 article "An Agenda for Demolition: The Fallacy and the Danger of the Subversive Voting Argument for Felony Disenfranchisement," published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review:
"[T]he case for barring people convicted of crime from voting is not a practical one at all, but a jumble of conjectures, ill-informed fears, and mystical images of the body politic, all piled on top of social theories three hundred years in age...
At a minimum, proponents of any restrictive policy in a modern democracy must explain how the proposed exclusion would strengthen our democracy and protect the public good. Advocates of disenfranchisement fail that test."
Reynolds Holding, JD, Columnist at Time magazine, stated the following in his Nov. 1, 2006 article "Why Can't Felons Vote?," published in Time magazine:
"We should be finding ways to get more voters to the polls, not looking for excuses to keep them away. So instead of prohibiting felons from voting, let's require them to do it. That way, they will continue to repay their debt to society, long after they walk out of prison."
S. David Mitchell, JD, Scholar in Residence at the University of Colorado Department of Sociology, stated the following in his Dec. 2004 article "The New Invisible Man: Felon Disenfranchisement Laws Harm Communities," published in Bad Subjects:
"Felon disenfranchisement laws violate the tenets of criminal law theory, and undermine citizenship for the individual ex-felon and the communities to which ex-felons belong...
To impose a permanent ban or to require an additional waiting period on the quintessential element of citizenship, the right to vote, is to deny that which is given by birth or achieved by naturalization — citizenship. The right to vote has been jealously guarded since the founding of the United States.
It has taken constitutional amendments and legislative acts for all groups to be granted the right to vote, and thereby recognized as full citizenships. Legally, African-Americans have achieved the status of citizen. Practically, African-Americans have to continue to fight obstacles set up to deny their citizenship. Historically, in a number of United States' jurisdictions, African-Americans have had to challenge poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, whites-only primaries, and felon disenfranchisement laws, all designed to prohibit them from voting and thus negate their citizenship.
All of the other forms of disenfranchisement have fallen by the wayside, save one — felon disenfranchisement laws."
Jamin Raskin, JD, Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Government Program at the Washington College of Law at American University, stated the following in his Spring 2005 article "Lawful Disenfranchisement: America’s Structural Democracy Deficit," published in Human Rights Magazine:
"Felon disenfranchisement is obviously not a strategy of penal deterrence, for it deters no one; or individual rehabilitation, for it clearly educates and reforms no one; or even meaningful punishment, as it is not part of sentencing but is simply imposed on all convicts, regardless of the character of their offense. Rather, it is a strategy of mass electoral suppression, a point that becomes especially vivid when we consider that 1.7 million former offenders have been permanently disenfranchised in eight states, disproportionately in the Deep South...
A right-to-vote constitutional amendment could enfranchise all people who have been convicted of felonies and stripped of their voting rights or the subgroup of ex-offenders in eight states who have successfully served their time but still remain disenfranchised... This commonsense proposal likely would pass."
Global Exchange, an international human rights organization, stated the following in its Apr. 7, 2007 article "Felon Disenfranchisement; Taxation Without Representation: End Felon Disenfranchisement," available at www.globalexchange.org:
"Permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is an unreasonable restriction that creates subcategories of citizenship in the United States. Ex-felons are expected to contribute to society as gainfully employed citizens, pay taxes and raise families, but their disenfranchisement gives them no say in how those tax dollars are spent, who sits on their children’s school board, or who represents their interests in government.
As a result of various changes in state laws, as well as extensive grassroots efforts, an increasing number of Americans with a felony conviction are regaining their voting rights. While public opinion data clearly shows strong support for reform - 80% of the public supports the restoration of voting rights for ex-felons who have completed their sentences, and 64% and 62% respectively support the right of probationers and parolees to vote, more must be done.
States that permanently disenfranchise felons—Florida, Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa, Arizona and Alabama -— should amend their laws and practices to restore full citizenship rights to ex-offenders. In addition, in states where voting rights of ex-felons can be restored upon release, authorities should disseminate clear and precise materials in a variety of media informing ex-felons of their restored rights."
Roger Clegg, JD, President and General Counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated the following in his Oct. 18, 2004 article "Perps and Politics, Why Felons Can't Vote," published in National Review:
"Individuals who have shown they are unwilling to follow the law cannot claim the right to make laws for the rest of us. We don't let everyone vote, not children, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. We have certain minimum standards of trustworthiness before we let people participate in the serious business of self-government, and people who commit serious crimes don't meet those standards."
Edward Feser, PhD, Instructor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, stated the following in his Spring 2005 article "Should Felons Vote?," published in the City Journal:
"The claim that disenfranchising felons is wrong because the right to vote is basic an inalienable... is no more convincing. Obviously the right is not basic and inalienable in any legal sense, since the laws banning murderers, thieves, and other wrongdoers from voting have stood for a long time...
If the right to vote is as precious as felon advocates claim... we should expect people to uphold at least some minimum moral standards in order to keep it -- such as refraining from violating their fellow voters' own inalienable rights."
Bill McCollum, JD, Florida Attorney General, stated the following in his Apr. 1, 2007 article "McCollum: Be Responsible About Felons' Rights," published in the Orlando Sentinel:
"The campaign to automatically restore civil rights to nearly all felons upon release from prison, with no waiting period and no hearing to determine if those felons will go right back to a life of crime, is reckless and irresponsible...
The revolving-door effect of restoring felons' rights only then to revoke them due to a new criminal offense would diminish the integrity of our democratic government and the rule of law. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, nearly 40 percent of offenders commit another crime within three years of release and 45 percent do so within five years...
Rather than automatically restore rights to violent repeat offenders, we should ensure fairness in the clemency process by immediately eliminating the backlog, as I previously proposed. But for Florida's serious career criminals, this motto ought to apply: A person who breaks the law should not make the law."
Lowell Ponte, Contributing Editor for Front Page Magazine, stated the following in his July 18, 2003 article "Jesse Jackson: A Real Con Man," available at www.frontpagemag.com:
"[W]hy give a convicted felon a ballot that can be used like a bullet to empower a robber-politician's gun? Do we want our politicians pandering for the votes of felons? Or making government policy designed to win their votes and serve those constituents? Do we want America to become a felonocracy?"
The Washington Times stated in its Nov. 26, 2007 editorial "Another No Vote on Felons," published in the Washington Times:
"Even in nearby Massachusetts, no stranger to progressivism, voters in 2000 supported a constitutional amendment to bar inmates from voting. The reason is clear: Most people think perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed.
[F]or the time being, the voters' good sense about the possible scenarios - the advent of new constituencies of prisoners whom politicians court for votes, for instance - still prevails. As does the sense that most of the time, in most of the country, serious lawbreakers should not help elect the country's lawmakers."
George Brooks, JD, attorney, stated the following in his Sep. 2005 article "Felon Disenfranchisement: Law, History, Policy, and Politics," published in the Fordham Urban Law Journal:
"Felon disenfranchisement is plainly constitutional and consistent with the intent of the framers of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. It is a practice with deep roots in history that continues to be widely utilized today."
Tucker Carlson, Host, MSNBC Tucker show, stated the following during a June 26, 2006 episode of the Tucker show:
"Now 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?"