Faith in Action
1
Felon Voting Rights
THE ISSUE
FAITH PERSPECTIVE
Minnesota does not allow people convicted of a felony to
vote until after the completion of their sentences. This
means that people in jail and prison, and those on parole or
on felony probation are included in the disenfranchised
population. As of 2006, there were approximately 65,000
disenfranchised Minnesotans. People on probation and
parole account for 75% of this disenfranchised population.
Our faith traditions urge us to keep an open mind and
give people an opportunity to rejoin the community.
Disenfranchisement for felons on parole and probation
denies them the opportunity to be full citizens, fully
participating in society.
Voting disenfranchisement has a strong racial bias,
disproportionately affecting African Americans. 14% of
African Americans who are otherwise eligible to vote are
disenfranchised as compared to only 1.3% of all other
Americans.
23% of African American males are
disenfranchised.¹
Minnesotans Disenfranchised as Percentage of
Voting Age Population by Race¹
Although felons have made serious mistakes, nearly all
return to the community and we all have a stake in the
success of their return. God is willing to forgive,
teaching “If a wicked man turns from all his sins which
he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is
lawful and right he shall surely live; he shall not die.
None of the transgressions which he has committed shall
be remembered against him.”² God also encourages us to
actively pursue reconciliation: “The recompense for an
evil is an evil like thereof, but whoever forgives and
makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah.”³
HISTORY OF THE PRACTICE
Disenfranchisement laws have their origin in the
practices of ancient Greek and Roman banishment, which
were later adopted by Medieval Europe. The practice
stems from the idea that when someone commits a crime
they are ostracized from society and become civilly dead.
In the United States, felon disenfranchisement began as a
way to discourage African Americans who had recently
won the right to vote. The process was created to
suppress African American votes. Although other such
practices, like poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. have since
been outlawed, felony disenfranchisement remains.4
1980
1990
2000
2006
CONCERNS
A goal of the parole and probation system is to
reintegrate ex-offenders back into society. The majority
of felons are either on probation or on parole, so they are
in
the
process
of
reentry
the
community.
Disenfranchisement inhibits this reentrance. Ex-felons, who
are already alienated from society in many ways, are further
frustrated and stigmatized by being denied the right to vote.
By the time felons have fully completed their terms and
have their voting rights reinstated, they have been partial
citizens for so long it is hard to make the move back into full
engagement. Also, communication between the justice
department and election officials is poor and so ex-felons are
still often red flagged at the polls even when they are off
paper.
Currently 13 states have legislation allowing felons to
vote upon release from prison or jail.8 Allowing felons to
vote upon their release from prison would drop
disenfranchisement from 65,334 Minnesotans to 20,304.
Disenfranchisement among African Americans of voting
age would shrink from 14.4% to 6.3%.9 A recent study
suggests that voting is part of a group of behaviors that is
related to desistance from crime. As the study states,
“the act of voting manifests the desire to participate as a
law-abiding stakeholder in a larger society.”10
Endnotes
Felony disenfranchisement disproportionately targets people
from minority communities with low income and little
education.5 The Bureau of Justice Statistics has calculated
that 28% of African American men will go to either jail or
prison in their lifetime.6 Disenfranchisement greatly dilutes
the voting strength of people from poor African American
communities.
The
communities
most
affected
by
felony
disenfranchisement are also those communities that in
general have the least say in the political process.
Since
over 14% of African Americans are not allowed to vote due
to felony convictions, people running for office do not need
to involve themselves as much with the concerns of this
segment of society. Politicians need not worry about
campaigning in these low-income minority communities as
much because they have diminished voting strength.
Without representation in the government that knows and
cares about the issues that they care about, populations at the
highest risk for felony charges will have a hard time
improving their circumstances.
“The disenfranchised is severed from the body
politic and condemned to the lowest form of
citizenship, where voiceless at the ballot box…the
disinherited must sit idly by while others elect his
civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and
governmental policies which will govern him and
his family.”
-Federal Judge Henry Wingate 7
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Allow people convicted of a felony to vote
upon their release from prison or jail. This
would give those on parole and on probation
the right to vote.
1. Christopher Uggen, “Draft Report on Felon
Disenfranchisement in Minnesota,” University of
Minnesota, September 17, 2007.
2. Ezekiel 18:20-21
3. Ash-Shura, Chapter 42, Verse 42, Mohsin Khan
translation.
4. The Sentencing Project, “Losing the Vote: The Impact of
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States,”
1998, http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/.
5. Christopher Uggen, Jeff Manza, Melissa Thompson,
“Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of
Criminal Offenders,” The Annals of the American
Academy, May 2006.
6. Fox Butterfield, “Prison Rates Among Blacks Reach A
Peak Report Finds,” New York Times, April 7, 2003.
7. McLaughlin v. City of Canton, 947 F. Supp. at 971 (S.D.
Miss. 1995).
8. The Sentencing Project, “Statistics State by State,”
http://www.sentencingproject.org/StatsByState.aspx
9. Uggen, “Draft Report on Felon Disenfranchisement in
Minnesota.”
10. Christopher Uggen, Jeff Manza, “Voting and Subsequent
Crime and Arrest: Evidence from a Community Sample,”
Colombia Human Rights Law Review, 2004.
The Joint Religious Legislative
Coalition is a nonpartisan
interfaith social justice advocacy
organization formed in 1970 and
sponsored by the Minnesota
Council
of
Churches,
the
Minnesota Catholic Conference,
the Jewish Community Relations
Council, and the Islamic Center
of Minnesota
122 W. Franklin Ave., Suite 315
Minneapolis, MN 55404
phone: 612-870-3670 or
1-888-870-1402
fax: 612-870-3671
email: [email protected]
internet: www.jrlc.org