Prisoners' Voting Rights: A Constitutional Dilemma

The right to vote is a fundamental aspect of citizenship. However, in many countries, prisoners are disenfranchised, raising questions about the constitutionality of such practices. While international variations exist, this issue is particularly prominent in the United States, where state laws often determine the voting rights of incarcerated individuals, leading to inconsistencies and confusion. This has resulted in widespread disenfranchisement, especially among minority communities, with logistical, procedural, and legal barriers preventing prisoners from exercising their right to vote.

Explore related products

Lillian's Right to Vote: A Celebration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

$14.15 $18.99

The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States

$22.81 $23.99

Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction

$29.99 $65

Strasbourg in the Dock: Prisoner Voting, Human Rights & the Case for Democracy

$3

Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America

$3.99 $21

One Person, No Vote

$11.87 $18

Felony disenfranchisement laws vary across the US

The US Constitution protects citizens' right to vote and prohibits disqualification due to age, gender, and race. However, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows states to restrict the right to vote for those convicted of crimes. This has resulted in felony disenfranchisement laws, which vary across the US.

Felony disenfranchisement refers to the deprivation of the right to vote due to a felony conviction. While the specifics vary by state, nearly every state curtails voting rights for those convicted of felonies during their incarceration. However, not all felony convictions result in prison time, and convictions can arise from jury trials or plea deals. As a result, the actual class of crimes that lead to disenfranchisement differs between jurisdictions. In some states, disenfranchisement is permanent, while in others, voting rights are restored after serving a sentence, completing parole or probation, or through a pardon or court order.

The impact of felony disenfranchisement laws is exacerbated by racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Misdemeanor arrest rates are higher for African Americans than their proportion within the population, and they receive longer prison terms than their White counterparts for similar offenses. For example, African Americans are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested on drug-related charges, even though drug use incidence is equal across races. As a result, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact Black communities, as they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

The restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders varies across the US. Between 1996 and 2008, 28 states changed their laws on felon voting rights, primarily to restore rights or simplify the restoration process. Since 2008, state laws have continued to evolve, sometimes curtailing and restoring voting rights within the same state. In 2023, New Mexico enacted a law automatically restoring voting rights to previously incarcerated residents, impacting over 11,000 residents.

The right to vote while awaiting trial or for misdemeanors

In the United States, voters in jail awaiting trial or incarcerated for misdemeanours are usually eligible to vote. However, they often face logistical and procedural hurdles that prevent them from exercising their right to vote. This is known as "de facto disenfranchisement". While the US Constitution protects citizens' right to vote and prohibits disqualification based on age, gender, and race, the 14th Amendment gives states the power to restrict the voting rights of criminally convicted individuals.

In 1974, the US Supreme Court ruled in O'Brien v. Skinner that incarcerated individuals cannot be denied the right to vote solely because they are detained. However, the Court has set a low bar for jail administrators to demonstrate compliance with this ruling. As a result, while many jurisdictions allow jailed voters to vote by mail, the lack of access to phones, pens, stamps, and identification cards in jails can make this difficult or impossible.

In addition, individuals in jail often lack the types of identification required for voting, especially in states with strict voter ID laws. Their acceptable forms of identification may also be confiscated upon entering the jail. Limited internet access further impedes online voter registration and the ability to check registration status.

To address these issues, organisations like the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) advocate for expanding and simplifying voting rights restoration laws and providing clear eligibility information to incarcerated individuals. They also seek to ensure access to the ballot for those in jails, including establishing polling sites within local jails.

In some states, such as Maine and Vermont, the state constitutions allow all incarcerated individuals to vote, including those awaiting trial or serving sentences for misdemeanours. Incarcerated people in these states can vote by absentee ballot in the place where they last lived, ensuring that their votes do not sway local elections.

Voting rights restoration procedures

In the United States, the Constitution protects citizens' right to vote and prohibits disqualification due to age, gender, and race. However, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gives states the power to restrict a criminally convicted person's right to vote. As a result, there is a great deal of variation among states in terms of when and for how long this restriction is imposed, as well as the process for restoring voting rights.

Prison Fellowship, an organization working in this space, believes that the right to vote is a fundamental right of citizenship. They advocate for automatic restoration of voting rights post-release, ensuring that all people have equal access to this right. Prison Fellowship also emphasizes the importance of addressing the racial dimensions of voter disenfranchisement, which has disproportionately impacted communities of color and people living in poverty.

Procedures for restoring voting rights after a felony conviction vary across states and can be confusing and difficult to navigate. In some states, restoration of voting rights may hinge on the payment of fines and fees, which can disproportionately affect low-income individuals. Additionally, individuals in jail awaiting trial or serving time for misdemeanors often face logistical and procedural barriers that prevent them from casting a ballot, despite being eligible to vote. These barriers include a lack of required identification, limited access to mail voting, and the absence of polling sites within jails.

To address these issues, organizations like the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) are working to expand and simplify voting rights restoration laws, provide clear eligibility information, and ensure access to the ballot for incarcerated individuals. CLC specifically seeks to remove barriers that disproportionately impact historically disenfranchised communities, including racial minorities and low-income individuals.

In a few states, such as Maine and Vermont, all incarcerated individuals, regardless of their conviction status, are allowed to vote by absentee ballot. This arrangement ensures that their votes do not influence local elections. Additionally, in 2023, New Mexico enacted legislation to automatically restore voting rights to previously incarcerated residents.

Explore related products

Llewellyn's law job theory and the challenge of the current ban on prisoners' voting. Should prisoners in the United Kingdom be granted the right to vote? ... stipendiaten-wissen Book 2027)

$6.42

Democracy and the Human Rights Act: Republican Analysis of Citizen Power (Routledge Research in Constitutional Law)

$47.19 $58.99

Human Rights in the Media: Fear and Fetish (Routledge Research in Human Rights Law)

$45.56 $63.99

Should Prisoners Be Allowed to Vote?: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Prisoner Disenfranchisement

$9.99

Electoral Rights in Europe: Advances and Challenges (Routledge Studies in Elections, Democracy and Autocracy Book 3)

$47.11 $61.99

The Prisoner T-Shirt Vote 6" Inspired by The 1967 Patrick McGoohan TV Series

$20.95

Prison gerrymandering

In the United States, the Census Bureau is responsible for conducting a population count every 10 years, which includes counting individuals at their "usual residence". However, when it comes to incarcerated individuals, they are often counted as residents of the prison or jail facility, rather than their home community. This can lead to a distortion in representation, as districts with prisons may have a higher population count, even though many of the incarcerated individuals cannot vote.

Opponents of prison gerrymandering argue that this practice can dilute the voting power of districts without prisons, giving more weight to the votes cast in districts with prisons. This can be particularly significant in rural, racially homogeneous districts that house prisons, as the inclusion of incarcerated individuals in the population count can shift political power away from more diverse urban districts.

The impact of prison gerrymandering is not just theoretical. For example, in Anamosa, Iowa, one city council member was elected by just two write-in votes due to the presence of a large prison in the district. This led to a situation where a small number of voting residents had the same political power as much larger voting populations in other wards.

To address these concerns, several states and local jurisdictions have taken steps to end prison gerrymandering. Some states have passed legislation to count incarcerated individuals at their home addresses for redistricting purposes, while others have rejected the Census Bureau's prison counts altogether. These efforts aim to ensure equal representation and uphold the constitutional principle of one person, one vote.

Racial discrimination in voting rights

The United States Constitution protects citizens' right to vote and prohibits disqualification due to age, gender, and race. However, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows states to restrict the voting rights of convicted criminals. As a result, there is a wide variety of state-level approaches to restricting voting rights for incarcerated individuals, including the duration and scope of these restrictions.

Historically, racial discrimination in voting rights has been pervasive in the United States, particularly in the South, where African Americans were systematically denied the right to vote. Following the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress imposed federal military rule over most of the South, requiring former Confederate states to write new constitutions and ratify the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed equal protection under the law. Despite these measures, white supremacists resisted African American voting rights, employing tactics such as poll taxes, literacy tests, "grandfather clauses," and "white primaries." Intimidation, violence, and racial discrimination in state voting laws resulted in a mere 3% of voting-age African Americans in the South being registered to vote by 1940, with even lower rates in Mississippi.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a significant turning point, suspending literacy tests and other discriminatory voter requirements in counties and states with a history of voter discrimination. Federal examiners replaced local clerks in registering voters, leading to a substantial increase in African American voter registration in the South.

Despite this progress, racial discrimination in voting rights persists. In 2013, the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act by eliminating a key provision that prevented states and localities with a history of discrimination from adopting voting changes that could disenfranchise voters of color. As a result, legislators in numerous states have introduced bills that restrict voting access, such as strict voter ID laws, more challenging registration processes, and barriers to absentee voting. These restrictions disproportionately impact communities of color and perpetuate a legacy of voter disenfranchisement.

To address ongoing racial discrimination in voting rights, it is essential to strengthen local and federal laws that protect ballot access. This includes upholding provisions like Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits state and local governments from imposing voting laws that result in racial or language discrimination. By ensuring equal opportunities for all eligible voters to participate in the democratic process, we can work towards a more inclusive and representative democracy.

Frequently asked questions