Voting Rights Arguments

Felony disenfranchisement operates contrary to the goals of ensuring public safety and reducing reoffending by alienating from society those individuals that the criminal justice system is simultaneously attempting to reintegrate. Further, as the Committee has noted, state disenfranchisement laws are problematic not only due to the vast numbers of potential voters they affect, but also their disproportionate impact on racial minorities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics. Further, many of these laws extend punishment beyond the walls of the prison by continuing to disenfranchise individuals who are on probation, parole or have completed their full sentences. For this reason, it is particularly important that the Committee urge the United States to provide its rationale for continuing to deprive individuals with felony convictions of the right to vote after they are no longer

About 5.26 million people with a felony conviction are not allowed to vote in elections. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. Nine states in America permanently restrict felons from voting while Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison. Proponents of felon re-enfranchisement believe felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights and privileges restored. They argue that efforts to block ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated. Opponents of felon voting say the restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, mental capacity, and other felon

“There is an estimated number of 5.85 million Americans who are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses.” (Uggen). Varying by state, each disenfranchisement law is different. Only 2 out of 50 U.S. states; Vermont & Maine, authorize voting from convicted felons incarcerated and liberated as shown in (Fig. 1). But of the 48 remaining states these rights are either prohibited or authorized in at least 5 years succeeding to liberation. This disenfranchisement needs to be retracted due to fact that convicted felons; incarcerated or liberated, are U.S. citizens who are guaranteed constitutional rights that should allow them as citizens to have equal opportunity in political and social

Voting was not always fair, especially for colored people. People who were white could vote without problems. Not only did blacks have rights, but Indians couldn't vote. Soon after almost 100 years Native Americans could finally vote.Today everyone has the right to vote no matter what race 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.

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.

The 1965 Voting Rights Acts were adopted because of the flaws found in the 15th amendment that interfered with the basic right to vote for many minorities. The ability to vote is one of the most powerful tools that the American people have to make a change within America. The power to vote is important because you can decide your own government and by choosing your own government you are voicing your ideas on how you want the country to be operated. The amendment that gives US citizens the ability to vote is the 14th amendment which defines what it means to be a citizen. Whereas, the 15th amendment was put in place to stop the discrimination of voting based on your color, race, or previous conditions of servitude.

Millions of Americans lose the right to vote due to past felony convictions. While majority of Americans have completed their sentence, they are still not afforded the opportunity to vote. In some states voting rights of felons are terminated all together while other states allow felons who have completed their sentence to regain their voting rights. Felon disenfranchisement is not being allowed to vote after committing a felony. Felon Disenfranchisement takes a toll on our society by placing limits on the amount of possible state votes, and discontinues voting rights in some states. A vast number of citizens believe that felons should not have the right to vote.

There has been a proposal in the works of congress for quite some time called the Democracy Restoration Act or the DRA. A proponent of the DRA, Erika L. Wood argues that “the DRA would restore voting rights in federal elections to the 4.3 million Americans who are out of prison, living in the community” (Ellis 2014, 63). The Brennan Center for Justice is a major advocate for the DRA and believes that restoring voting rights to felons will “strengthen our democracy, advance civil rights, aid law enforcement and reduce recidivism, and facilitate election administration” (Brennan Center

Currently in the United States, only 12 states allow felons to vote after they have completed their time in prison and 2 states that actually allow felons to vote while in prison. While 19 states allow it after the sentence, parole, and probation and there are three states where felons are completely banned from voting for the rest of their lives. For those nineteen states that allow it after parole and probation, that is in essence still taking away their rights for most of their lives because depending on the crime probation can last as long as 35 years. Felon disenfranchisement creates a racial divide in the United States and can affect the

Felon disenfranchisement is a serious issue in the United States. It removes a person’s right to vote after incarceration. It is sometimes speculated that disenfranchisement racially discriminates. This is often thought to be true because the majority of those who are disenfranchised are African American males. While it does have roots in racial disadvantaging, it does not

The voice of millions of Americans can’t be heard due to the disenfranchisement laws, which is vital living in a country that depends on votes for elected officials. There are many supporters and non-supporters of the disenfranchisement laws, and “since 1975 there have been 13 states that liberalized their laws, 11 states have passed further limitations on felons, and 3 states have passed both laws” (Manza, 2004). There is an on going debate among citizens and states whether or not to amend the disenfranchisement laws and allow more convicted ex-felons to use their voting rights. Some believe their voting rights should not be restored, because they are criminals, and it’s a part of being a criminal. Others are fighting that their voting rights should be restored, that people make mistakes, and if they have completed their sentence then they have served their punishment. Research shows a consensus

In lawmaking, there must be objective rights and wrongs. If not, than how can the disenfranchisement of nearly six million United States citizens be considered right? If those citizens have been convicted felons, many of which on multiple accounts- is their lack of sound judgement worthy of the right to vote alongside the rest of the law-abiding population? Many polls show that Americans feel that criminals shouldn’t be punished with disenfranchisement in addition to their initial sentence. Supporters of felon enfranchisement argue that disenfranchisement would institutionalize racism and many of the felons achieve rehabilitation once they are released from prison, thus they live honest lives after prison and have the right to vote. However, eleven states have passed laws in which convicted felons lose the right to vote permanently. The growing number of states passing disenfranchisement laws correlates with growing support of the idea, however accusations of racism and trusting felon judgement raises debate.

Felon disenfranchisement can affect society as a whole by further marginalizing and alienating formerly incarcerated individuals, thus forming a community of ex-felons excluded from civil society. Losing one's voting rights extends feelings of not being wanted and a feeling of powerlessness. Those who are stripped of their basic voting rights will receive the message that what they have to say, mainly about who they want to represent them, does not matter. If a group of people don't believe they are seen as a part of society, they are less likely to engage and contribute to their community. By categorizing all ex-offenders together and decreeing disenfranchisement, communities will divide in a manner of whose voice matters and whose does not. Compared to other world leading countries, the united states has arguably the most politically divided communities but the problem lies on whether people can express their opinions or not, in this case through voting. Alexander writes “No other country in the world disenfranchises people who are released from prison in a manner even remotely resembling the United States” (158). This mass disenfranchisement creates a country where its citizens have no say in who represents them and their

Criticisms of moves to restore the vote to former felons and those on probation and parole tend to be abstract. The most common include variations on the following: “if you can’t follow the laws, you shouldn’t help make them;” restoring the vote “minimiz[es] the consequences of crime and empower[s] criminals;” and these individuals would use their vote for nefarious purposes, such as voting for lenient judges and sentencing laws. However, there are theoretical problems with each. First, as noted above, the public seems to disagree with the first argument. Support for voting rights for ex-felon decreases when these individuals were convicted for certain crimes (violent crime, white-color crime, and sex-offenses), but general support for those who would be helped by the DRA ranges from 60-80%. Moreover, this line of thought is difficult to square with our idea of democracy. As Eli Levine, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington University Jurisprudence Review, concisely sums: “it subjects one to all of the rules and regulations of society, yet silences his power to register any displeasure or invoke change.” Finally,