Exploring the Controversy: Should Felons Be Allowed to Vote

“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.” The fifteenth amendment promised us as citizens the right to vote, no matter our differences. However, over six million citizens are stripped of this fundamental right: those convicted of a felony. Most states prohibit prisoners in jail from voting, but some states bar felons from ever voting, even decades after they are released, unless they receive clemency from the governor. This removes a hefty amount of votes from the ballot and could cause a significant change in our elections. 'We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders... If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.' says Steve Chapman, an editorial writer at the Chicago Tribune. Our solution to this thought-provoking problem is to regulate the right to vote based on the severity of the crime committed and what the felon has done to compensate.

Felon Disenfranchisement

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy, yet nearly six million Americans are denied that right, in many cases for life, because they have been convicted of a crime. Some states disenfranchise more than 7 percent of their adult citizens. State laws that disenfranchise people who have served their time “defy the principles of accountability and rehabilitation and that guide our criminal justice policies,” Eric H. Holder, an Attorney General, said in urging state lawmakers to repeal them. “By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes.” In the past five years, five states have rescinded or modified their laws, restoring the vote to more than 450,000 people. Other states, and the federal government, should join this trend. Disenfranchising felons is an archaic practice, at odds with basic American values about both punishment and democracy. The notion that former felons should not be allowed to vote dates back to medieval Europe, where criminals were banished from the community and deemed to have suffered ''civil death.'' During the Jim Crow era in the South, felony disenfranchisement times had a racial motive: white legislators in states like South Carolina and Alabama tailored laws to deny the vote to blacks.

A Racial Component

Felony disenfranchisement remains widespread. In some states, the prohibition applies only while felons are in prison, or on probation or parole. But in 14 states, ex-offenders who have completed their sentences may not vote, usually for life. Nationwide, nearly four million people are disenfranchised by these laws, with the impact most severe on minority communities. According to a study by the Sentencing Project, felony disenfranchisement among black men is seven times the national average, and in Alabama and Florida, 31 percent of black men are permanently disenfranchised. Taking the vote away from people after their release from prison permanently stigmatizes those whose misdeeds may be minor, and long in the past. (A first offender who pleads guilty to a minor felony, with no jail time, can end up disenfranchised for life.) This restriction on the scope of the electorate also cuts against the principle that the nation's government rests upon the consent of the governed. There are movements afoot in several states, including Virginia and Alabama, to extend the vote to former felons. Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat, introduced a bill this month to grant former inmates the right to vote in federal elections. And the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta has a class-action suit before it seeking to strike down Florida's laws. All of these efforts are worthy of support. This nation still believes in rehabilitating criminals who have served out their sentences. Restoring their right to vote is an important part of this process.

Restriction by State

Thirty-five states prohibit at least some people from voting after they have been released from prison. The rules about which felonies are covered and when the right to vote is restored vary widely from state to state, and often defy logic. In four states, including New York, felons on parole cannot vote, but felons on probation can. In some states, felons must formally apply for restoration of their voting rights, which state officials can grant or deny on the most arbitrary of grounds. This year, state officials are conducting a new purge that may be just as flawed. They have developed a list of 47,000 voters who may be felons, and have asked local officials to consider purging them. But The Miami Herald found that more than 2,100 of them may have been listed in error, because their voting rights were restored by the state's clemency process. The state acknowledged that 1,600 of those on the list should be allowed to vote. Election officials are also far too secretive about felon voting issues, which should be a matter of public record. When Ms. Harris used inaccurate standards for purging voters, the public did not find out until it was too late. In 2004, the state tried to keep the 47,000 names on its list of possible felons secret, but fortunately a state court ruled this month that they should be open to scrutiny. There is a stunning lack of information and transparency surrounding felon disenfranchisement across the country. The rules are often highly technical, and little effort is made to explain them to election officials or to the people affected. In New York, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School found that local elections offices often did not understand the law, and some demanded that felons produce documents that do not exist. Too often, felon voting is seen as a partisan issue. In state legislatures, it is usually Democrats who try to restore voting rights, and Republicans who resist. Recently, Republicans and election officials in Missouri and South Dakota have raised questions about voter registration groups' employment of ex-felons, although they have every right to be involved in political activity. In Florida, the decision about whether a felon's right to vote will be restored lies with a panel made up of the governor and members of his cabinet. The cleanest and fairest approach would be simply to remove the prohibitions on felon voting. Denying them the right to vote belies this commitment.

Conclusion

Restoring the vote to felons is difficult, because it must be done state by state, and because ex-convicts do not have much of a political lobby. Until the whole idea of permanently depriving felons of their right to vote is wiped away, the current rules should be applied more fairly. The quality of voting roll purges must be improved in order for our democracy to become more balanced because although prisoners have often committed horrible crimes, we can definitely learn from what they have to say.