Fact Sheet
Felon Enfranchisement
Disfranchisement Facts












Link to Map http://www.aclu.org/map-state-felony-disfranchisement-laws
Maine and Vermont are the only 2 states where prisoners, probationers, and parolees can vote
13 states allow probationers and parolees to vote
5 states allow only probationers to vote
19 states allow persons with felony convictions to vote upon completion of sentence
7 states some people with felony convictions can vote
o Example: In Arizona, one is permanently disenfranchised if he/she has committed two or
more felonies
4 states disenfranchise all people with felony convictions.
o Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia
Felony disfranchisement disproportionately impacts people and communities of color.
o Over 1.4 million of our disfranchised citizens are African-American.
During Reconstruction legislators targeted emancipated African-American voters. Legislators often
selected laws that they thought African-Americans primarily committed as a basis for
disenfranchisement.
Nationwide, 13% of African-American men have lost the right to vote, a rate that is seven times the
national average.
Of the 5.3 million Americans barred from voting due to a criminal conviction, most of which are
non-violent in nature, 39% have fully completed their sentences, including probation and parole, yet
such individuals are still deprived of their right to vote.
In several states, people with criminal records encounter a variety of other barriers to voting,
including, most often, cumbersome restoration processes or lengthy waiting periods before rights
restoration applications may even be submitted.
Obstacles to Voting


Virginia: power to restore voting rests with the governor or the State Clemency Board.
o Approval rate is higher under Terry McAuliffe who has streamlined the process.
 Outstanding court costs and fees will no longer prohibit an individual from having his
or her rights restored.
 Simplified application form from 13 pages to 1 page.
 Reduced the waiting period from five to three years for serious offenses.
Florida: Governor and State Clemency Board can restore right to vote
o Out of 5.85 million disenfranchised nationally, 1.5 million (roughly 25 percent) are
disenfranchised Americans in Florida, as of December 2010.



o 5-7 year wait limit
o Approval rate is low under Governor Scott reversed the progress made under previous
Governor Crist.
Mississippi: 22 categories of crime result in disenfranchisement.
o To restore voting rights, both houses of the legislature must approve by 2/3 vote. The
governor can then sign or veto it.
Iowa: Applicants must submit a criminal history, a credit report and pay all fines and court fees
before being considered to regain voting rights.
Waiting Periods: Many states disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders (such as those with
violent crimes) and/or permit application for restoration of rights for specified offenses after a
waiting period
o 2 years in Nebraska
o 3 years in Maryland
o Up to 5 years in Delaware
Common Arguments against restoring voting rights following felony conviction:
1. Myth: Prison is about punishment, prisoners lose most of their rights and the right to vote should be
one of them, so they can understand that the result of committing crimes.
a. Response: Prison is often about punishment, however many states have demonstrated their
commitment to rehabilitation. In the midst of losing many of their rights, allowing prisoners
the right to vote may strengthen their social ties and commitment to the common good and
help them understand the responsibility that goes into participating in society.
2. Myth: If states restore felons’ right to vote you are rewarding them after they have committed
terrible crimes.
a. Response: Following the completion of a prison sentence, a person has paid their debt for
their crime. Additionally, not restoring their right to vote prohibits them from properly
reentering society and creates incentives not to recidivate.
3. Myth: Felons should not be able to vote until they have paid off the fines, legal fees, etc. associated
with their crime.
a. Response: This disproportionately affects people who are low-income, while providing
easier access to wealthy felons who can easily pay off fees. Additionally, having a felony
conviction makes it difficult to get a job, which are often necessarily to repay fines and legal
fees.
4. Myth: Liberals want felons to vote because most felons will vote Democrat
a. Response: Blue collar, Caucasian men disproportionately vote Republican and make up
most of the prison population in certain states.
5. Myth: Felon disenfranchisement is endorsed by the text of the 14th Amendment.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in
Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the
legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state,
being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such state.
a. Response: The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive sanctions and demands that punishment
for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense. Losing a fundamental right is
not proportionate.
Major Voter Disenfranchisement Cases
Link to list of Supreme Court, Federal and State Court cases:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/d0efedbde2e9ae8988_2jm6bxqrl.pdf
Supreme Court
Hunter v. Underwood United States Supreme Court
In Hunter v. Underwood, the U.S. Supreme Court held that felony disfranchisement laws reflecting “purposeful
racial discrimination” are unconstitutional.
Individuals convicted of misdemeanors brought a class action against Alabama election officials challenging a
provision of the Alabama Constitution that disfranchised people convicted of “any crime . . . involving moral
turpitude.” The Supreme Court, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, found that the provision violated the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because it was intentionally enacted to
prevent African Americans from voting and continued to have a racially disproportionate impact. The equal
protection clause protects individuals against unequal treatment by the state and is often used to strike down laws
that discriminate on account of race.
Hunter clarified an earlier court ruling in Richardson v. Ramirez, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that
section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permitted states to deny the vote to citizens convicted
of crimes. In Hunter, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that section 2 did not protect laws intended to
discriminate on account of race.
Richardson v. Ramirez United States Supreme Court
Richardson v. Ramirez is the leading precedent courts use to reject constitutional challenges to disfranchisement
laws. In it, the Supreme Court found that the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not require
states to advance a “compelling” interest before denying the vote to citizens convicted of crimes.
Later courts have noted that Richardson v. Ramirez leaves open a valid claim that the unequal enforcement of
disfranchisement laws is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that California counties’ different interpretations of
“infamous crime” meant that the law was unequally applied. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the
California Supreme Court to decide this issue, but before it could rule, California changed its law.
True Stories of Disenfranchisement
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/felon-voting-rights_n_1924535.html
Eric Bates, Virginia






Caught twice in the late 1990s and again in 2006 for driving with a suspended license. Under thenVA law, Bates was considered a habitual offender and prosecuted as a felon.
Served 14 months in prison and released in 2008 and has not committed a crime since.
Bates, 53, an unemployed electrical engineer, told The Huffington Post. "I want to participate. But
it's just as well as if I murdered somebody. It's a life sentence.”
Bates owes $3,000 in fines, but can’t afford to pay them because his conviction keeps him from
getting a job.
He would still have to petition the governor after that.
"Not being able to vote on top of everything else, it makes me kind of feel like a second-class
citizen," Bates said. "I'm not the only one either. There are thousands and thousands of people just
like me."
Darryl Williams, Virginia





When Williams was 19 he was caught with a sawed-off shotgun.
He spent two years in prison and hasn’t been in trouble since. He is 35.
"Even after so many years it's hard, but I turned my life around. And if the government decided to
give me my rights back, I can keep trying to better myself."
The first time he was denied to have his voting rights restored was because an error in the
paperwork.
He has filled out the request again and is still waiting.
Moranda Lambert, Florida



Served 6 months in 2004 for assault with a deadly weapon after a fight with a former friend got out
of hand.
Served the waiting period and applied to clemency program, but was denied
It "looks like it'll be 15 or 20 years before I can be recognized for all the positive changes that I've
made and the positive influence that I've had on the community."
(Upda ted June 16, 2015 )