The History Of Felony Disenfranchisement

The root of Felon Disenfranchisement can be traced back to Greek and Roman laws. Where any person convicted of an infamous crime would lose his or her right to participate in polis. In Rome they would lose their right to participate in suffrage and to serve in the Roman legions. With the founding of the United States of America, the US Constitution gave the right to establish voting laws to the states. From 1776 - 1821 eleven states included felony disenfranchisement in their laws (Voter Registration Protection Act). By 1868 when the fourteenth Amendment was enacted eighteen states had adopted disenfranchisement laws. After the Civil War felony Disenfranchisement laws were used along with poll taxes and literary test to exclude African

Having the right to vote is a part of being an American just like making a mistake is a part of being human. President Obama said it best “...while the people in our prisons have made some mistakes - and sometimes big mistakes - they are

About 6.1 million Americans convicted of a felony have been barred from voting by the law in most states (Chung 1). The condition regarded to as felon disenfranchisement is controlled by laws provided for by the individual states within the US. Unlike the states of Maine and Vermont which allow felons the right to vote while in incarceration, most other states have withdrawn the right from convicts. Ten states in the country have permanently restricted specific felons from participating in elections. With the argument that the country’s legacy in safeguarding democracy through felon disenfranchisement, opponents of the idea assert that by completing their sentences, felons have paid the debt owed to the society and should have their privileges and rights fully restored. They further assert that part of the efforts to uphold democracy is to get rid of unfair provisions such as laws advocating for felon disenfranchisement. On the other hand, proponents note that felons and ex-felons should be allowed to vote due to the expression of their poor judgment. While the debate continues to elucidate divergent views, numerous factors illustrate that felon disenfranchisement is inconsequential and does not contribute to the betterment of the country.

When the slaves were freed and given some rights, they were offered ’40 acres and a mule’ if they would vote to keep the Republicans in power. Then, they started being voted into office. They had just been freed, and they were not educated, but they were pulled up and shown off to the white southerners to tell them that things were going to be done differently. The Black Codes started restricting the freedmen from voting, but, when they were not able to do it flat out because of the 15th Amendment, the white males did it more subtly through literary tests and charging money. The freedmen would have to read and explain passages from the Constitution, or pay money to vote.

Many people did not choose to follow the 15th Amendment and they would set certain restrictions on African Americans to keep them from exercising their basic right to vote. Things like the grandfather clause, poll tax, and literacy test were created to help prevent them from voting. The grandfather clause stated only those whose grandfathers voted in 1867 election were able to vote. African Americans weren’t allowed the right to vote until 1870, which meant none of them could vote. The poll tax was a tax that said you had to pay a fee to be able to vote and since most African Americans were poor so they were unable to pay.

Felon disenfranchisement is the loss of the right to vote for people who have committed felonies. When researching deeper into felon disenfranchisement, there is an underlying racial factor that consistently comes up. Some say disenfranchisement of felons is racially oppressive and a threat to democracy, while some argue that it’s functional and that race has no relevance. To start this paper I will give a brief background on felon disenfranchisement in relation to race. I will examine and analyze those who believe that “yes,” disenfranchisement of felons is heavily rooted in racial persecution. I will then examine and analyze those who say “no”, felon disenfranchisement is necessary and has no racial impact. After copious amounts of research, I have come to agree with the “yes” side, because their facts are more persuasive and their use of history is in depth, and as a whole this side delivered a well rounded argument.

Following the Civil War and freeing of slaves all over America a new question arose: Should black people be able to vote? Further, were they even citizens in the fullest sense? Now freed from slavery, black Americans found themselves in a political limbo where they were no longer property but not fully citizens. In an effort to extend protection from discrimination at the poll booth, an amendment to the Constitution was passed declaring it unlawful to deny voting on account of race. This amendment, however, was met with unprecedented resistance. Suppression of the black vote was just one step in preventing black Americans from being treated as citizens.

Restoring voting rights for felons is important in a democratic society. The Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits excessive sanctions. This means that a felon should be punished in proportion with the felon’s offense.

The votes of felons are also relevant enough that if they were permitted to engage in democracy, they could change political outcomes. While disenfranchised felons only make up a little over 2% of the voting age population, their votes have been found to have enough influence to affect elections. Since those convicted of felonies are likely to be of a minority race or poor, it is likely felon disenfranchisement laws take away votes from the Democratic party and Independent votes. People of color make up roughly 60 percent of the prison population in the U.S. and make up larger proportions of the Democratic party than they do Republican or Independent (Kerby, 2012). Nearly 90% of the Republican party is white, 70% of Independent parties are

Such rights are inclusive of equal protection of the law, voting, and protection of life, liberty and property. The ex-felons brought forth section one of the fourteenth amendment which enforces the idea that no state shall deny any citizen equal protection of the law and argued they are being denied that very right. The Supreme Court answered this with section two of the fourteenth amendment stating that citizens may be denied the right to vote due to “participation in rebellion, or other crime”, the latter being the justification for most felon disenfranchisement. They furthered their jurisdiction, claiming it is necessary for preventing voter fraud. Due to these two stances, states may legally disenfranchise felons if it serves to their

The right to vote is at the core of what it means to participate in one’s democracy. The 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments brought more people into the voting population by explicitly extending the right to vote to all races, genders, and people over the age of 18. However, a significant number of people are unable to vote today because of their criminal background. The increase of felon disenfranchisement was strategically coupled with the rise of mass incarceration and should be outlawed either by congressional act or by constitutional amendment.

In 2016, about 2.5% of the adult US population, or 6.1 million potential voters, were deprived of the right to vote because of a felony conviction. (Kozlowska) A felony is defined as “a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death,” including murder, the sale or manufacture of drugs, treason, and even tax evasion. (Google) Disenfranchisement is the state of being deprived of a right or privilege, especially the right to vote. The question of whether or not ex-felons should be disenfranchised is still discussed today; some believe that ex-felons can repay their debt to society by not voting, and some, vice versa. Unfortunately,

As drug-related convictions are becoming more and more common, the lower class, which typically is involved in such convictions, becomes less represented in elections because they are not allowed to vote (Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States). Disenfranchisement is silencing voices that have a right to be heard. Felon disenfranchisement would be effective if used in cases of serious crimes such as homicide, but for small offenses such as drug possession, it should not be used.

The long lines, the electric voting machines, and the “I voted” pin that you will get on the way out. These are the things that many people will never get to do. The majority of felons should be allowed to vote because one’s freedom of opinion should not be taken; the Constitution has amendments that should protect voting rights, and a felony can be a minor offense or simply a misunderstanding.

The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society, culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration protected “racial minorities” from biased voting practices. It was a huge stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices and traditions.