Prisoners and the Right to Vote

As a country, we often boast of our democratic rights, like freedom of thought and freedom of religion. While these rights repeatedly prove fundamental to the function of our republic, they haven’t always been equally distributed. The right to vote, or suffrage, has had a complicated and controversial history. As time has progressed, an increasing number of people have garnered suffrage, from white male laborers to women, and ultimately people of color over a hundred years later. The Voters Rights Act and subsequent legislation have furthered the recognition of many Americans’ right to vote. But still, countless citizens face barriers to their suffrage. Oftentimes, states require photo identification and enforce strict registration deadlines; and many of these same states limit early voting or access to alternative (non-booth) methods (McElwee). These hostile policies foster unequal representation in the democratic process, with underprivileged people (people of color and of low socioeconomic status) being disproportionately underrepresented. While these policies seek to disenfranchise underprivileged people, other policies actively do: those which disenfranchised imprisoned people.

Like suffrage in general, suffrage for prisoners is a contentious discussion. Specifically, the discussions surround those convicted of a felony, or the highest degree of crime. In only two states, Maine and Vermont, do felons always have the right to vote, even while incarcerated. Meanwhile, in 11 states felons lose their ability to vote indefinitely (NCSL).

The case for enfranchising ex-convicts is far clearer than that of those currently serving. Steve Chapman, a columnist at the Chicago Tribune, argues that when convicts exit prison, they are again granted their rights. They are allowed to speak and practice religion freely. They can get married, have children, drive, and buy alcohol. Still, there is an underlying fear in granting them the right to choose our leaders. However, “[i]f we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn’t let them out of prison in the first place” (Chapman).

Additionally, the disenfranchisement of ex-convicts further perpetuates the disenfranchisement of underprivileged people. Unfortunately, people of color and of low socioeconomic status are targeted by our broken criminal justice system. In an address at the Georgetown University Law Center, Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the following: “Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens — or nearly one in 13 African-American adults — are banned from voting because of these laws. In three states — Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia — that ratio climbs to one in five”  (Holder).

Prison-reform activists, including prisoners themselves, also argue for the enfranchisement of prisoners currently serving sentences. Prisoners, who are kept in institutions owned or contracted by the government, experience the effects of the government at a greater level than the average person, and their votes may force politicians to address the injustices of the criminal justice system. Furthermore, granting convicts the right to vote may give them a sense of purpose. When asked his opinion on felon enfranchisement, convicted felon Norman Brown said the following:

You tell yourself every day, you are someone. This becomes your coping mechanism but deep down inside you feel powerless to change the hopelessness of being stripped and reduced to a number. You are in effect broken. Giving or restoring voting rights would be a step toward healing and restoring the humanity to human beings that have been broken. (Kim)

Sentiments antagonistic of felon suffrage continue to pervade the political sphere because of partisanship. When Gov. Terry McAuliffe restored voting rights to felons no longer in prison, Republicans disagreed, thinking “ex-convicts, who are disproportionately black and poor, would vote much like other low-income African Americans . . . so adding them . . . would penalize Republicans” (Chapman).