Felony disenfranchisement in the United States

In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. ^[1] Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. ^[2] In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens. As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. ^[3] As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.

Contents

• History
• Recent statistics
• Reform efforts
• Florida
• Iowa
• Kentucky
• Nevada
• Tennessee
• Virginia
• Constitutionality
• Classifications
• No disenfranchisement
• Ends after release
• Ends after parole or probation
• Circumstantial
• Individual petitions required
• Racial disparities
• Economic factors
• Impact
• Political
• Health
• Recidivism
• See also
• Notes
• References
• Further reading
• External links

Proponents have argued that persons who commit felonies have broken the social contract, and have thereby given up their right to participate in a civil society. Some argue that felons have shown poor judgment, and that they should therefore not have a voice in the political decision-making process. ^[4] Opponents have argued that such disfranchisement restricts and conflicts with principles of universal suffrage. ^[5] It can affect civic and communal participation in general. ^[1] Opponents argue that felony disenfranchisement can create political incentives to skew criminal law in favor of disproportionately targeting groups who are political opponents of those who hold power.

Many states adopted felon voting bans in the 1860s and 1870s, at the same time that voting rights for African Americans citizens were being considered and contested. Scholars have linked the origins and intents of many state felon voting bans to racial discrimination. ^{[6] [7] [8]} In some states, legislators have been accused of specifically tailoring felon voting bans to purposely and disproportionately target African Americans, for example, by targeting minor crimes more common among these citizens while allowing felons who committed more serious crimes (such as murder) to vote. ^{[9] [10]}

History

Part of the Politics series
Voting
Balloting Ballots Absentee ballot Provisional ballot Sample ballot Candidates and Ballot measures Write-in candidate Electorate Slate Ticket Collection Ballot box Compulsory voting Early voting Electronic voting Open ballot Polling place Postal voting Precinct Vote center Voting booth Counting Popular vote Tally Voting machine
Electoral systems Plurality and majoritarian systems First-past-the-post voting Two-round system Instant-runoff voting Plurality-at-large voting General ticket Usual judgment Proportional and semi-proportional systems Single non-transferable vote Cumulative voting Binomial system Party-list Single transferable voting Spare vote Mixed-member systems Mixed-member proportional Additional member system Mixed single vote (positive vote transfer) Scorporo (negative vote transfer) Mixed ballot transferable vote Alternative Vote Plus Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority bonus system Parallel voting (Mixed member majoritarian)
Voting strategies Issue voting Fusion voting Split-ticket voting Straight-ticket voting Tactical voting Vote pairing Protest votes Abstention Donkey vote Election boycott None of the above Refused ballot Spoilt vote
Voting patterns and effects Coattail effect Voting advice application Likely voter Paradox of voting Passive electioneering Vote splitting Political apathy Voter fatigue Voter turnout Protest votes
Electoral fraud and prevention Ballot harvesting Ballot stuffing Voter intimidation Vote buying Voter suppression Voter caging Prevention Election ink Secret ballot Voter registration End-to-end verifiable voting
Politicsportal
v t e

The first US felony provisions were introduced in 1792 in Kentucky, ^[11] although the first actual law disenfranchising felons was introduced by Connecticut in 1818. ^[12] By 1840, four states ^[a] had felony disenfranchisement policies. By the American Civil War, about 24 states had some form of felony disenfranchisement policy or similar provision in the state constitution, although only eighteen actually disenfranchised felons. ^{[b] [13]} The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and by 1870 the number had increased to 28 (out of 38 states). ^[13]

The surge of felony disenfranchisement laws after the Civil War led many to conclude that the laws were implemented as part of a strategy to disenfranchise African Americans, especially as the policy was expanded in conjunction with the Black Codes, which established severe penalties for petty crimes and especially targeted African Americans. ^[14]

As of 2018, most U.S. states had policies to restore voting rights upon completion of a sentence. Only a couple states — Iowa, and Virginia specifically — permanently disenfranchised a felony convict and 6 other states limited restoration based on crimes of "moral turpitude". ^[15]

The US Supreme Court in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), ^[16] interpreted section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment as permitting states to disenfranchise convicted criminals, leaving them to decide which crimes would be grounds for disenfranchisement, which are not restricted to felonies, though in most cases they do.^{[ citation needed ]} Felons who have completed their sentences are allowed to vote in most states. Between 1996 and 2008, 28 states changed their laws on felon voting rights, mostly to restore rights or to simplify the process of restoration. ^[17] Since 2008, state laws have continued to shift, both curtailing and restoring voter rights, sometimes over short periods of time within the same state. ^[17]

Recent statistics

This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(January 2024)

As of 2008, over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement. ^[18] In the national elections in 2012, the various state felony disenfranchisement laws together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general. The state with the highest number of disenfranchised voters was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised ^[19] because of a current or previous felony conviction, over 10% of the voting age citizens, including the 774,000 disenfranchised only because of outstanding financial obligations. In October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. ^[3]

2016 estimates of disenfranchised individuals with felony convictions ^[20]

State	In prison	On parole	On felony probation	In jail	Post-sentence	Total	Voting age population	Percent
Alabama	30,585	6,580	15,626	1,578	231,896	286,266	3,755,483	7.62%
Alaska	5,497	2,035	6,900	7	-	14,439	552,166	2.61%
Arizona	44,509	7,241	51,362	1,341	116,717	221,170	5,205,215	4.25%
Arkansas	19,224	21,811	24,695	975	-	66,705	2,272,904	2.93%
California	136,302	86,254	-	-	-	222,557	30,023,902	0.74%
Colorado	21,207	8,673	-	1,066	-	30,946	4,199,509	0.74%
Connecticut	14,926	2,419	-	-	-	17,345	2,826,827	0.61%
Delaware	6,858	716	4,074	-	4,067	15,716	741,548	2.12%
Florida	102,555	4,208	86,886	4,822	1,487,847	1,686,318	16,166,143	10.43%
Georgia	50,900	23,545	170,194	4,112	-	248,751	7,710,688	3.23%
Hawaii	6,364	-	-	-	-	6,364	1,120,770	0.57%
Idaho	7,873	5,057	9,863	314	-	23,206	1,222,093	1.89%
Illinois	47,537	-	-	2,089	-	49,625	9,901,322	0.50%
Iowa	9,127	6,133	12,365	410	23,976	52,012	2,395,103	2.17%
Indiana	28,028	-	-	1,630	-	29,658	5,040,224	0.59%
Kansas	9,466	4,023	3,426	679	-	17,594	2,192,084	0.80%
Kentucky	22,968	16,729	27,323	2,039	242,987	312,046	3,413,425	9.14%
Louisiana	35,614	31,450	37,761	3,211	-	108,035	3,555,911	3.04%
Maine	-	-	-	-	-	-	1,072,948	0.00%
Maryland	20,378	-	-	1,087	-	21,465	4,658,175	0.46%
Massachusetts	10,254	-	-	921	-	11,176	5,407,335	0.21%
Michigan	42,661	-	-	1,560	-	44,221	7,715,272	0.57%
Minnesota	11,369	8,148	43,215	608	-	63,340	4,205,207	1.51%
Mississippi	13,752	8,051	28,463	1,422	166,494	218,181	2,265,485	9.63%
Missouri	32,768	16,808	38,870	1,219	-	89,665	4,692,196	1.91%
Montana	3,816	-	-	330	-	4,146	806,529	0.51%
North Carolina	37,446	10,977	40,867	1,888	-	91,179	7,752,234	1.18%
North Dakota	2,042	-	-	136	-	2,178	583,001	0.37%
Nebraska	6,377	782	2,952	384	7,069	17,564	1,425,853	1.23%
Nevada	11,560	6,828	8,097	701	62,080	89,267	2,221,681	4.02%
New Hampshire	2,856	-	-	175	-	3,031	1,066,610	0.28%
New Jersey	19,964	14,831	58,123	1,396	-	94,315	6,959,192	1.36%
New Mexico	7,205	2,838	13,352	891	-	24,286	1,588,201	1.53%
New York	50,513	44,590	-	2,477	-	97,581	15,584,974	0.63%
Ohio	51,102	-	-	1,736	-	52,837	8,984,946	0.59%
Oklahoma	27,857	2,572	26,475	1,398	-	58,302	2,950,017	1.98%
Oregon	14,228	-	-	519	-	14,748	3,166,121	0.47%
Pennsylvania	49,269	-	-	3,705	-	52,974	10,112,229	0.52%
Rhode Island	3,355	-	-	-	-	3,355	845,254	0.40%
South Carolina	20,141	4,621	21,464	1,011	-	47,238	3,804,558	1.24%
South Dakota	3,464	2,643	4,114	170	-	10,392	647,145	1.61%
Tennessee	29,271	13,186	52,654	2,763	323,354	421,224	5,102,688	8.26%
Texas	161,658	111,632	216,033	6,605	-	495,928	20,257,343	2.45%
Utah	6,925	-	-	744	-	7,669	2,083,423	0.37%
Vermont	-	-	-	-	-	-	506,119	0.00%
Virginia	38,694	1,604	56,908	2,905	408,570	508,680	6,512,571	7.81%
Washington	18,395	3,811	25,164	1,182	-	48,552	5,558,509	0.87%
West Virginia	7,042	3,187	4,109	389	-	14,727	1,464,532	1.01%
Wisconsin	22,851	19,537	22,101	1,118	-	65,606	4,476,711	1.47%
Wyoming	2,536	607	3,148	141	17,414	23,847	447,212	5.33%
Total	1,329,288	504,127	1,116,585	63,855	3,092,471	6,106,327	247,219,588	2.47%

Reform efforts

Challenges to felony disenfranchisement laws began in the 1950s as part of the effort of advocating for a shift from retribution to rehabilitation in the American penal system. ^[21] After the latter part of the 1950s, the ratio of states disenfranchising those convicted of crimes decreased; in the twentieth century, some categories of felons were disenfranchised while others were not and several state laws were revised to provide a broader criminal coverage. ^[22] Disenfranchisement laws have been amended, since 1997, by 23 states. These reforms take three forms: repeal of lifetime disenfranchisement laws; expansion of voting rights; and simplification of the process of restoring voting rights post-incarceration. ^[23]

In 2002, Representative Maxine Waters (D, CA) introduced H.R.2830, the Voting Restoration Act, to congress. ^[24]

From 1997 to 2008, there was a trend to lift the disenfranchisement restrictions, or simplify the procedures for applying for the restoration of civil rights for people who had fulfilled their punishments for felonies. As a result, in 2008, more than a half-million people had the right to vote who would have been disenfranchised under prior restrictions. ^[25]

Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Primary candidate Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania argued for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons who had completed sentences and parole or probation. ^[26] Santorum's position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for felons while incarcerated. ^{[26] [27]} Former President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders. ^[28]

In a report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2013, a coalition of non-profit civil rights and criminal justice organizations argued that US felony disenfranchisement laws are in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by the United States in 1992. ^[29]

In 2017, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D, MD) introduced S. 1588, the Democracy Restoration Act of 2017 to Congress. ^[30]

Felony disenfranchisement reforms between 1997 and 2018 have resulted in 1.4 million Americans regaining voting rights. ^[31]

During the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, candidate Bernie Sanders argued that all felons should be allowed to vote from prison. ^[32] His home state of Vermont is one of only two states (with Maine) that do not disenfranchise felons while in prison.

Constitutionality

Unlike most laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States in which adult male citizens are denied the right to vote for any reason other than "participation in rebellion, or other crime" will suffer a reduction in the basis of their representation in Congress. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another. ^{[ citation needed ]}

But critics of the practice, such as The United States Commission on Civil Rights, ^[47] The Lawyers‘ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and The Sentencing Project, ^[48] among others, ^[49] argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court ruled in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state's crime disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact." (The law in question also disenfranchised people convicted of vagrancy, adultery, and any misdemeanor "involving moral turpitude"; the test case involved two individuals who faced disenfranchisement for presenting invalid checks, which the state authorities had found to be morally turpid behavior.) A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.^{[ citation needed ]}

Classifications

Restoration of voting rights for people who are ex-offenders varies across the United States. Primary classification of voting rights include:

Racial disparities

Felony disenfranchisement policies in the United States impact people of color disproportionally. Compared to the rest of the voting age population, African Americans are four times more likely to lose their voting rights. ^[105] More than 7.4 percent of African American adults are banned from voting due to felony convictions. Meanwhile, 1.8 percent of those who are not African American are banned from voting. ^[20]

These racial disparities are not characteristics of arbitrariness but are underpinned by racism systemically built in the criminal justice system. Misdemeanor arrest rates of African Americans are much higher than their proportion within the population, and these minorities together with other people of color receive longer prison terms than their White counterparts for similar offenses. For example, the incidence of drug use is nonetheless equal across races, African Americans are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested on charges related to drug use. These disparities mean that policies like felony disenfranchisement — which take away the vote from people with certain criminal convictions — have an even worse impact, because certain communities are funneled into the criminal justice system in the first place. ^[106]

Most felony disenfranchisement laws are connected with historical attempts to reduce the voting rights of Black people. Whereas after Civil War most states introduced new laws against voting by black people as a way to punish criminals, it was a clear manifestation of Jim Crow method of ensuring African Americans did not get to vote. To this date, these laws help maintain the Black vote in the margins, compounding the problems of race, wealth, power, access to resources, and fair representation in decisions making that touches on their livelihoods.

The effect is further compounded by states where certain laws keep people with felony charges barred from voting for life making them second-class citizens mostly of color. For instance, in the past years, one state that stood out due to its racial discrimination was Florida; in fact, more than one in every five African Americans adults in Florida is barred from voting because they are incarcerated, which serves to continue structural racism. ^[107]

Attempts to change these policies have therefore brought to the fore, the issue of increasing race based disparities. Advocacy organizations point to restoration of voting rights to persons with felony convictions as a social justice cause which, at the same time, is an effective way to challenge systematic exclusion of people of color from political processes. ^[108]

Economic factors

Economic barriers also play a significant role in felony disenfranchisement. Approximately 30 states require individuals to pay legal debts, fines, or restitution before restoring voting rights. ^[109] This effectively ties the right to vote to financial status, disproportionately disenfranchising those who cannot afford these payments. Critics argue that this practice constitutes a modern-day poll tax and exacerbates inequalities, particularly among economically disadvantaged communities. ^[110]

Impact

See also

• Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States

Notes

Related Research Articles

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments, including capital punishment, could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences. Typically, misdemeanors are punished with prison time of no longer than one year, monetary fines, or community service.

The Sentencing Project is a Washington, D.C.–based research and advocacy centre working for decarceration in the United States and seeking to address racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The organisation produces nonpartisan reports and research for use by state and federal policymakers, administrators, and journalists.

Disfranchisement, also disenfranchisement or voter disqualification, is the restriction of suffrage of a person or group of people, or a practice that has the effect of preventing someone from exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement can also refer to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community, or being to the natural amenity they have; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, through intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting. High barriers to entry to the political competition can disenfranchise political movements.

Civil death is the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person due to a conviction for a felony or due to an act by the government of a country that results in the loss of civil rights. It is usually inflicted on persons convicted of crimes against the state or adults determined by a court to be legally incompetent because of mental disability.

Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, was a legal challenge to New York State’s law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The plaintiff, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim who was serving a life sentence at the time, argued that the law had a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race.

Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305, was a legal challenge to New York State's law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. New York State is one of the 47 states to prohibit citizens from voting while in prison.

Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the 1890 Mississippi constitution and its statutes that set requirements for voter registration, including poll tax, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and the requirement that only registered voters could serve on juries. The plaintiff, Henry Williams, claimed that Mississippi's voting laws were upheld with the intent to disenfranchise African Americans, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find discrimination in the state's laws because, even though the laws made discrimination possible, the laws themselves did not discriminate against African Americans. The court found that any discrimination toward African Americans was performed by the administrative officers enforcing the law and that there was no judicial remedy for this kind of discrimination.

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that convicted felons could be barred from voting beyond their sentence and parole without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of states.

Loss of rights due to criminal conviction refers to the practice in some countries of reducing the rights of individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The restrictions are in addition to other penalties such as incarceration or fines. In addition to restrictions imposed directly upon conviction, there can also be collateral civil consequences resulting from a criminal conviction, but which are not imposed directly by the courts as a result of the conviction.

Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.

Christopher J. Uggen is a Regents professor and Distinguished McKnight Professor of sociology and law at the University of Minnesota, where he also holds the Martindale Chair in Sociology. Uggen is best known for his work on public criminology, desistance from crime and the life course, crime in the workplace, sexual harassment, and the effects of mass incarceration, including Felon disenfranchisement, reentry, recidivism, and inequality.

Rights restoration is the process of restoring voting rights to people with prior felony convictions who lost their voting rights under felony disenfranchisement. It may also refer to additional civil rights that are taken away upon conviction, such as holding public office and serving on a jury.

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Reforms can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, sentencing and incarceration. Criminal justice reform can also address the collateral consequences of conviction, including disenfranchisement or lack of access to housing or employment, that may restrict the rights of individuals with criminal records.

This is a timeline of voting rights in the United States, documenting when various groups in the country gained the right to vote or were disenfranchised.

Felony disenfranchisement in Virginia is a provision of the Virginia Constitution: "No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority".

Felony disenfranchisement in Florida is currently a contentious political issue in Florida. Though the general principle of felony disenfranchisement is not in dispute, the disenfranchisement of people who had been convicted of a felony and have served their sentence — that includes prison, bail and parole — but continue being barred from voting if they have outstanding fines, fees or restitution obligations is in contention. Prior to January 8, 2019, when Amendment 4 came into effect, people convicted of a felony effectively lost their right to vote for life, as it could only be restored by the governor as an act of clemency, which rarely occurred. Florida was one of four states with a lifetime ban, the others being Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia.

Florida Amendment 4, also the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, is an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Florida passed by ballot initiative on November 6, 2018, as part of the 2018 Florida elections. The proposition restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment does not apply to Floridians convicted of murder or sexual offenses.

Desmond Meade is a voting rights activist and Executive Director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. As chair of Floridians for a Fair Democracy, Meade led the successful effort to pass Florida Amendment 4, a 2018 state initiative that restored voting rights to over 1.4 million Floridians with previous felony convictions. In April 2019, Time magazine named Meade as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Meade's autobiography Let My People Vote: My Battle to Restore the Civil Rights of Returning Citizens was published in 2020; in 2021 he was awarded a MacArthur "Genius Grant."

Demetrius Jifunza is an American Christian Methodist Episcopal pastor and activist who is among the most visible spokespersons and leaders in the felony disenfranchisement, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative.

References

Further reading

• Bowers M, Preuhs R. (September 2009). "Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons". Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) [serial online]. 90(3):722–743.
• Goldman, D. S. (2004). "The Modern-Day Literacy Test?: Felon Disenfranchisement and Race Discrimination". Stanford Law Review, (2), 611.
• Hinchcliff, A. M. (2011). "The 'Other' Side of Richardson v. Ramirez: A Textual Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement". Yale Law Journal, 121(1), 194–236.
• Manza, J., Brooks, C., & Uggen, C. (2004). "Public Attitudes toward Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States". The Public Opinion Quarterly, (2), 275.
• Miles, T. J. (2004). "Felon Disenfranchisement and Voter Turnout". The Journal of Legal Studies, (1), 85.
• Miller, B., & Spillane, J. (October 2012). "Civil Death: An Examination of Ex-felon Disenfranchisement and Reintegration". Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 14(4), 402–428.
• Siegel, J. A. (2011). "Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage". Social Work, 56(1), 89–91.

External links

• State-by-state overview for the United States Archived 2017-01-05 at the Wayback Machine by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
• Felony Disenfranchisement Archived 2010-11-27 at the Wayback Machine page from The Sentencing Project
• Gabriel J. Chin, Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth?, 92 Georgetown Law Journal 259 (2004)
• Wood, Erika (2008). "Restoring the Right to Vote" (PDF). The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-09-10.
• Historical Timeline US History of Felon Voting/Disenfranchisement at ProCon.org