Political and Demographic Explanations of Felon Disenfranchisement Policies in the States

Nearly 5 million Americans are currently deprived of the right to vote as a result of state laws which prohibit voting by felons and ex-felons. With the exception of Maine and Vermont, every state denies incarcerated individuals the right to vote, 30 states deny felons on probation or parole the right to vote, and in 12 states felons are permanently banned from voting (Sentencing Project 2004). This research explores the political and demographic factors that influence the probability of a state adopting more or less stringent laws regarding a felon’s right to vote. About the authors Daniel S. Murphy is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justices at Appalachian State University and is sitting member of the Board of Directors for FedCure. His teaching and research are in the areas of criminological theory, prison issues, and criminal justice policy. E-mail (murphyds@appstate.edu). Adam J. Newmark is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Appalachian State University. His primary areas of teaching and research include state and local politics, interest groups and lobbying activity, political parties, public policy, and public opinion. E-mail (newmarkaj@appstate.edu). Philip J. Ardoin is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Appalachian State University. His teaching and research interest include Congress and influences on Representation, Presidential Elections, and Partisan and Minority Politics. (ardoinpj@appstate.edu) Political and Demographic Explanations of Felon Disenfranchisement Policies in the States Introduction Over the last four decades, state legislatures have adopted substantial changes in felon disenfranchisement policies, with some states reducing restrictions and others adopting more restrictive policies. Given the number of individuals adversely affected by disenfranchisement policies throughout the country, the impact of these laws could have a significant influence on national and state election outcomes (Uggen and Manza 2002). But the question of how and why these laws have changed in the states remains somewhat enigmatic. Our research examines several theoretically significant factors on the probability of a state adopting more or less restrictive felony disenfranchisement policy. Specifically, our model examines the internal characteristics in the scope of felon disenfranchisement policy along two substantive areas: 1) POLITICAL (government and citizen ideology, party competition, and political culture) and (2) DEMOGRAPHIC (size of prison population, size of minority population, proportion of population over 65, average state education level, and urbanization). Ultimately, the results of our analysis allow us to sort the relative importance of each of these forces on the probability of each state deciding whether or not to expand or limit felony enfranchisement. More broadly, the results of our analysis advance our understanding of how political and demographic characteristics determine state policy. Implications of Felony Disenfranchisement Policy The construct felon disenfranchisement may appear pejorative in the sense we are using a term that suggests that a portion of the population has been deprived of their rights. It is not our intent to make normative judgments about this term, but we do