Voting Criteria

One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).

The 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry was the beginning of movement. During this time, the headlines were full of coverage about the right to allow felons vote in elections. Although the law is still the same, there is still potential to overturn it. In a 2005 article posted by City Journal, Edward Feser said that “some advocates of felon voting have trouble with the basic concept of criminal justice”. However, there are many points to be made about why felons should be allowed to vote in elections after they have been released for their crime. For instance, in the eighth amendment, it ‘succinctly prohibits ‘excessive’ sanctions,’ and notes that punishment for a crime should be proportioned to the offense. In

The citizens of the United States of America have a long history of having to fight for their right to vote, and while women and people of color do have the right, another group of people is facing a difficult time being able to vote. This other group is the felons, but understandably so: a felon’s ability to make critical decisions for the United country is sure to be questioned. Felon disenfranchisement serves as a barrier between individuals who are qualified to vote and those who are not. The reasons that felons are not qualified to make such important decisions for Americans is that their actions show a lack of good judgement and they show a disregard for the social contract. The ignorance toward the social contract, the types of felonies committed, and the judgement that felons have is questioned, and exactly what the impact may be in regard to our society and the future of our country is explained. There should be a few exceptions, and not all felons should suffer the same fate that those who committed a serious felony do.

The practice of prohibiting felons, especially former felons, from voting is anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, and antipathetic. A felon should be permitted to vote, assuming the felon is not a psychopath. Psychopaths are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and if they were allowed to vote, they may influence society in negative ways by voting for the politicians less tough on crime, for example. However, if a democracy is so frail that it cannot withstand the votes of those who are incarcerated, then something is very wrong with the democracy and needs rectifying.

The 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry was the beginning of a movement. During this time, the headlines were full of coverage about the right to allow felons vote in elections. Although the law is still the same, there is still potential to overturn it. In a 2005 article posted by City Journal, Edward Feser said that “some advocates of felon voting have trouble with the basic concept of criminal justice”. However, there are many points to be made about why felons should be allowed to vote in elections after they have been released for their crime. For instance, in the eighth amendment, it ‘succinctly prohibits ‘excessive’ sanctions,’ and notes that punishment for a crime should be proportioned to the offense. In this case, they are specifically excluding all felons permanently and making them outliers.

About 5.26 million people with a felony conviction are not allowed to vote in elections. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. Nine states in America permanently restrict felons from voting while Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison. Proponents of felon re-enfranchisement believe felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights and privileges restored. They argue that efforts to block ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated. Opponents of felon voting say the restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, mental capacity, and other felon

One of the most controversial issues in society today is whether or not convicted felonies should be allowed to vote. According to the law , Voting is entitled to everyone once he or she have reached the age of 18, but what happens if he or she breaks the law? Do felonies still have the right to vote for upcoming candidates, or once the law has been demolished has their right to vote been abandon? The United States is one of the strictest nations when it comes to rejecting the right to vote to felonies who have been accused of serious crimes. Thousands of Americans are not allowed to vote because of what they call “felon disenfranchisement,” which is referring to those people who are banned from voting due to a conviction of a criminal offense usually restricted from serious of crimes (Teen Nick). Felonies who have completed their time or who still is serving time when their debt is paid it is important to bring their rights back and allow them to vote again. While many argue whether felonies should or should not have the right to vote, Felonies who are given

In lawmaking, there must be objective rights and wrongs. If not, than how can the disenfranchisement of nearly six million United States citizens be considered right? If those citizens have been convicted felons, many of which on multiple accounts- is their lack of sound judgement worthy of the right to vote alongside the rest of the law-abiding population? Many polls show that Americans feel that criminals shouldn’t be punished with disenfranchisement in addition to their initial sentence. Supporters of felon enfranchisement argue that disenfranchisement would institutionalize racism and many of the felons achieve rehabilitation once they are released from prison, thus they live honest lives after prison and have the right to vote. However, eleven states have passed laws in which convicted felons lose the right to vote permanently. The growing number of states passing disenfranchisement laws correlates with growing support of the idea, however accusations of racism and trusting felon judgement raises debate.

There are currently only 2 states in the United states of America that has no restrictions on felon voting rights- Maine and Vermont- and there are ten states, which includes Florida, Arizona, and Delaware to name a few that does otherwise. A crime as little as theft can result to a person having one less human right, which is the ability to vote. However, these laws are unjust; felon disenfranchisement violates the eighth amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Some felons serve for a great amount of time that when they come back to the society a lot has changed to the extent that they would be clueless on how to go about in it, such that new policies and norms are being enforced. Voting can also be a helpful coping tool for felons.

When it comes to the issue of felon disenfranchisement—the deprivation of an individual's right to vote, it is imperative to remember the fact that felons are just as much citizens as their enfranchised counterparts. Similarly, it is pertinent to address the racial disparities within the prison system and how they affect the voices of minorities in America as well as how the lack of representation impacts the prisoners

But the reality is many past felons go through their life not knowing that they can actually vote upon completing their sentence. Once they are in prison, they hate the system and have lost their rights to be a part of society again. So they must be educated on when they can gain this right amongst other if it is possible. Although, those ex-felons who previously could not vote and now can, the journey to vote is long and difficult. Depending on the state and their laws some felons can gain their right after completing their sentence and parole or probation. However, some states make it harder for those who re-register for voting more complicated. They create barriers where ex-felons must go through that ultimately make it nearly impossible to vote again. There are a lot of things to take into account such as the date of the crime, the conviction and the nature of the crime. It adds more unnecessary time to grant them their right back. Even after all that, felons must fill out lengthy paperwork and the inconsistency the law is even if it is stated clearly. The lack of information plays an essential part in their understanding of whether they gain this fundamental right back. This must be changed in order to give past felons their best shot in voting in the future. In prison there should be classes where they can go and get the knowledge they need. After being released from prison as well, there should be a pamphlet or book that they can read to understand how to gain their voting rights or any other right back. They are still citizens of the United States and should not have to have that jeopardized or

Criticisms of moves to restore the vote to former felons and those on probation and parole tend to be abstract. The most common include variations on the following: “if you can’t follow the laws, you shouldn’t help make them;” restoring the vote “minimiz[es] the consequences of crime and empower[s] criminals;” and these individuals would use their vote for nefarious purposes, such as voting for lenient judges and sentencing laws. However, there are theoretical problems with each. First, as noted above, the public seems to disagree with the first argument. Support for voting rights for ex-felon decreases when these individuals were convicted for certain crimes (violent crime, white-color crime, and sex-offenses), but general support for those who would be helped by the DRA ranges from 60-80%. Moreover, this line of thought is difficult to square with our idea of democracy. As Eli Levine, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington University Jurisprudence Review, concisely sums: “it subjects one to all of the rules and regulations of society, yet silences his power to register any displeasure or invoke change.” Finally,

Although some states believe that voting is a privilege that can be taken away after intolerable behavior, ex-criminals should be given voting rights because they are heavily impacted by government decisions, the vote is consequently taken away from low income, minority factions, and the US has a historical record of disenfranchising people regarding their race, color, previous servitude, and sex, so we have reason to question the disenfranchisement of other minorities.

This felony disenfranchisement came about to keep blacks from voting; it didn’t have anything to do with keeping criminals from voting. However, the stigma has always been that most crimes are committed by blacks. Black Americans who are of the voting age are four times more likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population, with 1 of every 13 black adults disenfranchised nationally. Nationally 2.2 million people are black citizens that are banned from voting. In three states more than one in five black adults are disenfranchised; Florida has 23 percent, Kentucky has 22 percent, and Virginia has 20 percent (Chung, 2014).

Disenfranchisement is an engrossing area of the mass incarceration system in the United States. it has such a powerful impact of those who are currently incarcerated as well as those who have finished their sentence and returned to civilian life. Disenfranchisement has according to an article written in 2012, prevented 5.3 million Americans from voting in 2010 due to their status as a criminal (Hamilton-Smith & Vogel, 2012). While this may seem like an insignificant portion of the approximately 323 million (“United States”, n.d.) people that are currently living in America, this is still an issue that must be addressed.