Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage

During the past 35 years, the prison population of the United States has increased sevenfold. Today, there are over 1.5 million adults currently incarcerated in state or federal facilities, with an additional 700,000 individuals serving time in local jails (Sabol & Couture, 2008). Minorities of color are severely overrepresented within the criminal justice system. (Despite representing 13 percent of the U.S. population, African Americans compose 38 percent of presently incarcerated inmates; similarly, Hispanics total just over 15 percent of the overall population and 20 percent of inmates [Sabol & Couture, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006]). Criminal convictions carry many consequences beyond immediate sentences or terms of incarceration. These "collateral consequences" include barriers to obtaining employment, housing, higher education, and public benefits. Both pervasive and enduring, many of these forms of punishment have been institutionalized in government policy. Increasingly harsh sentencing policies (for example, three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentences) and the racially disproportionate effects of the so-called "war on drugs" have led to a vast increase in the number of individuals and communities suffering from such collateral consequences (see Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002; Pew Center on the States, 2008). One of the lesser known implications of justice-system involvement is the practice of temporarily or permanently denying the right to vote to individuals with criminal convictions. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), states are permitted to disenfranchise convicted felons on the basis of the court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "when the right to vote ... is denied ... or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced" (italics added). Forty-eight states ban felons from voting while they are incarcerated, and 35 of these states deny former offenders the right to vote while paroled. In 11 states, some former offenders may reapply for suffrage, but others lose the right to vote permanently. It is estimated that more than 5 million Americans are currently denied suffrage under these laws, including 2 million people who have completed their sentences (Manza & Uggen, 2006). (In addition, Ewald [2005] found that at least five states temporarily or permanently disenfranchise misdemeanants and that many legally eligible voters do not vote because of widespread confusion regarding disenfranchisement laws.) Mirroring racial disparities in justice-system involvement, African American men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times greater than the national average; in states with more restrictive laws, up to 25 percent will never vote again (The Sentencing Project, 2007). Since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-110), convicted felons remain one of the few populations institutionally denied the right to vote. This denial of suffrage undermines the democratic process and impedes rehabilitation, debilitating both communities and individuals. Given the severity of current policy and its effects, it is consistent with the ethical imperatives of the profession that social workers take a more assertive stance against disenfranchisement. ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE Felon disenfranchisement hinders the democratic process by undermining equitable representation of citizens' interests, a critical component of a functioning democracy. In the United States, voting is the most common means through which citizens influence how they are represented; in fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the significance of suffrage, asserting that voting is the "essence of a democratic society" (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964) and that all other rights "are illusory if the right to vote is undermined" (Wesberry v. …