Source: http://critcrim.org/felony-disenfranchisement-laws.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:15:16+00:00

Document:
48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony offense.
Only two states – Maine and Vermont – permit inmates to vote.
35 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole, 30 of these states also exclude felony probationers.
The “participation in rebellion, or other crime” caveat served as an opening for Jim Crow legislatures intent on denying blacks the right to vote. Southern states began to develop felony disenfranchisement laws specifically crafted to result in the disenfranchisement of newly freed African American males.[x] Although the right to vote was specifically granted to African Americans with the 1870 ratification of the 15th Amendment, the adoption of disenfranchisement laws continued with relatively few challenges until the 1970’s and 80’s, when these laws were challenged as violations of equal protection and voters’ rights.
An estimated 5.3 million Americans, or 1 in 41 adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction.
Among those disenfranchised, 74% are currently living in the community.
In 11 states, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement.
12 states disenfranchise more than 10% of their African American population.
After a period of calm resulting from the failure of challenges based on equal protection and voter’s rights, federal courts of appeals have recently reinstated two challenges to such laws.[xiv] Johnson v. Bush revived a challenge to Florida’ s disenfranchisement laws. In granting summary judgment, the district court held that the disenfranchisement provision in Florida’s 1868 constitution was enacted “with the particular discriminatory purpose of keeping blacks from voting.”[xv] In Farrakhan v. Washington, the court described the “disproportionate impact on minority voting power” and “minority under representation in Washington’ s political process” that resulted from disenfranchisement.[xvi] The Johnson court similarly asked “whether felon status ‘interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.’”[xvii] Each of these cases has resulted in optimism among critics of felony disenfranchisement laws.
Felony disenfranchisement laws are under increased scrutiny. Since 1997, 16 states have taken steps to reform disenfranchisement laws, resulting in more than 600,000 people regaining the right to vote.[xxii] Following the 2000 presidential election, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform unanimously recommended that states not prohibit voting by people who have completed their sentences. [xxiii] As pressures to eliminate overly broad disenfranchisement laws continue, change is likely at legislative and judicial levels.
The public opinion tide may also have turned, with research indicating that 80% of Americans believe persons who have completed their sentence should have their right to vote restored.[xxiv] Support for voting rights even extends to violent felons, with 66% supporting voting rights for those who have served their entire sentence.[xxv] In the debate between a desire to punish and deter crime, versus a desire to promote and protect civil liberties, the latter appears to have greater public support.”[xxvi] If this perspective dominates future debate, further erosion on felony disenfranchisement laws can be expected.
Karlan, P., (2004). Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement. 56 Stanford Law Review, 5.
Manza, J., and Uggen, C., (2006). Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mauer, M., (2002). “Mass Imprisonment and the Disenfranchised Voter,” in Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind, eds., Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: The New Press.
Uggen, C. and Manza, J., (2004). “Democratic Contradiction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States,” American Sociological Review, 67(6), pg. 794.
[ii] Manza, J., and Uggen, C., (2006). Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
[iii] Fellner and Mauer, pg. 1.
[iv] Marc Mauer, (2002). Felon Voting Disenfranchisement, 12 Fed. Sent. R. 248.
[vii] Ewald, A.C., (2002). “Civil Death: The Ideological Paradox of Criminal Disenfranchisement Law in the United States,” Wisconsin Law Review, 1045, 1060.
[viii] Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533.
[ix] U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV, section 2 (emphasis added).
[x] Schall, J. (2006). The Consistency Of Felon Disenfranchisement With Citizenship Theory, 22 Harvard Blackletter Law Journal 53.
[xii] Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 56 (1974).
[xiii] Wesley v. Collins, 791 F.2d 1255, 1261 (6th Cir. 1986).
[xiv] Karlan, P., (2004). Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement. 56 Stanford Law Review 5.
[xv] Johnson v. Bush, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1339.
[xvi] Farrakhan v. Washington, 338 F.3d at 1011, 1017 n.14.
[xvii] Johnson v. Bush, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1339.
[xviii] Uggen, C. and Manza, J., (2004). “Democratic Contradiction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States,” American Sociological Review, 67(6), pg. 794.
[xxv] Manza, F., Brooks, C., and Uggen. C., (2002). “”Civil Death” or Civil Rights? Public Attitudes Towards Felon Disfranchisement in the United States.” Institute for Policy Research Working Papers, WP-02-39, pg, 27.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.