Felon Disenfranchisement Laws Research Articles

Teen Perception of Felon Disenfranchisement: Exploring Ideologies of Future Voters

Felon disenfranchisement continues to have a significant impact on the function of our democracy. While some argue that committing a felony constitutes a breach of the social contract warranting the denial of voting rights, others argue that such a denial is itself a violation of democratic principles that undermines the foundation of the social contract. As public opinion influences state laws on felon disenfranchisement (FD) policies, there has been significant research on public opinion on FD laws. The current research focuses on adolescent opinions about FD policies in an attempt to capture future directions of voter opinion on this critical issue.

“Guided by Ghosts of the Post-Civil War Era”: Felon Disenfranchisement and the Limits of Race Liberal Advocacy

Abstract This essay analyzes arguments regarding race and U.S. felon disenfranchisement laws. In response to the denial of the vote to 6.1 million Americans in 2016, voting rights advocacy has helped spur a range of liberalizing reforms in states across the country. The essay attributes such policy victories to activists’ success in redefining felon disenfranchisement as a racial justice rather than criminal justice issue. It argues, however, that U.S. public discourse still does not reflect a clear or coherent understanding of how and why race matters in the context of felon disenfranchisement. Through a rhetorical frame analysis of media coverage in four newspapers over a twenty-year period, the essay identifies and evaluates the three most common racial frames, arguing that each adheres to prevailing logics of racial liberalism. While this adherence lends the frames some degree of persuasive power, this essay argues that it also causes dominant publics to misunderstand the racial character of felon disenfranchisement. The essay concludes that more substantial reform hinges on the ability of activists to transform public meanings to reflect their preferred understanding of the causes and consequences of racial inequality.

On the Political Economy of Felon Disenfranchisement

Nearly 6.1 million U.S. citizens are politically disenfranchised because of a prior felony conviction, and these citizens tend disproportionately to be black. Specifically, more than 7.4% of the adult African-American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.8% of other Americans. This paper investigates the political consequences of this large racial disparity in disenfranchisement rates. To obtain the first causal estimates of the effects of felon disenfranchisement (FD), we build a new database that catalogs the annual state changes in disenfranchisement law. We show that these changes are driven by lengthy, uncertain, and complicated court cases which are outside of the control of individual state legislatures. We use a difference in difference strategy to analyze the impact of these changes in felon disenfranchisement laws. Our results suggest that FD legislation is associated with a 3 percentage point reduction in the likelihood of voting, allowing for a range of race-specific effects of demographic and geographic characteristics. This number is larger than would be implied purely by the mechanical effect due to the change in the number of eligible voters suggesting that FD also reduces turnout amongst those eligible to vote. Next, we show that relaxations in FD laws increase the number of Black U.S. Representatives. Finally, we show that relaxations also lead to an increase in state policy liberalism.

Racial Animus Is Decreasing Support for the Voting Rights of Citizens with Felony Convictions

Felon disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect poor and minority populations. Using data from an original module in the 2013 Congressional Cooperative Election Study, this study demonstrates that negative racial attitudes are decreasing support for the voting rights of citizens with felony convictions. The results find that Non-Hispanic Whites with greater racial animus are less supportive of allowing citizens with felony convictions to vote, despite the ostensibly race-neutral nature of the policy. The effects of racial attitudes on public opinion are strongest when the citizen was convicted of stereotypical Black crimes, compared to stereotypical White crimes. Racial animus also make individuals less likely to be persuaded by arguments in favor of voting rights, and more susceptible to arguments against voting rights – particularly when the arguments are more directly linked to race. The magnitude of the impact of racial attitudes on support for voting rights is notable inasmuch as it is often the most important antecedent variable in the model.

Echoes of Slavery II: How Slavery's Legacy Distorts Democracy

We continue to pay a heavy price for our history in slavery. It is no exaggeration to say that the legacies of slavery determined the outcome of the most recent presidential election. Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. As a matter of democracy, and according to the will of the voters, he lost the election. Yet as a matter of constitutional law and state electoral-vote allocations, Trump received a substantial majority of the votes in the electoral college and won the presidency. In addition, millions of otherwise eligible voters were denied the right to vote through calculated voter suppression efforts and felon disenfranchisement. For a few days after the election, there was a brief flicker of interest in the electoral college and its origins in slavery. Now, several months since the election, this interest has waned and there is little reckoning with the reason why we have such undemocratic elections. Donald Trump won the presidency because of two artifacts of slavery: the electoral college and our post-Reconstruction legacy of state voter suppression and disenfranchisement efforts. The electoral college was created in the Constitution to protect the interests of slave owners. And current voter suppression efforts are a direct legacy of white efforts to prevent blacks from voting after the 15th Amendment prohibited race discrimination in voting. Our failure to know and appreciate the depth of the legacies of slavery leaves us entirely unprepared to understand why presidential elections come out the way they do. In addition, the lack of historical perspective leads us to accept that certain aspects of elections, like state control over voting qualifications and felon disenfranchisement, are somehow neutral and benign doctrines. State voter-suppression efforts enjoy a surface plausibility they do not deserve. This essay describes the principal legacies of slavery in our electoral law and their major effects on the most recent presidential election. First I discuss why the Constitution itself is properly considered a proslavery document. One of the proslavery features of the Constitution is the electoral college, enacted as a way to protect the interests of slave owners. Next I discuss two aspects of state control over voter qualifications that had a major restrictive impact on the electorate: ostensibly neutral efforts like voter ID laws and felon disenfranchisement laws.

FEDERALISM, SUBSIDIARITY, AND VOTING RIGHTS: CRITIQUING THESHELBY COUNTYDECISION THROUGH JOHANNES ALTHUSIUS AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING

AbstractThis article develops a legal and theological critique of theShelby County, Alabama v. Holderdecision that dismantled portions of the Voting Rights Act. Defending the Voting Rights Act in light of four basic features of voting rights—access, participation, empowerment, and expression of conscience—I refute theShelbydecision in terms of its oversimplified notions of discrimination and its overly narrow construal of federalism as state sovereignty and equality. I draw upon Catholic social teaching's subsidiarity and Johannes Althusius's federalism to defend the individual and communal dimensions of voting rights. I examine post-Shelbydevelopments, including voter-identification laws, and I argue that such laws are unfounded and have deleterious effects. I conclude by offering modest recommendations for a post-Shelbyworld, including continued roles for Congress and the Department of Justice, the use of intermediary organizations, and the rescinding of felon disenfranchisement laws.

Combating misinformation in the ex-felon population

In-depth interviews conducted with recently released ex-felony offenders and months of participant observation, revealed that felon disenfranchisement laws and other exclusionary practices, cause ex-felons to wrongly believe they are without rights and benefits they retain in most US states, including the right to vote. Ex-felony offenders interviewed unknowingly exaggerated rights restrictions they faced post-conviction and often demonstrated that they were unable to decipher myth from truth, regarding their remaining rights. To mitigate misperceptions held by ex-felons, that alienate them from civil society, probation and parole agencies can facilitate civic reintegration through civic re-education.

HOW RACIAL ATTITUDES AND IDEOLOGY AFFECT POLITICAL RIGHTS FOR FELONS

AbstractThis research examines the extent to which negative attitudes toward African Americans influence public reactions to restoring political rights to felons. We argue that race-neutral policies, such as felon disenfranchisement laws, are non-separable from racial considerations, as images of criminals and felons are typically associated with Blacks. Such attitudes produce collateral consequences for felons, hampering the restoration of their full political rights and, ultimately, their citizenship. Predispositions, such as racial attitudes and political ideology, provide both racial and nonracial justifications for supporting these laws, yet, there are no empirical accounts of their relational effects on opinion toward felons’ rights. Using nationally representative survey data, we find that racialized resentment and ideology exert the most influence on the reactions to policies seeking political rights for felons as well as beliefs about the value of doing so. Consistent with much of the literature on attitudes toward ameliorative racial policies, higher levels of racial resentment strongly predict lower support for felons’ political rights among both conservatives and liberals, yet, racial resentment is most influential among liberals. Conservatives exhibit the highest levels of racial resentment, but its impact is depressed more by agreement on both racial attitudes and opposition to political rights of felons.

Zero Tolerance Policies: Criminalizing Childhood and Disenfranchising the Next Generation of Citizens

Zero tolerance policies were adopted in response to tragic school shooting events. Under these policies, students are suspended or expelled for specified offenses with no exceptions, regardless of the severity of the infraction, mitigating circumstances, or the context in which the offense occurred. School administrators and teachers no longer have the discretion to handle student behavior. Instead, they are often required to refer such conduct to law enforcement, which in many instances are present on school grounds, thereby criminalizing childhood behavior. With no discretion allowed to create individualized sanctions, students view the punishment as irrational, impersonal, and unjustified. Non-discretionary zero tolerance policies breed contempt for the rule of law, irreparably harm students’ notions of fairness and justice, and contribute to the creation of the same divisions between students and teachers that exist between citizens and law enforcement. While these policies are designed to address behavior without regard for individual student characteristics, that is not the case. Prior research has shown that minority students are disproportionately punished in educational institutions, and often punished more harshly than their white peers. Yet, there is no evidence that African-American and Latino students misbehave more than their white peers. Zero tolerance policies have disproportionately impacted students of color as African-American and Latino students are more likely than their white peers to be arrested in school, regardless of the demographics of the school’s enrollment. By removing students from the educational setting, especially students of color, zero tolerance policies are contributing to the disenfranchisement of the next generation of citizens. This Article conceptualizes disenfranchisement as the deprivation of a fundamental right, thereby resulting in the undermining of one’s full citizenship. Zero tolerance policies deprive students of a fundamental right, e.g. education, in the same way that felon disenfranchisement laws deprive ex-felons of a fundamental right, e.g. the right to vote. With automatic suspensions and expulsions, achievement is at risk because of missed academic time. Moreover, the risk of students not returning after suspension or attending another school following expulsion increases. Depriving students of access and interfering with the educational process, zero tolerance policies directly undermine the limited citizenship that students’ experience and jeopardize the full citizenship to which they are entitled. No longer do schools then serve as pathways to responsible full citizenship but rather they become pipelines to prison.

Felon disenfranchisement in the United States: a health equity perspective.

Approximately 13% of African American men are disqualified from voting because of a felony conviction. I used ecosocial theory to identify how institutionalized racism helps perpetuate health disparities and to explore pathways through which felon disenfranchisement laws may contribute to racial health disparities in the United States. From a literature review, I identified 2 potential pathways: (1) inability to alter inequitable public policies that differentially allocate resources for health; and (2) inability to reintegrate into society by voting, which contributes to allostatic load.

Felon Disenfranchisement

Felon disenfranchisement is deeply rooted in U.S. history as a form of punishment and as a tool to inhibit African Americans from voting. Today, there are 5.3 million U.S. residents politically disenfranchised due to a felony conviction—about 2 million of whom are African Americans. The overrepresentation of African Americans disen- franchised, and the U.S. history of racism, brings forth the question of how these laws continue to exist. The objective of this study is to demonstrate, through a socio-legal approach, the federal court system's role in perpetuating and maintaining the ethnoracial divisions in society through the validation and rationalization of felon disenfranchisement laws. We aim to demonstrate how over the past century many disenfranchisement laws have been ''whitewashed'' in order to eliminate any indica- tion of racially motivated practices, a practice that coincides with the historic expansion of the penal state in the controlling of minority populations.

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

Restoring the Vote: Former Felons, International Law, and the Eighth Amendment

The right to vote is a right that many Americans cherish. But for over five million Americans the right to vote is something different. It is merely a dream because they are denied the right. Considered fundamental by the courts and the people, the United States contrarily stands alone in its refusal to allow many former felons the right to vote. The denial of the right to vote leaves a large swath of the population voiceless in matters ranging from the election of the president to who should sit on their child’s school board. This article begins by chronicling the history of felon disenfranchisement. It begins with its origins in ancient Greece and Rome and traces it to the modern day. The article then explores the negative impact felon disenfranchisement has on the American political process. After describing the history and impact of felon disenfranchisement the article explores the various legal challenges that have been brought to various states felon disenfranchisement laws. Challenges have been made under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Voting Rights Act, and the Eighth Amendment. The article will explain why these attempts have been unsuccessful and advocate for a new approach. This article ultimately concludes that the best hope litigants have is to bring suit under the Eighth Amendment. Litigants must do more than merely rehashing the arguments made in the past. Instead litigants should rely on international case law, attitudes, and approaches to felon disenfranchisement in crafting their Eighth Amendment suit. Using international law presents the best hope litigants have for convincing the judiciary to become more proactive in challenging these laws, and thus litigants should rely upon it in lawsuits going forward.

Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons*

Objective. Felon disenfranchisement (FD) policies are said to not only prohibit (ex)felons from voting, but also reduce the political influence of particular groups that are most affected by FD laws. This study tests several hypotheses regarding the role of socialization on individual‐level political participation to examine the claims that nonfelons' probability of voting is reduced by strict FD laws.Methods. The study uses multilevel modeling and two separate individual‐level data sets of those registered to vote to examine the effect of FD laws on the probability of voting.Results. The findings demonstrate that strict FD laws reduce the probability of voting for blacks, but not whites, while the results are mixed for several other demographic groups.Conclusions. Beyond the direct removal of ex‐felons from the voter pool, FD policy can undermine the mechanism of political socialization, leading to potentially greater biases in the electoral arena than previously thought.

Delegating Disenfranchisement Decisions

Most empirical analyses of felon disenfranchisement and other voting rights laws focus on the implications of the laws on potential voters and political outcomes as if they are fully implemented. However, the administrative structure used by states to implement these laws varies as well as the extent that the implementation is monitored and the competitiveness of the electoral environment. We formally model the process by which states choose voting rights measures such as felon disenfranchisement laws. We

Rehabilitated But Not Fit to Vote: A Comparative Racial Analysis of Disenfranchisement Laws

Most states exclude felons from the electorate and through a series of interlocking laws, prevent them from casting ballots in most elections, even after former felons complete their entire sentence. Former felons are restricted from voting because of a patchwork of state laws commonly known as felon disenfranchisement laws. These laws differ from state to state but achieve the same end result—the systematic restriction of felons from the voting booth. Scholarship investigating the racial impact of disenfranchisement laws regularly fails to evaluate the extent to which felon disenfranchisement laws impact the political clout of minority communities in comparison to the majority. This manuscript is a preliminary analysis that compares three populations—African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. The data highlights the racial discrepancy of laws that are race-neutral on their face and the degree to which they impact minority communities. This research is the first step in documenting one of several collateral consequences of a felony conviction and the impact on communities of color.

Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States

As levels of criminal punishment have risen in the United States, more and more citizens have been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. This paper provides an overview and analysis of the unique practice of felon disenfranchisement in the United States today. We focus in particular on the political impact of disenfranchising large numbers of nonincarcerated felons—those who have served their entire sentences and those living in their home communities while completing a term of probation or parole. Our discussion is organized around three key issues relating to felon disenfranchisement: (1) the historical and legal origins of this practice; (2) its practical political impact on recent elections; and, (3) the racial dynamics that color both the history and contemporary effects of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. We discuss how felon disenfranchisement laws in many states appear to be out of step with both international practices and public opinion in the United States and consider contemporary policy proposals.Jeff Manza is the coauthor, with Clem Brooks, of Social Cleavages and Political Change: Voter Alignments and U.S. Party Coalitions. With Jeff Manza, Christopher Uggen is coauthor of the forthcoming Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (No. 9819015) and from the Individual Project Fellowship Program of the Open Society Institute. The authors are indebted to the editors and anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments and suggestions and to Angela Behrens and Sara Wakefield for research assistance.

Defying One-Person, One-Vote: Prisoners and the "Usual Residence" Principle

Criminal disenfranchisement laws in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia deny the right to vote to all convicted adults in prison.' Thirty-two states also disenfranchise felons on parole; thirty disenfranchise those on probation; and thirteen bar ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences from voting for the remainder of their lives.2 In the 1974 case of Richardson v. Ramirez,3 the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of such laws. In that case, the Court held that the constitutional right to Equal Protection of the Laws4 does not require a state to permit felons to vote.5 The Court reasoned that exclusion of felons from the franchise was a historically accepted practice and may be lawful when applied equally to all felons.6 Despite the Supreme Court's definitive holding, critics of felon disenfranchisement laws have not been silenced. Several decades

State Felon Disenfranchisement Policy

Objective. Felon disenfranchisement policies impose restrictions on a felon's right to vote. Since these policies disproportionately affect minority citizens, legal scholars and others argue that felon disenfranchisement is a result of racial politics, aimed primarily at undermining the electoral power of black and Latino citizens. This study evaluates these claims in a rigorous empirical analysis. Methods. The study uses cross‐sectional data on current state felon disenfranchisement policies in an order probit regression analysis to examine race‐based explanations in light of competing hypotheses. Results. The findings demonstrate that the size of the minority population, parity in incarceration rates, and the degree of legislative professionalism are the primary explanatory factors of this policy. Conclusions. Given the continued rise in minority incarceration rates relative to those for whites and the link between the racial composition of a state and the severity of felon disenfranchisement laws, the study raises important questions regarding the future of minority participation in the democratic process.