Felony disenfranchisement in the United States
Proponents have argued that persons who commit felonies have broken the social contract, and have thereby given up their right to participate in a civil society.
[3] Challenges to felony disenfranchisement laws began in the 1950s as part of the effort of advocating for a shift from retribution to rehabilitation in the American penal system.
[24] From 1997 to 2008, there was a trend to lift the disenfranchisement restrictions, or simplify the procedures for applying for the restoration of civil rights for people who had fulfilled their punishments for felonies.
Primary candidate Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania argued for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons who had completed sentences and parole or probation.
[33] In July 2019, Republicans in Florida's state legislature enacted S. 7066, which stipulates that felons must pay all outstanding fines, fees, and restitutions before they are deemed to have “served their sentence” and thus regain their right to vote.
[34] On February 19, 2020, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it was unconstitutional to force Floridian felons to first pay their financial obligations off before reregistering to vote.
[34] In late September 2020, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg put a fund of over $16 million together to be used towards helping convicted felons vote in Florida by paying their outstanding fines and fees.
However, on his inauguration day, January 14, 2011, Republican Governor Terry Branstad reversed Vilsack's executive order, again disenfranchising thousands of people.
[37] On August 5, 2020, Iowa Republican Governor Kim Reynolds signed an executive order restoring voting rights to about 24,000 people who had completed their sentences, except for those convicted of murder.
In 2019, the legislature introduced AB 431 which was passed and signed into law, taking effect on July 1, 2019, which restored the right to vote for felons who were no longer serving a prison sentence in Nevada.
The brief discusses numerous benefits of voting rights restoration for felons, including saving tax money and reducing recidivism, as well as potential enfranchisement strategies.
8005, increasing the penalty for camping on unapproved state property from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony, punishable by up to 6 years in prison and an automatic loss of voting rights, as per Tennessee law.
[45] The Virginia legislature in 2017 debated relaxation of the state's policy that the restoration of voting rights requires an individual act by the governor.
Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.
[citation needed] But critics of the practice, such as The United States Commission on Civil Rights,[47] The Lawyers‘ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and The Sentencing Project,[48] among others,[49] argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation.
In 23 states, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration is complete: California,[53] Colorado,[54] Connecticut,[55] Hawaii,[56] Illinois,[57] Indiana,[58] Maryland,[59] Massachusetts,[60] Michigan,[61] Minnesota,[62] Montana,[63] Nevada,[40] New Hampshire,[64] New Jersey,[65] New York,[66] New Mexico,[67] North Dakota,[68] Ohio,[69] Oregon,[70] Pennsylvania,[71] Rhode Island,[72] Utah,[73] and Washington.
[74] 14 states require not only that incarceration, if any, be complete but also that any parole or probation sentence (the latter of which is often an alternative to incarceration) be complete: Alaska,[75] Arkansas,[76] Georgia,[77] Idaho,[78] Kansas,[79] Louisiana,[80] Missouri,[81] North Carolina,[82] Oklahoma,[83] South Carolina,[84] South Dakota,[85] Texas,[86] West Virginia (the prosecutor can request the court to revoke voting rights if financial obligations are unmet), and Wisconsin.
Misdemeanor arrest rates of African Americans are much higher than their proportion within the population, and these minorities together with other people of color receive longer prison terms than their White counterparts for similar offenses.
To this date, these laws help maintain the Black vote in the margins, compounding the problems of race, wealth, power, access to resources, and fair representation in decisions making that touches on their livelihoods.
The effect is further compounded by states where certain laws keep people with felony charges barred from voting for life making them second-class citizens mostly of color.
Advocacy organizations point to restoration of voting rights to persons with felony convictions as a social justice cause which, at the same time, is an effective way to challenge systematic exclusion of people of color from political processes.
[113] Studies have shown that living in states with higher levels of radicalized felony disenfranchisement is associated with negative physical health outcomes for African Americans.
The same study mentioned above notes that older African Americans adults living in areas with high levels of radicalized disenfranchisement exhibit higher rates of depressive symptoms and difficulty performing everyday tasks.
[116] A 2012 study argues that felony disenfranchisement "further isolates and segregates ex-felons re-entering into society by denying them the ability to participate in the political process.
Beyond the denial of voting rights, ex-felons often face challenges in securing employment, housing, and accessing various state and federal benefits due to their criminal history.
By restoring voting rights and other civic privileges, states can help alleviate these barriers and support a more successful transition back into society.
