Abstract
Abstract Since 1980, most states have granted voting rights to citizens living abroad. Although cross-national research focuses on when and where emigrant enfranchisement occurs, there has been little systematic attention to the variation in how enfranchisement occurs (for example, by constitutional amendment) and who extends these rights (international actors, for example). We argue that the variation in legal modalities and political actors is important for understanding why enfranchisement occurs and helps to account for the subsequent institutional inclusion—and exclusion—of emigrant voters. Using an original dataset which documents every extension of non-citizen voting rights (n = 153), we uncover variations in legal processes, regionally and over time. Although legislation is the most common enfranchisement pathway, judiciaries have become increasingly involved since 2000, particularly in Asian and African countries. Furthermore, emigrant enfranchisements involving constitutional reforms or plebiscites tend to be the most durable, whereas enfranchisements by international agreement are most prone to policy reversals.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.