Felon Disenfranchisement Research Articles

The unqualified voter: racial animus in support for voter qualifications

ABSTRACT Voter qualification proponents argue such policies cultivate a more qualified electorate by prohibiting those who lack political knowledge or have questionable moral character from casting a ballot. However, opponents argue these reforms reflect thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise voters of color, suggesting racial animus undergirds support for restrictive voter qualifications. Adding to the literature on voter access and election laws, this study examines the extent to which racial animus influences support for knowledge tests and felon disenfranchisement among white Americans. Using a battery of questions tapping racial animus among a nationally representative sample of over 5,000 white Americans in 2022, results confirm racial animus influences support for voter qualifications.

Racial Stereotypes, Racial Threat, and Support for Felon Disenfranchisement Among White Americans

Applying racial stereotypes and the racial threat framework to felon disenfranchisement support, this study argues white Americans who think Black Americans are more violent will be more supportive of felon disenfranchisement, and that this effect will be largest for white Republicans and white Americans who put greater importance in their racial identity. Analyses of the 2020 American National Election Study finds white Americans who think Black (white) Americans are more violent are more (less) supportive of felon disenfranchisement, with suggestive evidence these effects are more pronounced for white Republicans and white Americans holding greater racial importance. At the same time, the effects of violence stereotypes are consistently substantively small, amounting to less than one half of one level change in disenfranchisement support on a seven-point scale. These effect sizes are on par with partisanship, slightly smaller than other racial attitudes and crime spending preferences, and far outpaced by ideology. Overall, these results suggest racial stereotypes may factor into support for felon disenfranchisement, but these stereotypes are not a driving factor of such support.

Accessing the right to vote among system-impacted people

Recent efforts to dismantle felon disenfranchisement regimes have the potential to substantially expand electoral eligibility among people with criminal records; however, even among those with criminal legal histories who are eligible to vote, voting rates are often extremely low. Analyzing interview, focus group, and text message conversations among a multi-state sample around the November 2022 election, we identify and describe how administrative barriers to voting—including a lack of understanding about the voting process, confusion about legal eligibility, and perceived risks of rearrest of voting while ineligible—pose an access to justice issue among system-impacted people. These barriers are amplified by government mistrust, specifically the perception that barriers are intentionally constructed to suppress voting, and they are potentially mitigated by outreach by community organizations that are viewed as credible. The findings emphasize that legislative reforms repealing disenfranchisement laws must be accompanied by on-the-ground efforts to address administrative burdens to broaden access to the franchise.

Revisiting the Origins of Felony Disenfranchisement in the United States

Abstract We trace the origin of felony disenfranchisement from the colonial period through Reconstruction. On the eve of the Civil War, three-quarters of states had criminal disenfranchisement statutes. These laws were based on “legal moralism” principles, which limited the franchise to those in good standing with the community. Efforts at disenfranchisement grew as access to the ballot increased and criminal justice reforms replaced capital and corporal punishment for imprisonment. We highlight important transformations in felony disenfranchisement during Reconstruction, specifically in new state constitutions and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. All but one Southern state included felon disenfranchisement in their new constitutions that the Republican-controlled Congress ratified for readmission to the United States. Radical Republicans in Congress and state legislatures were in most cases advocates of felony disenfranchisement to exclude former Confederates from political participation.

Re-examining the Collateral Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the U.S

Extant literature on felon disenfranchisement has generally focused on the justicity of disallowing felons to vote and its implications for social stratification in the United States. Punishment for crimes does not often end with sentence completion. Post-conviction restrictions block felons' access to economic, social, and political opportunities long after they have paid for their crimes. Some studies have demonstrated that felon disenfranchisement affects the African American community disproportionately. However, there is a paucity of studies on the study of the possible effects of felon disenfranchisement on election outcomes. During presidential elections, millions of Americans with felony convictions are denied the right to vote. It is estimated that up to five million felons were denied the right to vote in the 2020 presidential election. This paper examines how felon disenfranchisement might affect presidential election outcomes and its danger to equal citizenship and democracy.

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.

A Second Chance in the Sunshine State: Religious Identity and Voter Support for Re‐Enfranchisement in Florida

Research has shown religion to be an important predictor of attitudes toward state punishment, yet religious identity has rarely been included in studies of public opinion toward felon disenfranchisement. In November 2018, voters in Florida passed Amendment 4, the “Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative,” to re‐enfranchise Floridians who have completed all the terms of their felony sentences, excluding those convicted of murder or sexual offenses. This study centers on the potential relationship between religious identity, particularly for evangelical Protestants, and punitiveness by examining religious identity as a predictor of attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement. Using data from a 2018 statewide survey of likely Florida voters, this study examines the effect of religious identity and other sociodemographic factors, such as race, on attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement. Results demonstrate that probable voters who identify as evangelical Protestant are less supportive of Amendment 4 (versus non‐religious), controlling for other demographics previously found to be significant in the literature. The lack of support for voter re‐enfranchisement among evangelical Protestants suggests they take a more punitive stance on this issue. Our findings demonstrate the continued salience of religious identity and the need for its inclusion in future studies examining attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement.

Democracy's Destiny

From its beginning, America has had a paradoxical democracy, where all men are created equal while simultaneously denying the right to vote to anyone who was not White, male, or owned property. The pandemic exposed the fault lines of our democratic form of government. Those imposing barriers to the ballot are facing off against the advocates of access. It is not a new battle. In America, we seek ways to limit who can participate instead of expanding opportunities. We have dedicated our resources to dancing around the edges of democracy-by advocating for vote by mail or automatic voter registration, for example-while allowing states to develop blockades to the ballot that are confusing and quite effective. Without a doubt, America is at a crossroads. The shenanigans that this country has used to prevent access to the ballot box, such as the poll tax, grandfather clause, restrictive voter ID laws, voter purges, and felon disenfranchisement, are antidemocratic and harmful to our system. COVID-19 exposed the fault lines. We must repair them. A free, fair, inclusive, nondiscriminatory right to vote is essential to a healthy democracy. We are in the position to craft a true democratic system of government. Will this country live up to its democratic destiny or continue to deny our journey to a more perfect union?

Review: Convicted and Condemned: The Politics and Policies of Prisoner Reentry, by Keesha M. Middlemass

Review: Convicted and Condemned: The Politics and Policies of Prisoner Reentry, by Keesha M. Middlemass

Criminal Convictions, Incarceration, and the Right to Vote in South Carolina

In a democratic society characterized by near-universal suffrage, like the twenty-first century United States, stripping a citizen of the right to vote is an extreme measure, requiring the strongest of justifications. It is generally accepted that denial of the vote to minors and mentally incompetent persons is justified because of their impaired capacity for reasoned decision-making. However, no such agreed-upon justification exists for the widespread denial of the vote to citizens who have been convicted of crimes. Indeed, the scope of what is generally referred to as “felon disenfranchisement” varies widely among states, and does not exist at all in two. Because of questions about the rationale for felon disenfranchisement, many jurisdictions have begun to re-examine laws that restrict the voting rights of persons with criminal convictions. In the last twenty years, in particular, a number of states have made legal and administrative changes aimed both at expanding the voting rights of ex-offenders and at assuring that ex-offenders whose voting rights have been restored are not excluded from the franchise by misinformation or unnecessary administrative hurdles. South Carolina, however, has not revisited the issue since the current law was adopted in the early 1980’s. That law, in turn, was hurriedly adopted to replace a Jim Crow-era statute that had been challenged on equal protection grounds. Nor has implementation of the current disenfranchisement statute been carefully examined to assure that restoration of voting rights following the period of disenfranchisement is actual and not merely theoretical. As a class project, Professor Elizabeth Patterson’s spring 2018 Voting Rights Seminar at the University of South Carolina School of Law undertook a wide-ranging study of law, policy, and practice affecting the voting rights of South Carolinians who have been convicted of crimes, or who are otherwise incarcerated. Based on interviews with state and local officials and other interested persons, examination of state statutes from all 50 states, and review of a wide range of published material, the class identified three issues that should be addressed in order to assure that the voting rights of persons who have been convicted of crimes or are otherwise incarcerated are limited no more than is necessary to serve legitimate policy goals. The three issues, which are discussed more fully in the report that follows, are: 1. The scope of disenfranchisement under current law. Conclusion: The scope of disenfranchisement under current South Carolina law is broader than can be justified by legitimate policy goals, impedes successful re-entry and rehabilitation of ex-offenders, and has an unacceptable disproportionate effect on black voting rights. The state should consider relieving probationers, parolees, and misdemeanants (other than those convicted of election offenses) of the burden of disenfranchisement. 2. Practical and administrative obstacles to ex-offenders’ participation in the electorate following restoration of voting rights. Conclusion: Substantial misunderstanding and misinformation concerning ex-offenders’ voting rights exist among both ex-offenders themselves and among local election officials. Restoration of voting rights as provided for by South Carolina law will not be a reality without more intensive efforts to inform affected persons of their voting rights and how to exercise the, together with full implementation of the system of guidance and oversight for county boards of voter registration and elections mandated in the 2014 Election Reform Act. 3. Whether the voting rights of eligible voters who are incarcerated are adequately protected. Conclusion: The state has a duty to assure that inmates who retain the right to vote are provided with information and assistance necessary to exercise that right.

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.

CONTAINING THE RAINBOW COALITION

AbstractThe emergence of an African American and Latino-dominated coalition with the potential to reconfigure American government and politics at the national, state, and local levels is one of the most noteworthy developments in U.S. politics over the past two decades. Racialized mass incarceration and felon disenfranchisement are impediments to this coalition’s political power. Social scientists, legal scholars, and activists have long paid attention to how devices like poll taxes, English competency tests, voter intimidation, racial gerrymandering, and voter identification laws restrict participation and diluted the political influence of racial and ethnic minorities. This essay seeks to direct renewed scholarly attention to racialized mass incarceration and felon disenfranchisement as similar devices for suppressing and containing minority group political power.

Restoring Rights, Restoring Trust: Evidence that Reversing Felon Disenfranchisement Penalties Increases Both Trust and Cooperation with Government

More than six million American citizens were denied the right to vote in the 2016 Presidential Election because they had been convicted of a felony crime. Beyond the effects of these laws on voter turnout and electoral outcomes, how do felony disenfranchisement laws affect the citizens who are being disenfranchised? This study estimates the effects of restoring voting rights on the level of political trust among citizens who were formerly disenfranchised. Two field experiments are embedded within panel surveys conducted before and after statewide elections in Ohio and Virginia. The survey population is composed of American citizens with a felony conviction who were once disenfranchised, but now are either eligible to vote, or are eligible to have their voting rights restored. Both experiments leverage misinformation about voting rights policies as an opportunity to estimate how people respond when they receive new information about more lenient voting rights restoration policies. Experimental treatments randomly increase awareness about restored voting rights, along with varying encouragements and assistance with registration and voting. In both experiments, treated subjects report stronger trust in government and the criminal justice system, perceive government as being more fair and representative, and report an increased willingness to cooperate with law enforcement. The results suggest that restoring voting rights to disenfranchised citizens helps those citizens develop the types of pro-democratic attitudes commonly associated with successful post-prison re-entry, reduced tendencies to commit crime, and lower rates of recidivism.

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.

Pippa Holloway, Living in Infamy: Felon Disenfranchisement and the History of American Citizenship

Pippa Holloway, Living in Infamy: Felon Disenfranchisement and the History of American Citizenship

The Political Consequences of Policing: Evidence from New York City

This paper explores the effect that municipal policing can exert on politics, and specifically investigates the effect that Stop, Question, and Frisk (SQF) policing has had on voter turnout and candidate choice in New York City. While extant studies of the American criminal justice system have found that mass incarceration and felon disenfranchisement negatively impact political participation and engagement, few have explicitly explored policing’s relationship with politics and fewer still consider its mobilizing potential. Mobilizing data from over 2.7 million geo-coded police stops and data from a series of national and municipal elections this paper uncovers a pattern of voter demobilization, voter mobilization, and candidate choice that cannot be anticipated from extant studies in the literature. Specifically, it finds that while concentrated policing was associated with reductions in voter turnout in the 2006 and 2010 midterm elections, it was associated with higher rates of turnout in the 2008 presidential election and 2013 Democratic primary and general mayor. Further analysis demonstrates that stopping intensity was strongly associated with candidate choice in the 2013 Democratic mayoral primary, such that higher rates of policing were positively associated with support for the candidate (John Liu) who advocated for eliminating SQF and less support for the candidate (William Thompson) who supported SQF. Together, these findings highlight the impact that policing can exert on political behavior, characterize the impact that harmful policing policies can play in instigating policing participation and engagement, and foreground the importance of considering local criminal justice policy and political action.

Felon Disenfranchisement

Crime control and prisons have featured prominently in electoral campaigns, yet currently and formerly incarcerated people are a profoundly disenfranchised constituency in the United States. This article examines the extent to which this population and its concerns have been excluded from American electoral politics. Starting with the philosophical debate on the extent of the right to vote, the article examines the scope of felon disenfranchisement in the United States, including comparative perspectives, policies in states that allow voting within prisons, and eligibility to run for office with a criminal record. The article also examines the problematic underlying issue of racial exclusion via felon disenfranchisement; the impact of disenfranchisement on civic engagement and recidivism; and the perspectives of disenfranchised, formerly incarcerated people. The article ends with thoughts on the prospects of bipartisan reform of voting rights.

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.

Barriers to the ballot: implications for the development of state and national crime policies

In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which included the preclearance formula for determining which state and local jurisdictions needed to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws and voting procedures, was unconstitutional. By requiring federal approval, this provision prevented historically repressive jurisdictions from enacting covert policies to hinder non-whites from voting. The ruling in Shelby County is problematic because methods in use across the country prevent non-white citizens from casting their ballots, leaving their interests unaddressed. As people of color hold different attitudes and views than whites towards specific criminal justice measures, contemporary barriers to the ballot have potential implications for criminal law and policy. Consequently, analyses of two contemporary methods of denying non-whites a voice in government are warranted: felon disenfranchisement and voter identification laws. After considering the disproportionate effects of these laws on non-white voting, the paper reveals the potential harm that may result from Shelby County if similar laws spread to jurisdictions no longer covered by the Voting Rights Act.