Since the inception of the United States and modern democracy, the right to vote has been one of the most basic, inalienable rights held by a country’s citizens.  Of course, the people for whom this right is inalienable have changed throughout the country’s history.  Initially, only white, land-owning men of a certain age were allowed to vote.  Through subsequent constitutional amendments, that right was also extended to men of other races, and finally women.  Most would say that after the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, the United States was finally practicing universal suffrage.  However, in the 2006 election, approximately 5.3 million people were denied the right to vote.  These millions of people were stripped of one of their most basic rights for a very simple reason: because they were convicted felons.

The simple fact is that in many states, felons are not permitted to cast ballots.  The states themselves control this situation, and some are stricter than others, but altogether, they disenfranchise millions of people annually.  Of the 50 states, only Vermont and Maine allow current inmates to vote, while 36 states prevent parolees from voting, and 31 leave those still on probation out of the electoral process.

Initially, this doesn’t seem like such an issue.  Oftentimes, felons are not the most upstanding citizens.  If they’ve done something egregious enough to land themselves in jail they probably deserve to lose their vote, some would reason.  For this reason, the disenfranchisement of felons has been described as “a modern day literacy test.”  Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity sums up this viewpoint, saying that “If you aren’t willing to follow the law, you can’t claim the right to make the law for everyone else.”

However, when taking a step back, it is still taking away someone’s right to vote, something that almost all American’s would agree should be innately held by all citizens.  Furthermore, in some instances, felons are barred from voting long after they’ve had the rest of the rights reinstated, sometimes even permanently banned.  If someone is capable of reintegrating themselves in to society, should they continue to be ostracized on election day?

Some states have begun to loosen their laws, with only Kentucky and Virginia remaining as states where felons receive lifelong bans from voting.  Nonetheless, the laws of all the states combined to keep 5.9 million people away from the polls for the 2012 presidential election, a number greater than that of six years prior.  The question of whether felons who have served their time should be re-enfranchised is starting to be discussed in the world of politics.  President Obama is known to support voting rights of non-incarcerated felons.  It’s not universally supported, however, as Mitt Romney used the support of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum for allowing felons who have done their time to vote against him in the 2012 Republican primaries.

Some speculate that the disenfranchisement’s increased popularity among conservatives could be politically driven.  Not surprisingly, African-Americans and Latinos are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites.  Due to the varying socioeconomic statues of these different races, this should be obvious to most.  Likewise, it’s known that African-American and Latino voters give an overwhelming amount of support to Democrats.  It’s not at all out of the ordinary for a Democratic candidate to pull up to 90% of the vote among either one of these minority groups.  Thus, Republicans would be advantaged by stripping felons of their right to vote.  In fact, studies have shown that in some communities, as much as ten percent of the population could be excluded from the electoral process.  These communities, of course, are those lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and thus, they are composed of predominantly minorities, who we’ve already established find themselves unable to vote much more often.