Chris Mills

12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

The Right to Vote and Criminal Convicts

In the United States there are 2.3 million people that are imprisoned in jail and over 7

million people on probation or parole (Stevenson). The United States has the highest number of

prisoners in the entire world. In a study from World Prison Brief, the incarceration rate in the

United States is about 0.70% . These people who have been incarcerated, or are on probation or

parole have lost many of their rights due to their criminal convictions. One of these rights

includes the right to vote. This has led to many offenders and ex-offenders argue that they should

not lose their right to vote because they have committed a crime in the United States.

Disenfranchisement significantly impacts millions of people who have been convicted of

criminal activity in the United States, because the population of incarcerated felons and felons on

parole or probation is extremely high. According to an article by Kamesha Spates and Carlton

Mathis, about six million people cannot vote within the United States because of their criminal

convictions. Also, the majority of these felons live in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky,

Virginia, and Tennessee. Just these six states contain around three million of the six million

people that cannot vote due to criminal convictions (97). Lastly, in the book “The New Jim

Crow” by Michelle Alexander, she wrote that people who have been titled a felon will carry that

mark on their name for the rest of their life. This causes them to be regulated as second-class

citizens and not be wanted and accepted in society (142). That means that not only will the six

million people be disenfranchised, but they will also have a difficult time fitting in with society

due to their past crimes.

Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

Regarding the amount of people that disenfranchisement significantly impacts, a lot of

these criminal convicts are minorities. According to a nationwide study by both Kamesha Spates

and Carlton Mathis, 1 in 13 African Americans who are of age to vote cannot vote due to

disenfranchisement (97). Also, according to a study directed from Bryan Stevenson who is the

executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, discovered that 1 in 3 African American males

between the ages of 18-30 is in jail, prison, probation, or parole. He believes that because there

are significant rates of African Americans who cannot vote “ There is despair and hopelessness

in communities of color (Stevenson).”

Also, in an article by Virginia Hench, William A. Dunning, a delegate in the Virginia

Convention during Reconstruction referred to African Americans as “criminally inclined and

venal, a race demonstrably unqualified to exercise the franchise(38).” Due to these statements

states started allowing felon disenfranchisement laws to inhibit African Americans from voting.

These laws started to disenfranchise crimes in order to disable a large amount of African

Americans from voting. A lot of today’s laws that prohibit felons from voting are able to be

traced back to the Reconstruction era when laws were set to disenfranchise mostly African

Americans (41). However, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended any qualification that denied

one’s right to vote because of race or color. Felon disenfranchisement is exempted from strict

scrutiny despite its racially motivated origins. When minorities are faced with disproportionate

representation in the criminal justice system, their concerns regarding equal protection should be
Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

triggered when dealing with disenfranchisement. This is because disenfranchisement limits the

amount of electoral access for minorities as a whole.

Disenfranchising ex-felons has contradictions with the fourteenth amendment. Felon

disenfranchisement is regulated by the states in compliance with Article I, Section 4 of the U.S.

Constitution which permits states to have the control over the time, place, and manner of federal

voting. However, the Supreme Court has been shown that disenfranchisement laws violate the

Fourteenth Amendment. In an article by Abigail Hinchcliff, she reviewed the Richardson v.

Ramirez case where convicts in California claimed that disenfranchisement violated the

fourteenth amendment. Even though the ruling in the court was that these convicts were to not

have their right to vote reinstated it did spark curiosity because today the right to vote is seen as a

fundamental right even though it is prone to restrictions of strict scrutiny (1296-1297).

However, the fourteenth amendment says “equal protection of the laws.” This means that

everyone who was born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and

of the state wherein they reside. No state will make or enforce a law that will curtail the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (Article I). However, in Article II in the

fourteenth amendment it is also stated “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime”

which signifies that the right to vote can be denied to citizens in the state that they reside in if

they participate in acts of rebellion or in other types of crime (Article II). However, it is not

specified what “other crime” actually is. In an article by Abigail Hinchcliff, she wrote that “other
Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

crime” was made to embody small misdemeanors. Also the words “treason, felony, or other

crime” depicts every offense from most significant to least significant (229).

Results of various elections held in the United States can change due to the population of

people who are disenfranchised. Since the population of those who have had their right to vote

taken away from them, studies have discovered that the outcomes of past elections held in the

United States would have been different. In an article by John Schrader, a study reviewing the

2000 presidential race between the republican candidate George W. Bush and the democratic

candidate Al Gore determined that Al Gore would have won the state of Florida and therefore the

presidential election if Florida did not have a felon disenfranchisement law in place. Also,

scholars have proved that Richard Nixon’s popular vote total would have beaten John Kennedy’s

popular vote total if contemporary rates of criminal punishment were in effect. Lastly, scholars

have also analyzed U.S. Senate elections and found out that the Democratic Party could have

held more power in the 1990s (1289-1291).

Also, in an article by Zita Toth who is a professor at Fordham University, states that

children of disenfranchised voters are less likely to vote themselves. Zita Toth also mentions that

voting can reduce recidivism and support growing a more significant commitment and

involvement in the local community (Toth) . People who are related to those who are

disenfranchised may become uninterested and may disregard voting because their loved one

cannot vote. This decision can really impact the outcome of elections because there is a high

amount of people who are related to someone who is disenfranchised.

Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

On the other hand, some think that ex-felons do not deserve to have their right to vote

reinstated to them. In an article by Jerry Shaw, he wrote that ex-offenders have shown

irresponsibility and dishonesty throughout their life which has led to them to participate in

criminal activities. Also, disenfranchisement is a punishment that is given to convicts that have

violated the law. Lastly, disenfranchising ex-felons is way of reintroducing them into society

where they committed criminal actions (Shaw). However, the problem with Shaw’s claims is that

they are opinions and are not supported by actual evidence. Even though ex-felons have proved

to be irresponsible in the past, who says that they cannot prove to be responsible in the present?

Another problem with Shaw’s claims is that he admonishes ex-felons with a disregard of second

chances.

Also, in the article by Abigail Hinchcliff, the Supreme Court in the Richardson v.

Ramirez case ultimately did not reinstate the right to vote to the convicts who claimed that their

fourteenth amendment was violated. The Supreme Court used the fact that at the time of the

enactment of the fourteenth amendment, twenty nine-states had authorization, or allowed their

respective legislatures to authorize, inhibition on exercising the franchise to those who have been

convicted of criminal activity. The Court used this as proof that Section 2 gave “affirmative

sanction” for states to not reinstate the franchise to convicted felons (1292).

As a solution, all ex-felons who have paid their dues to society should have their

franchise reinstated. An ex-felons’ vote has a real impact on U.S. elections as proven in the the

2000 presidential election. Also, ex-felons in the United States have started to have their

franchise reinstated. The Governor of Virginia has reinstated the right to vote to 200,000 ex-
Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

felons residing in Virginia (Ford). This act from Terry McAuliffe, the Governor of Virginia, can

cause other states to follow his actions and also reinstate the franchise to ex-felons residing in

their respective state.

In conclusion, the U.S. has a large population of people who are stripped of their right to

vote. While punishing these people may seem fair for what they have done in the past, there are

still valid contradictions pertaining to disenfranchisement. Millions of people are not eligible to

vote due to disenfranchisement. Regarding the millions of people who are disenfranchised, a

large portion of those people are minorities. Also, U.S. elections can have different outcomes due

to the disenfranchised population. Lastly, disenfranchisement laws have contradictions with what

is stated in the fourteenth amendment. If ex-felons who have paid their dues to society are

allowed to vote in national elections, then there is reconciliation between the fact that they are

allowed to vote but they still have restrictions because they can only vote in national elections. If

one is not allowed to vote in total, then it is not a true democracy.

Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

Sources:
Chris Mills
12/9/16
Mr. Gunsher

Stevenson, Bryan. “We need to talk about an injustice.” Ted, uploaded by TED2012,

March, 2012.

World Prison Brief data, North America. World Prison Brief. Accessed 8 December, 2016.

Spates, Kamesha, and Carlton Mathis. "Preserving Dignity: Rethinking Voting Rights For

U.S. Prisoners, Lessons From South Africa." Journal Of Pan African Studies 7.6 (2014): 84-

105. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. The New Press, January 5, 2010.

Hench, Virginia E. "The Death Of Voting Rights: The Legal Disenfranchisement Of

Minority Voters." Case Western Reserve Law Review 48.4 (1998): 727. MasterFILE

Complete. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

U.S. Const. XIV, Section 1 and Section 2.

Hinchcliff, Abigail. “The “Other” Side of Richardson v. Ramirez: A Textual Challenge to

Felon Disenfranchisement.” The Yale Law Journal, Accessed November 18, 2016.

Schrader, John Benjamin. "Reawakening "Privileges Or Immunities": An Originalist

Blueprint For Invalidating State Felon Disenfranchisement Laws." Vanderbilt Law Review

62.4 (2009): 1285-1314. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Toth, Zita. "Felon Voting Rights." State Legislatures 41.9 (2015): 10. MasterFILE Complete.

Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

Shaw, Jerry. “Voting Rights: 6 Reasons Ex-Felons Shouldn't Vote.” NEWSMAX, Accessed

20 November, 2016.

Ford, Matt. “The Racist Roots of Virginia's Felon Disenfranchisement.” The Atlantic,

Accessed 12 November, 2016.