Day #092: Felon voting rights
Are felons citizens?
Inspired by Michael Bierut’s 100 Day Project, 100 Days to a Better RVA strives to introduce and investigate unique ideas to improving the city of Richmond. View the entire project here and the intro here.
- Idea: A constitutional amendment by the Virginia General Assembly and more unilateral action by Governor McAuliffe restoring the voting rights of disenfranchised felons.
- Difficulty: 4 — Good governance on behalf of the Republican led General Assembly requires a decision that is bad politics.
Happy Election Day! Today, thousands of Richmonders and Virginians will head to the polls to peacefully overthrow the government. Today, thousands of Richmonders and Virginians will be unable to participate because they are disenfranchised felons. It’s time for the Virginia General Assembly to pass a state constitutional amendment to reform felony disenfranchisement, and it’s time for Governor McAuliffe to unilaterally build on changes made in 2013 and 2014.
In 2010, 5.85 million felons lacked the right to vote in the United States. Roughly 75% of them were no longer in prison. One in thirteen African Americans were barred from the polls because of a felony conviction. If a fraction of the 827,000 disenfranchised felons in Florida in 2000 had the right to vote, it’s not unreasonable to think that President Gore would have been sworn into office in January of 2001. This is a serious issue, and Virginia is one of the worst offenders. Because of demographics, this disproportionately impacts Richmond.
Virginia law
In 2010, 450,000 Virginians, 350,000 who were no longer in prison, were unable to vote. Virginia had the second-highest rate of felony disenfranchisement in the country with 7.3% of people disenfranchised and 20% of African Americans barred from voting–but progress has been made. At the time, Felons could only regain their voting rights through direct restoration from the governor.
Permanent change in Virginia can only happen through a constitutional amendment which requires action by the General Assembly. With the majority Republican body refusing to entertain any changes for disenfranchised felons, change has been limited to unilateral action by the governor.
Governor McDonnell began restoring rights to non-violent felons at the end of incarceration, parole, and probation in May of 2013.1 “Non-violent” is a bit of a misnomer; violent crime in this case includes drug distribution, drug manufacturing, crimes against a minor, and election law offenses.
Governor McAuliffe removed the application process for non-violent/less-serious felons in June of 2014 while setting up a cumbersome system for rights restoration for violent felons. The process includes a five year waiting period from imprisonment, vastly differing crime-free requirements including two years without a misdemeanor for non-violent felons and five years without a misdemeanor for violent felons, and a requirement that all fees be paid.2
Unfortunately, the process is only automatic for those leaving incarceration or under supervised probation. The state has understandably had difficulty contacting and working through paperwork for hundreds of thousands of individuals and the Rights Restoration Office is suffering from huge budget cut-backs. ThinkProgress did a great job chronicling this on October 24th. At this point, it’s tough to tell how many felons still lack voting rights in Virginia.
Are felons citizens?
Voting is one of the most fundamental rights of citizenship.
Disenfranchisement’s roots go back to the punishment of “civil death” in Ancient Greece and Rome. This evokes patriotic images of Jefferson and Madison building this country on a foundation of classicism, but disenfranchisement didn’t become popular in America until the Reconstruction era. Furthermore, its biggest proponents were in the South.
Even if disenfranchisement wasn’t racially motivated (it was), felony disenfranchisement does not improve society or prisons. It isn’t a powerful deterrent and it doesn’t enhance the incapacitation of prisoners. It is a punishment of felons, but that punishment comes after the “civil death” element of prison.
Most importantly it doesn’t help with rehabilitation. Studies in Florida suggest the restoration of voting rights decreases recidivism.
Shadd Maruna (2001: 7) contends, desistance is only possible when ex-offenders “develop a coherent pro-social identity for themselves,” In fact, it is possible that developing a self-concept as a pro-social conforming citizen may be a key mechanism linking adultwork and family roles with desistance from crime (Uggen, Manza, and Behrens 2003).
After imprisonment, felons’ property rights are restored, the right to work and live in an area is restored, and in some cases even the right to serve in the military. In 2007, the US Army issues 511 felony waivers including 106 for burglars and 43 convicted of aggravated assault.
The United States considers felons citizens while simultaneously allowing states to remove one of their most fundamental rights of citizenship because of laws with racist roots.
Progress
It’s time for the General Assembly to work toward a constitutional amendment. For as much progress as has been made in the past 18 months, it can all be effortlessly and instantly reversed by the next governor.
A wide variety of policies exist from the possibility of losing the right to vote forever (which includes Virginia) to Maine and Vermont who allow prisoners to vote. Virginia should fall in line with the 13 states and Washington DC who automatically reinstate voting rights upon the end of incarceration.
This would maintain temporary “civil death” and it would limit candidates’ abilities to pander to prisoners, but it would enhance rehabilitation.
Policy progress has been made nationally, but that progress hasn’t made a dent in disenfranchisement because of the explosion of incarceration over the last 40 years. The number one way to fight for felon voting rights, is to decrease our world-leading incarceration rate.
But it’s tough to get people who don’t know criminals-and don’t ever plan on being criminals-to think about, much less support reform. No politician ever gained political capital by “being soft on crime.” Successful candidates are ultimately representations of the desires of their constituents. When a massive group is systematically excluded from having any say in the process, their desires and beliefs are systematically neglected.
Furthermore, laws are the result of a social contract shaped by society. If laws undesired by society disenfranchise opponents of that law, then a vicious feedback loop can be created. If that law predates universal suffrage, then it violates the 14th amendment.
The biggest hurdle may be complacency. When you’re in last place, it feels good to pass a few people, but it’s important not to get too excited if you’re still behind 90% of everyone else. Governor McAuliffe deserves credit for change, but Virginia still has some of the strictest laws in the country. It will be easy to check a campaign promise off of the list, but in order for Richmond and Virginia to be a better place, felons who have served their time and are trying to rejoin society should be given the most fundamental right of citizenship.
Love this idea? Think it’s terrible? Have one that’s ten times better? Head over to the 100 Days to a Better RVA Facebook page and join in the conversation.
Photo by: carnagenyc
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison. After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. Read more about this issue on our website here [ http://www.ceousa.org/voting/voting-news/felon-voting/538-answering-the-challenges-to-felon-disenfranchisement ] and our congressional testimony here: [ http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Clegg100316.pdf ].
Why are you using a picture of illegal activity, vandalism of private property, to promote a story on voting?
Can anyone justify WHY felons shouldn’t be able to vote? I cannot think of a good reason. What does being a criminal have to do with voting?
Sean, read comment #1. He says it better than I could have. And I agree. If you break the law, you deal with the consequences. There are felons that do turn their life around and yes, every effort should be made to restore their rights. My view is that if you don’t care enough about yourself to commit felonies, how much do you really care about the government?
In my mind, if a convicted individual serves their time, their punishment should end upon release, including the restoration of their full voting rights. It is wrong, despite the fact that statistics show it, to assume that the individual will fall into the cycle of recidivism, which is more evidence to the failures of the prison system and lack of rehabilitation, training, and education. Conflating the issues of voting rights restoration and felony recidivism is a mistake; they are separate issues.
But laws are variable, and not necessarily set in stone. What is a felony today, could not be a felony a year from now. Felons should have a say in what goes into law, because they are a legal citizen and pay taxes. Like Richard says, once they have served their time, shouldn’t they be off the hook at that point?
Based on your logic, a child molester who serves his or her time should be free to interact with children upon the completion of their sentence. And it is wrong for those convicted and who serve time for DUI offenses to pay higher insurance rates than those who do not drive while under the influence.
Actions have consequences. Don’t do the crime if you cant do the time , plus deal with the consequences of your actions after having done said crime.
That was not my logic at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion, but ok. I just don’t see how breaking a law somehow equates to losing the right to vote, specifically. Some say that if you break a law, you should lose the right to vote on laws. I don’t agree with that sentiment. If there is a law on the books that someone doesn’t agree with, and breaks, they should be punished, but they should still have the ability to vote against that law in the future. Otherwise we will stagnate and laws will not necessarily represent the will of the citizens.
I dont know about you, but i have broken many laws in my lifetime, and will likely continue to do so. It’s nearly impossible to have never broken a law in your lifetime. Granted these were misdemeanors, luckily. I dont think we should lose the right to vote because of that. We deserve the chance to sway the laws to where we think they should.
“Like Richard says, once they have served their time, shouldn’t they be off the hook at that point?”
Your words, not mine. Once sentenced time is served, DUI convicted drivers should be free to drive again, child molesters free to spend time with children, animal abusers free to own animals again, felons free to own guns again, and everybody should get the right to vote again.
If you know you are going to lose the right to vote before you commit a felony, then why cry about it when that actually happens?
Gotchya, i thought you were referring to my sentiment that felons should be able to vote. You have a point about those circumstances, although not all felons fit into them. I would argue that rather than having some sort of continual punishment for these folks they should have had a bigger punishment in the first place. I just see a disconnect between committing any of the crimes you mentioned, and voting, specifically. I’m not sure why a convicted DUI driver should lose the right to vote. That’s more so the heart of my issue with the whole thing.
My point, respectfully, stands. The above assertion regarding insurance companies raising rates on DUI offenders is immaterial, as a private business can impose whatever policies they seen fit, within the law. As for the argument that my logic asserts that child molestors be able to associate with children, I would again point to the failures of the prison systems in regards to rehabilitation. And as far as logic, this is outside the definitions of what material we are given. However, to take outside factors into consideration, perhaps what we should really be looking at is sentencing guidelines. Again, I assert that any blanket infraction on the civil rights of citizenship or association should be dealt with on an individual basis. Otherwise, we are operating under the assumption that a former offender WILL reoffend, which does a great disservice to us all. Others argue that the voting right should only be reinstated on an individual basis; I argue, rather, that it only be taken away on an individual basis (excluding time of incarceration).