Introduction
Universal suffrage is one of the cornerstones of democratic governance. Suffrage enables people to exercise their democratic rights without any contravention. One of the primary democratic rights is that of voting. A truly democratic nation is one where all citizens have the freedom to vote in any way that they like and for any candidate that they desire without oppression. In the United States, one issue of concern in regard to this democratic right has risen up in recent years. The issue has been subjected to intensive debate across the political divide as well as in the society. The issue in question is felon disenfranchisement. Felon disenfranchisement has seen millions of people restricted from taking part in voting exercises leading to a public outcry. There has been various debates on how this problem can be solved. There are however two solutions that can greatly help in solving these this problem and these are; there articulation of a set of rules and obligations at the federal level that former convicts are supposed to fulfill after which their voting rights can be granted back to them and; the tying to the nature of the crime that the individual committed to the denial of voting rights-that-is-the crime committed should determine the level to which the voting rights of an individual are taken away
In the last few years, levels of criminal punishment in the United States have risen by a significant margin (Uggen and Manza 777). For instance, the total number of prisoners in the United States currently stands at a whopping 1, 548, 700 and this number is expected to hit 2 million very soon (Porter 11). Increase in crime punishment level has been accompanied by an even higher number of citizens without the right to vote (Uggen and Manza 777). Data collected by the Sentencing Project in 2010, shows that around 5.85 million people who have previously convicted of a felony are currently not able to vote (Porter 12). A huge majority of these individuals have been released from jail. It was found that about 4 million people could not cast their votes because they were either on parole or probation or because they were living is state that generally withheld the voting right from all ex-convicts.
Graph 1: Change in Incarceration Rate
Graph 2: Disenfranchised Voters, 1960: 2010 (Courtesy of www.procon.org)
Graphic 3: Disenfranchisement in the American South (Courtesy of www.southernstudies.org)
Public opinion on the issue has been divided (Uggen and Manza 778). There are those that have supported felon disenfranchisement arguing that it is a form of punishment to criminals who violate the rules of the society (Manza et al., 280). According to the supporters of felon disenfranchisement, by taking away the democratic right of voting, other potential criminals in the society are deterred from crime. This argument has however been derided by opponents of felon disenfranchisement who argue that the removal of rights such as voting does very little to deter people from engaging in crime (Manza et al., 282). The argument has that the denial of voting rights is simply a very small price to pay for the perceived benefits that a person could accrue from criminal activities. In addition, opponents of the act have argued that felon disenfranchisement works contrary to the goals and objectives of the criminal justice which are to of reduce re-offending. Felon disenfranchisement does this by isolating and alienating those persons that the criminal justice system is at the same time trying reintegrate into the community. The opponents of felon disenfranchisement have argued that the denying of voting rights is an outdated practice that needs to be reversed.
Much of the debate about the impact of this process has in actual sense revolved around the issue of race. In fact, felon disenfranchisement has been labelled by some as an intentional move to bar minority communities from exercising their democratic right of voting. The premise of this argument is that the majority of convicted criminals in the United States is comprised of individuals from minority communities, especially blacks and Latinos (Zetlin-Jones 411). For example, in spite of the fact that blacks only make up to about 13% of the United States population, the community makes up more than 38% of all incarcerated individuals in the United States jails and prisons (Karlan 1151).
Without regard to trace, the impact of felon disenfranchisement is felt by more 5.85 million Americans who have been unfortunate to be previously convicted with a felony. This is obviously a very huge number and the impact is therefore quite large
However, as mentioned earlier, the impact of felon disenfranchisement is felt by the black race more than all the other races. Around 7% of African Americans are disenfranchised when compared to only 1.8% of the rest of the nation (Porter 13). These numbers are particularly drastic or high in states like Virginia and Florida which are often crucial political backgrounds that hugely determine the outcome of national elections. For instance, in Virginia alone, around 30% of black people are unable to vote while the figure is 235 in Florida because of felon disenfranchisement (Porter 13).
Therefore, when felon disenfranchisement is effected, most of the people who are locked out of the voting exercise are the minority communities, especially the blacks. Various scholars and political activists have labeled felon disenfranchisement as a modern re-enactment of the discriminative “Jim Crow” laws (Karlan 1156). Renowned political author, Michele Alexander is one of those who have called for the elimination of felon disenfranchisement.
When such a huge number of people for one community are prevented from voting, the impact is that the say of the community in regard to the people who will govern them and the policies that will be instituted will be less. The black community is obviously rendered with decreased say n federal policy since a large number of them do not get the chance to vote and therefore influence policy (Karlan 1160). Voting is chance for people to influence policy and by denied this right, person are forced to ascribe the policies influenced by others and not themselves.
The other effect or impact of disenfranchisement has also been felt in the political field with many arguing that this law has influenced major elections in the nation, both at the state and the federal level (Uggen and Manza 778). The standout in this is the 2000 presidential election former Vice President Al Gore was marginally beaten by President George W. Bush. The argument is that Florida, the state which ultimately decided the direction of the presidential vote was plagued by an incidence of felon disenfranchisement which saw many Al Gore voters prevented from voting eventually resulting in President Bush emerging as the winner (Uggen and Manza 785). Because of such issues, it has been suggested that solutions to the problem of felon disenfranchisement be immediately established and enacted. There is however huge debate on what the best solutions exactly are. However, there are several solutions that when properly implemented will helped to alleviate this huge problem of felon disenfranchisement.
The first solution is pretty straight forward in real sense. This involves the establishment of a federal threshold of activities or aspects for the return for voting rights to former convicts. This means the articulation of a set of rules and obligations that former convicts are supposed to fulfill after which their voting rights can be granted back to them. It is wise to acknowledge that the complete elimination of felon disenfranchisement cannot occur overnight and even passing federal laws that completely outlaw the practice is not viable (Raskin 562). However, the establishment of federal threshold that includes a set of activities that former offenders are supposed to fulfill will ensure that people who have completed their sentences, learnt their mistakes and have been successfully re-integrated into the society are not denied the fundamental right of voting (Bassi 75). This should have a time frame of a minimum of three years, which is more than enough time for former convicts to have fully learnt from their mistakes and hopefully have been successfully re-integrated into the society.
There is currently a very enormous disparity among states when it comes to the implementation of felon disenfranchisement, and this is what has primarily intensified the debate on the issue (Bassi 54). Some states completely bar convicted criminals from voting for life. Once a criminal has been arrested and convicted even for a minor charge, such states are very fast in taking away their voting rights. Other states have been quite sympathetic and have laid out a guideline on how offenders can regain their voting rights after a certain period of supervision (Raskin 564). This disparity has seen criminals being treated unequally across the state divide in regards to voting. For instance, if a state like Florida had a system whereby formerly convicted criminals could regain their voting rights, there is a high likelihood that the 2000 presidential vote would have gone in a different direction.
Currently, from the 50 states, felons have lose permanent voting rights of the states. In 20 states, voting rights are restored to felons after they have served a term of incarceration, after they have paroled and after probation. 4 states restore voting rights after term of incarceration and parole. It is only in 2 states where voting is unrestricted
The enactment of the proposed solution will cater for this problem. A law enacted at the federal level removes any disparity that exists between the states (Raskin 565). The national Congress in conjunction with the Senate should sit down and draft a preliminary bill that lays out the guidelines of granting back convicted voters their right of voting. This bill once passed into law would then be subject to implementation by all the 50 states without any alteration.
As mentioned earlier, the established threshold should cater for sufficient time for criminals to be re-integrated back into the community. Three years are more than enough for this purpose. During this time, former convicted criminals who have been released into the society should be placed under the watchful eye of the law in order to determine their observance of the articulated procedures and activities that will in the end result in them acquiring back their voting rights. The process should include close supervision, just like is the case when an individual is on probation. The former offender should be closely monitored for things such as minor offences, basic conduct in the society, engagement in community development programs as well as the willingness for self or personal improvement (Coyle 40)
After this period, the individual will be assessed on the basis of his conduct over the three-year period, and it will be decided whether he or she is fit to be granted back the right to vote.
If properly implemented, this solution is likely to work. It will mean the voting right of convicted criminal is partially taken away for some time as a form of deterrence or even punishment but ensure that the individual is not condemned for life. Crime is part and parcel of every community, and there is no likelihood of the pattern ending or being eliminated completely (Coyle 4). There will always be some individuals who will tend to deviate. The criminal justice system does not simply exist to punish those who deviate. One of the primary roles of the criminal justice system is to ensure that people who have previously been convicted of various crimes are properly re-integrated back into the community. The criminal justice system should not be solely concerned with punishing people but should play an active role in reducing re-offending (Coyle 21). Currently, felon disenfranchisement isolates those who have gone back to the community after serving time in prison for various offences. By denying them voting rights and offering no hope of ever returning these rights, the people might lose morale and may start re-offending (Coyle 34). However, with the proposed solution, individuals will at least look forward to something. In addition, the countermeasures employed in this solution, that is the measures taken to ensure that former convicts are acting as per the set rules and guidelines is likely to prevent cases of re-offending. This will in the long run ensure safety in society in addition to eliminating the huge injustice and discrimination that is associated with felon disenfranchisement.
The federal movement should be at the core of enacting this solution and should actively collaborate with state governments. Although some states might be reluctant in implementing the proposed solution, the federal government should make it its duty to convince state governments about the benefits of this program. This is especially in big states like California, Texas, New York and Florida which have very high numbers of incarcerated as well as formerly incarcerated individuals (Ordway 1174).
The second solution to the problem is related to nature of the crime committed by a convict in question. As mentioned earlier, formerly convicted individuals are denied the right to vote the moment that they set foot out of prison. At the moment, no regard is given to the type of crime that the offender in question committed. Current state and federal laws on felon disenfranchisement do not give explicit details about the nature of a crime, and the influence that this has on the voting rights of the former offender (Brisman 283). This is something that has propelled the issue of felon disenfranchisement into the huge ambiguity that is hugely associated with it
The proposal is that the taking away of voting rights of an individual be tied to the nature of the crime that the individual committed. There is a very wide range of crimes and unfortunately in the current system, every criminal one is treated the same without regard to the type of crime that was committed. This is should be the case when it comes to felon disenfranchisement.
There are some crimes committed by individuals that when keenly analyzed are not that impactful in the society. Some crimes are very meagre when compared to others. Others, on the other hand, are very severe. It is not proper to treat these crimes in the same manner and disseminate the same type of punishment for both, in this case, deny committers of these crimes the right of voting by a similar magnitude (Bassi 80).
Therefore, one of the most recommendable solutions is that the denial of voting rights in the form of felon disenfranchisement be tied to the nature of the crime that an individual committed. Under this solution, this will mean that there are some types of crimes that will not warrant the denial of the right to vote. This is indeed very appropriate because equating heinous crimes to small crimes is an abuse of justice. For example, it is not appropriate to inflict the same level of felon disenfranchisement to a person convicted of attempted fraud and another person convicted of murder or even more heinous crimes.
Therefore, laws should be made at both the federal and the state level regarding the nature of crime and felon disenfranchisement. Crimes should be classed in different categories, and when it comes to the dissemination of felon disenfranchisement, it should be based on the type of crime that an individual committed (Coyle 24). For example, people accused of more heinous crimes or crimes with great impact on the society should be required to do much before they can recover their voting rights. The time before they can recover these rights should also be longer so that they can be fully supervised and when it is established that they have paid their dues, learnt their lesson and have been fully reintegrated into the society, then they can be granted back their rights (Bassi 85). For persons convicted of lesser crimes, the requirements for them to earn back their voting rights should be less strenuous both in terms of the time as well as basic processes and activities.
These solutions will go a long way in alleviating the problem that is felon disenfranchisement. However, the solutions are not quarantined from criticism and opposition. In fact, there are many counterarguments that may be advanced against the proposed solutions.
In regard to the first solution, one counterargument is that matters related to felon disenfranchisement should be left to the state. The solution proposed is the enactment of a federal bill that lays out guidelines on the procedure of granting back voting rights to former convicts. However, this argument is subject to opposition and criticism. The United States is a federal nation with various states, each having individual jurisdiction. The nation operates on a status of devolution of power to the states. In fact, democracy in the United States is often interpreted as the devolution of power to individual states. Therefore, opposition on the solution to enact a federal law that guides the felon disenfranchisement would claim that such an action constitutes an infringement of the democracy of the nation (Reiman 3). The argument would be that each state has the right to make decisions about the offenders or criminals within its mandate, and the federal government should not interfere when it comes to such a crucial matter. It might even be argued that given the massive differences that exist between the states, in terms of size, people, cultures among other factors, both social and economic, applying a common rule would not be effective (Reiman 6). Something that works in one region or one state may not necessary work in another. For, instance, a state could argue that there is the presence of factors in the state that facilitate re-offending and that by enacting their forms of felon disenfranchisement such as lifetime bans of voting, the state is simply trying to discourage or deter engagement in crime in the future.
Counterarguments may also be brought forth in regard to the second proposed solution. This solution calls for the tying of crime to the level of felony disengagement. One of the primary counterarguments that could be brought forth about this solution is that is very involving and may require time that the states and even the country does not have. Deciphering criminals and the type of crimes that they were previously convicted of is a time-consuming and very intensive activity (Coyle 44). This is not to mention that the solution advocates for each of the different categories of crimes to be supervised differently. For instance a given state would be required to employ thousands of criminal justice officers whose role would be to monitor different categories of formerly convicted criminals in order to assess their progress and determine whether they have qualified for the granting back of their voting rights (Ordway 1174). This is quite different than if all criminals were monitored using the same monitoring techniques and the same thresholds. Putting different techniques and different monitoring thresholds is inadvertently both time and resource consuming (Reiman 6). In addition, the type of crime that an individual previously committed may not have any direct relationship to the behavior or conduct of a person at the present. For instance, a person who has served time for an offence such as involuntary murder may ultimately have been fully reformed and may find it easier to integrate to the community. On the other hand, a person accused and convicted of a pettier crime many not necessarily have been reformed and may, in fact, start re-offending once released into the community (Reiman 7). Therefore, tying felon disenfranchisement to the type of crime previously committed may not necessarily achieve its intended results.
Conclusion
As seen in the above discussion, a truly democratic nation is one where all citizens have the freedom to vote. In the last few years, levels of criminal punishment in the United States have risen by a significant margin and this has been accompanied by an even higher number of citizens without the right of voting or in simple terms felon disenfranchisement. This issue has particularly led to a massive debate, especially in terms of race whereby the act has been labelled by some as an intentional move to bar minority communities from exercising their democratic right of voting. This is because the majority of convicted criminals in the United States is comprised of individuals from minority communities, especially blacks and Latinos. This paper has proposed two solutions that will in the long run lead to the alleviation of the problem of disenfranchisement. The first solution involves the establishment of a federal threshold for the return for voting rights to former convicts, which in other words means the articulation (at the federal level) of a set of rules and obligations that former convicts are supposed to fulfill after which their voting rights can be granted back to them. The second solution proposed is that taking away of voting rights of an individual be tied to the nature of a crime that the individual in question has committed. This will consequently determine the level of felon disenfranchisement applied and what the individual needs to do to regain voting rights. Although the two solutions have some weaknesses as shown, their strengths nevertheless outweigh these weakness, and the federal and governments should go ahead and implement them.
Works Cited
Zetlin-Jones, David. "Right to Remain Silent: What the Voting Rights Act Can and Should Say about Felony Disenfranchisement." BCL Rev. 47 (2005): 411.
Uggen, Christopher, and Jeff Manza. "Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States." American Sociological Review (2002): 777-803.
Manza, Jeff, Clem Brooks, and Christopher Uggen. "Public attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement in the United States." Public Opinion Quarterly 68.2 (2004): 275-286.
Karlan, Pamela S. "Convictions and doubts: retribution, representation, and the debate over felon disenfranchisement." Stanford Law Review (2004): 1147-1170.
Reiman, Jeffrey. "Liberal and republican arguments against the disenfranchisement of felons." Criminal Justice Ethics 24.1 (2005): 3-18.
Bassi, Anna, Rebecca Morton, and Jessica Trounstine. "Delegating disenfranchisement decisions." Available at SSRN 913300 (2006).
Raskin, Jamin. "A Right-to-Vote Amendment for the US Constitution: Confronting America's Structural Democracy Deficit." Election Law Journal 3.3 (2004): 559-573.
Ordway, Demian A. "Disenfranchisement and the Constitution: Finding a Standard that Works." NYUL Rev. 82 (2007): 1174.
Coyle, Michael. "State-based advocacy on felony disenfranchisement." (2003).
Brisman, Avi. "Toward a More Elaborate Typology of Environmental Values: Liberalizing Criminal Disenfranchise Laws and Policies." New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 33 (2007): 283.
Porter, Nicole D. Expanding the vote: state felony disenfranchisement reform, 1997-2010. Sentencing Project, 2010.
