Ex-Communicating ‘Ex-Cons’: the Reality of Voter Disenfranchisement
Imagine two people, both convicted of the same non-violent crime. Both finished their sentences and continued to be parents, professionals, and generally upstanding citizens. On paper, they appear nearly identical except for two details: the state they reside in and their ability to cast a ballot. One lives in a state where immediately after being released from the correctional facility, their right to vote was automatically reinstated. With a voter registration form in their discharge packet, they were quickly and easily able to regain their vote. On the contrary, the other has been in a consistent legal battle for years, simply trying to achieve the same civil liberties as their counterpart. Their state mandates people convicted of felonies complete parole and probation before re-registering, adding years to their wait time for voting rights. Then, they are required to pay any fines or fees associated with their arrest before they are allowed at the ballot box — a high hoop to jump through given their difficulty finding stable work with a criminal record. Even after they meet the basic criteria, they cannot just simply fill out a voter registration application but must petition via special legal forms to their governor to have their voting rights specifically reinstated — a tedious and potentially expensive process.
The only difference between the criminal records of these two people is the state they were convicted in; it’s the simple difference of being a California versus Tennessee resident. While the first lives in a state whose legislators believe in genuine democracy and protecting citizens’ rights, regardless of their mistakes, the second isn’t nearly as lucky. Despite having completed their sentence, they are not allowed to fully re-enter their community. For a nation built on foundational principles of freedom, justice, equality, and progress, the criminal legal system in the United States pointedly inhibits formerly incarcerated individuals from growing past their mistakes and leading full lives of contribution.
Voter disenfranchisement, or the legislative restriction of the right to vote for formerly incarcerated people, is an issue that deeply impacts the efficacy and equity of American democracy. The United States is notorious for mass incarceration, making this a large-scale issue. As of this year, the per capita rate of incarceration in the US was 565 out of every 100,000 adults, the highest rate in the world. This leads to one out of every forty-four American adults being disenfranchised due to a felony status. Nearly 5.85 million American adults currently experience voter disenfranchisement, and there are over a million more currently incarcerated in state prisons. Millions of people (not to mention the entire communities ravaged disproportionately by mass incarceration) are refused their voices in a government that they have been uniquely impacted by.
The scale of the impacted population combined with the unique landscape of contemporary American politics has concocted an imminently pressing issue. Just in the past two years, Glenn Youngkin, governor of Virginia, undid decades of legislation expanding the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people. Before Youngkin, people convicted of felonies automatically had their voting rights reinstated after finishing their prison time under an executive order. Youngkin canceled the executive order, forcing formerly incarcerated people to individually petition for their rights back, which can be a lengthy and complex process. The rate of re-enfranchisement of Virginia voters slowed dramatically after the policy ended. This entire initiative was created to increase election security in a post-January 6th world. During his campaign and throughout his time as governor, Youngkin has pandered to the right-wing, many of whom genuinely believe the 2020 presidential election was influenced by voter fraud and fake ballots. This has caused many states with Republican leaders to take crack-down measures, much like Youngkin and Virginia. Their delusion has claimed the voting rights of millions of Americans.
Ahead of the recent state elections, roughly 3,400 formerly incarcerated Virginia voters who had violated their parole terms had their names scrapped from the state voter system during updates due to the new policies. Initially, the Youngkin administration reported that only 270 voters had been purged from their roles. Many Virginia Democrats and voting rights advocates fear that this mistake was intentional because it took place just before competitive state elections. There were several highly politicized issues on their ballots and formerly incarcerated people are four times more likely to be registered as a democrat or independent than as a republican. Many fear this error was designed to sway the election results. While this is just theory, it certainly fits with the restriction of genuine voting rights in the name of election security.
Virginia is not the only state editing their voting laws. Across the nation, civil liberties are constantly evolving, making them an important issue for constituents to pay attention to, while simultaneously being difficult to follow. Voting rights especially tend to mirror and enhance the impacts of other pre-existing systems of discrimination. The impacts of mass incarceration in the United States are further perpetuated by voter disenfranchisement policies, the biggest being the parallel between American mass incarceration and voter disenfranchisement’s impact on communities of color. One in 16 African-American voters is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African-Americans. Black communities across the nation are already disproportionately impacted by voting disparities; fewer polling locations, less campaign funding, and longer polling wait times. In Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming, more than one in 7 African Americans are disenfranchised. Ralph Northam, former Virginia governor, actually expanded voting rights to people on parole in his state because, “too many of our laws were written during a time of open racism and discrimination, and they still bear the traces of inequity,” explaining that Virginia is, “a Commonwealth that believes in moving forward, not being tied down by the mistakes of our past. If we want people to return to our communities and participate in society, we must welcome them back fully.” Voter disenfranchisement is a means of politically alienating people of racial minorities. Allowing a vote regardless of a criminal record is a strong first step towards resolving this issue. It’s impossible to adequately address the inequity of voter disenfranchisement without acknowledging the disproportionate impact it has on communities of color. It’s vital to acknowledge the ways systemic discrimination and mass incarceration seep into other community issues and inhibit our society from functioning effectively. Voter disenfranchisement is a perfect example of the intersections between systemic issues in communities of color. Policies denying citizens voting rights because of their legal status will time and time again decrease the representation of minority communities in government, especially considering the same communities face over-policing and high incarceration rates. Removing the barriers for these communities to vote, including acknowledging and changing the impacts of the American criminal legal system, would allow for more true democracy in the US. Enabling people of color to fully participate in democracy is a big first step towards racial equality in America.
Financial disparities are also an all-too-common barrier between formerly incarcerated people and the right to vote. Each state has a different definition of sentence completion; in some states, it means the person has completed their time in prison. In other states, it means completing parole and probation, and then paying any mandated court fees or fines. 25 states currently subscribe to this definition. Some states, namely Florida (one of the states with the highest rates of incarceration nationally), require additional legal financial obligations in addition to other restitution before an incarcerated person is eligible for a vote. Financial barriers can be the most difficult for formerly incarcerated individuals to overcome because finding stable employment as a person with a criminal record can be nearly impossible. In a 2022 study, the Prison Policy Initiative found that in a group of 50,000 people released from federal prison, only about 40% of them were consistently employed. The joblessness rate of this demographic was over 50% higher than the unemployment rate of the United States as a whole in that same year. Additionally, the people who were employed reported high states of job changes, which demonstrates that their employment lacked security. This means that the people being disenfranchised are being asked to pay for their votes when most people in that demographic are not even able to find secure incomes that can reliably pay for their living expenses. Democracy should be free and accessible.
Some states, namely Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming, have additional steps to re-enfranchisement that can come with additional costs, building even bigger barriers between formerly incarcerated people and their vote. Jawharrah Bahar, a single mother from Nashville who had previously faced felony charges, can attest to the limitations of financial barriers. Like many other people in her demographic, she struggled with finding steady employment for years, and although she always wanted to pursue re-enfranchisement, it just wasn’t financially feasible for her. She later told the Campaign Legal Center, “The lawyer that I had on my case, he was going to charge me $500 just to get in front of the judge, just to be heard, just to file indigent. I didn’t have $500.” The financial barrier made re-enfranchisement a five-year process for Jawharrah, silencing her voice and revoking her ability to get the issues important to her represented in her government. Stories like hers are incredibly common in states without straightforward and inexpensive processes for voter re-enfranchisement. Especially considering more people convicted of felonies come from lower-income communities, it is inherently discriminatory to require fees and fines to re-enfranchise formerly incarcerated voters. The most basic premise of democracy is that everyone gets to participate in it.
The disproportionate impacts of voter disenfranchisement on both low-income and racial minority communities — especially in states with high rates of incarceration and restrictive rehabilitation policies — feed into another larger intersectional issue: the alienation of incarcerated people and high-impact communities. Democracy works sort of like a positive feedback loop; candidates cater to the constituents who vote for them, and constituents vote for candidates who cater to their needs. Candidates and their campaigns don’t invest as many resources in communities with high levels of incarceration because they also have high rates of disenfranchisement. Their support isn’t as instrumental for a winning slate. Then, people who cannot vote continuously have their issues ignored because they are not represented in the ballot box. Frequently, the best interest of people with criminal records is undermined by elected officials. “Tough on crime” has become a badge of honor candidates wear during campaigns. Representatives boast that they’ll keep communities safer by increasing policing and consequences for crime, which often translates to fewer rights and resources for the rehabilitation of incarcerated people. The people most impacted by these policies often have no way of changing them. The social stigma around formerly incarcerated people is only exacerbated by their inability to vote. By becoming a voting population, they become a demographic that campaigns invest resources into, and whose issues feel relevant and pressing to those in positions of legislative power.
In the past couple of years, these changes have finally started to happen in many states. That being said, the current adapted systems are incredibly confusing and difficult to navigate. To start, each state has its own systems and regulations for registering voters because they are set by the office of the Secretary of the State. This means that the resources available for navigating the ever-changing systems would have to come from the Secretary of the State, or a non-governmental organization that has resources for that specific state. Already, the information is a lot more difficult to find than if it was universal nationwide. Even then, the systems have been consistently changing, and frequently these pieces of legislation are passed quietly. It can be difficult to tell what information is up-to-date and accurate. There have even been instances where the office of the Secretary of the State is distributing inaccurate information. When Colorado changed their restrictions to allow people on parole to vote in 2019, the Secretary of the State still distributed old information packets that said it wasn’t allowed until 2022. Even people who knew about the change in the legislation were nervous to re-register because voting while ineligible is a crime punishable by up to 18 months in prison. For any of the people who had just regained their freedom, their vote was not worth the risk. People should be able to find information about their voting rights easily. Formerly incarcerated people shouldn’t have to decide between being an engaged citizen and risking their freedoms.
Even professionals involved in the criminal legal system can’t keep up with the new legislation. In New Jersey, people convicted of felonies are supposed to be informed of their voting rights when they are released into parole. However, Ron Pierce, who was formerly incarcerated in New Jersey, said he “had to actually tell my parole officer that he is supposed to be telling people they have the right. He didn’t even know we had the right to vote.” For formerly incarcerated people, finding accurate information can be incredibly difficult, and even sources that should be reliable aren’t always. Not only should formerly incarcerated individuals have the right to vote, but their rights should be comprehensible. It shouldn’t require thorough research or a legal degree to figure out what a person’s civil liberties are and they can register to use them. The policy changes contemporary legislators have been making are worthless if the people they impact do not know they are happening.
The largest argument against re-enfranchising voters is that people convicted of felonies should not be rewarded for committing crimes. There are several issues with this line of reasoning, but they mostly boil down to three points: 1) as previously established, mass incarceration impacts some communities significantly more severely than others, 2) it isn’t a democracy if everyone’s voice isn’t represented — regardless of their criminal record or any other factor, and 3) re-enfranchisement has proven to be an incredibly effective method for rehabilitation. People convicted of felonies who are allowed to vote after finishing their sentences have been proven to be significantly less likely to re-offend than formerly incarcerated people who cannot vote. This is because voting is an easy way to become involved in the community, which then builds a sense of commitment to the future and well-being of that community. Christopher Uggen, a researcher at the University of Minnesota found that “Voting itself is partly an expression of this identification with one’s fellow citizens and standing shoulder to shoulder with them in electing new leaders. And so, getting people to the voting booth is part of that process. By locking people out, you’re really reinforcing the idea that they are ‘other’ — that they are excluded.” At least in theory, full rehabilitation should be the primary goal of judicial systems. The data proves re-enfranchisement is an effective rehabilitation strategy — why don’t we take advantage of it?
The disenfranchisement of voters with a criminal record prevents the United States from experiencing legitimate democracy, and underserved communities from receiving the support they need to achieve a brighter future. There are countless issues with American mass incarceration, but voter disenfranchisement represents some of the worst facets of the issue — the people impacted are not given the ability to change it, and the remainder of the population is generally indifferent, or worse, invigorated against them. People who have been convicted of felonies are still people, and they shouldn’t be permanently deprived of their basic rights and liberties. Civic engagement and democratic thinking are the thesis of the American experience; millions of citizens have been denied their involvement in these fundamental community experiences. To be flawed is to be human, to be human is to grow, evolve, and change. Formerly incarcerated people shouldn’t be denied their right to humanity.
Works Cited
“Brief Felon Voting Rights.” National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
“California Voters Approve Prop. 17, Restoring Voting Rights to People Who Have Completed Prison Terms.” Brennan Center for Justice, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/california-voters-approve-prop-17-restoring-voting-rights-people-who-have. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
Cameron, Chris. “Virginia Erroneously Purged Nearly 3,400 from State’s Voter Rolls.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/us/politics/virginia-voter-purge-election.html?searchResultPosition=20.
Executive Order — Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, governor.ky.gov/attachments/20191212_Executive-Order_2019–003.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
Felon Enfranchisement & Potential Impact on Future Elections, img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/46f9c3f4–7789–4dd2-b5ae-150120b49d92/RRP_Ragnar%20Labs_Q3_2019.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov. 2023.
“Felony Disenfranchisement Laws (Map).” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map. Accessed 14 Nov. 2023.
“Governor Northam Restores Civil Rights to over 69,000 Virginians, Reforms Restoration of Rights Process.” Former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam — March, www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2021/march/headline-893864-en.html. Accessed 14 Nov. 2023.
“New Data on Formerly Incarcerated People’s Employment Reveal Labor Market Injustices.” Prison Policy Initiative, www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/02/08/employment/. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
“I’m Unable to Vote Because I Have a Record, but I’m Not Going to Allow My Past to Be Held against Me.” Campaign Legal Center, campaignlegal.org/story/im-unable-vote-because-i-have-record-im-not-going-allow-my-past-be-held-against-me. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
Lewis, Nicole, and Andrew Rodriguez Calderón. “Millions of People with Felonies Can Now Vote. Most Don’t Know It.” The Marshall Project, The Marshall Project, 23 June 2021, www.themarshallproject.org/2021/06/23/millions-of-people-with-felonies-can-now-vote-most-don-t-know-it.
Mahajan, Ilica, et al. “Paroled People Can Vote in Colorado. Why Did Forms Say They Couldn’t?” The Marshall Project, The Marshall Project, 24 Mar. 2022, www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/24/paroled-people-can-vote-in-colorado-why-did-forms-say-they-couldn-t.
Schneider, Gregory S. “Youngkin Requires People Convicted of Felonies to Apply for Voting Rights.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 23 Mar. 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/22/youngkin-virginia-felon-rights-restoration/.
Wagner, Wendy Sawyer and Peter. “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023.” Prison Policy Initiative, www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
