Felon disenfranchisement is a common practice in the United States and occurs when incarcerated felons and ex-felons are denied certain rights, specifically their right to vote. Felonies vary between violent and nonviolent crimes and are considered to be more serious than misdemeanors. Depending on the crime and the state, conviction of a felony can lead to a minimum of one year in prison. Despite the crime and conviction, the question of whether or not an incarcerated felon or ex-felon has the right to vote is important to examine. While felon disenfranchisement laws are left to be decided by each individual state, the Supreme Court has upheld the view that felon disenfranchisement is constitutional yet has not provided a justification for
…show more content…
“The typical constitutional challenge is that a facially neutral ex-felon disenfranchisement law denies the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws because disenfranchisement has a discriminatory impact on racial minorities.” However, in order to prove that this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment one must show that the “law has a disproportionate impact then demonstrate that discriminatory intent was a substantial or motivating factor in enactment.” This is difficult to prove and has only been done once before; additionally it is just as difficult to prove that voting restrictions violate the Voting Rights Act. While neither argument against disenfranchisement has been successful to bring about changes for felons and ex-felons voting rights, plaintiffs continue to challenge the law (Miles, 89-92). In the case Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), “three convicted felons challenged California’s laws disenfranchising persons convicted of a felony” (Steinacker, ). They used the argument that they were being denied equal protection. The court ruled that the California disenfranchisement law was constitutional based on the wording of Section 1 and 2 of the Fourteenth …show more content…
This becomes problematic when examining how many felons are minorities; minorities make up 37 percent of the U.S. population yet 67 percent of the prison population. The argument can be made that denying felons the right to vote is a form of institutionalized racism. When analyzing the likelihood of imprisonment for U.S. residents born in 2001, it can be seen that African American men are six times more likely than white men to be incarcerated (The Sentencing Project). Additionally, “an astounding 13 percent of the entire voting aged African American male population is currently unable to vote because of a criminal conviction” (Purtle, 632). Due to varying state policies, data shows a correlation between voter turnout, disenfranchisement, and Democratic or Republican success; in fact, “states won by Republicans have both lower overall turnout and higher levels of ineligible felons in the voting-age population” (Burmila, 1). Typically, minorities will vote Democratically; however, if there are laws in place that bar “African American and Latino communities, who comprise more than half of the convicted offenders” from voting, then it is likely that Republican success is disproportionate (Nunn,
“The typical constitutional challenge is that a facially neutral ex-felon disenfranchisement law denies the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws because disenfranchisement has a discriminatory impact on racial minorities.” However, in order to prove that this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment one must show that the “law has a disproportionate impact then demonstrate that discriminatory intent was a substantial or motivating factor in enactment.” This is difficult to prove and has only been done once before; additionally it is just as difficult to prove that voting restrictions violate the Voting Rights Act. While neither argument against disenfranchisement has been successful to bring about changes for felons and ex-felons voting rights, plaintiffs continue to challenge the law (Miles, 89-92). In the case Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), “three convicted felons challenged California’s laws disenfranchising persons convicted of a felony” (Steinacker, ). They used the argument that they were being denied equal protection. The court ruled that the California disenfranchisement law was constitutional based on the wording of Section 1 and 2 of the Fourteenth …show more content…
This becomes problematic when examining how many felons are minorities; minorities make up 37 percent of the U.S. population yet 67 percent of the prison population. The argument can be made that denying felons the right to vote is a form of institutionalized racism. When analyzing the likelihood of imprisonment for U.S. residents born in 2001, it can be seen that African American men are six times more likely than white men to be incarcerated (The Sentencing Project). Additionally, “an astounding 13 percent of the entire voting aged African American male population is currently unable to vote because of a criminal conviction” (Purtle, 632). Due to varying state policies, data shows a correlation between voter turnout, disenfranchisement, and Democratic or Republican success; in fact, “states won by Republicans have both lower overall turnout and higher levels of ineligible felons in the voting-age population” (Burmila, 1). Typically, minorities will vote Democratically; however, if there are laws in place that bar “African American and Latino communities, who comprise more than half of the convicted offenders” from voting, then it is likely that Republican success is disproportionate (Nunn,