Newspaper Page Text
6 The 21st Century-Making the Connection! MARCH 1999 MBC Wolverine OBSERVER
POLITICS:
Disenfranchisement, Race and Democracy
Too Many Citizens, Especially Black Men, Have Lost the Right to Vote
By Marc Mauer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE SENTENCING
PROJECT IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Jamie Fellner is associate counsel of Hu
man Rights Watch in New York City. Fulton
County Daily Report - October 1998. Provided
by American Lawyer News Service.
M illions of Americans will
be going to the polls in next
weeks’ elections, but Law
rence Tyrone Hill is a 51-
year-old computer programmer in New
Mexico who once served time in
prison. He has the unfortunate dis
tinction of living in one of 14 states
where ex-felons lose their voting rights
for life. So even though he has had an
unblemished record since his release
from prison in 1986, Hill will not have
a voice in the election.
Hill’s disenfranchisement results
from a complex set of state laws that
govern whether felons can vote in
state and federal elections. Georgia
and all but four states deny prisoners
the right to vote, and 32 states, in
cluding Georgia, also prohibit felons on
probation and/or parole from voting.
Most remarkably, in 14 states, felony
convictions can lead to life-time disen
franchisement.
In Georgia, a felon’s voting rights are
restored upon completion of his
or her sentence, according to a spokes
person in the Secretary of State’s Of
fice. But in Virginia, for example, an
18-year-old who makes a one-time
drug sale to an undercover police offi
cer and is placed on probation will be
barred from voting forever.
In a new study by The Sentencing
Project and Human Rights Watch, we
estimate that 3.9 million Americans,
or one in 50 adults, is either currently
or permanently disenfranchised as a
result of these laws. That number in
cludes 134,800 felons in Georgia, or
about 2.5 percent of the state’s adult
population.
Among the disenfranchised, 1.4 mil
lion are ex-offenders who have com
pleted their sentences. In most states,
only gubernatorial action can restore
the voting rights of ex-felons. In Vir
ginia, out of an estimated 200,000 ex
offenders, only 400 have regained the
right to vote in the last two years.
The racial impact of these policies is
even more dramatic. Lawrence Ty
rone Hill is one of nearly 1.5 million
African-American men who are disen
franchised, representing 13 percent of
the black male population of the Uni
ted States. In Georgia, 66,400 black
men are disenfranchised, or 10.5 per
cent of the adult black male popula
tion.
In seven states, we estimated that
one in four black men is now perma
nently disenfranchised as a result of a
felony conviction. Given current rates
of conviction and incarceration, we can
expect that 30 to 40 percent of the next
generation of black men will be disen
franchised for some or all of their
adult fives.
The racial impact of disenfranchise
ment laws is a function not just of
criminal convictions, but of public pol
icy choices as well. While crime rates
today are not dramatically different
than they were 25 years ago, harsh
sentencing and drug policies have
vastly expanded the criminal justice
system. The inmate population of
200,000 in 1972 has swelled to 1.2
million today, giving the United States
an overall rate of incarceration that is
second only to that of Russia. Drug
policies and practices have dispropor
tionately affected African-Americans,
thus contributing to their higher rates
of felony convictions and incarceration
and, hence, their higher rates of disen
franchisement.
Disturbing Implications
The loss of African-American votes
is particularly disturbing given the
historical context of disenfranchise
ment laws. While these laws have an
tecedents in earher conceptions of
“civil death” as the appropriate pun
ishment for certain crimes, they took
on new significance in the South in the
post-Reconstruction period when many
states tailored disenfranchisement
laws to increase their impact on Afri
can-Americans. Legislators of the day
were quit blatant in their efforts to
thwart black voter participation
through felony disenfranchisement
laws and other ostensibly race-neutral
restrictions such as poh taxes and lit
eracy requirements.
With the exception of the felony dis
enfranchisement laws, all vestiges of
those racially motivated restrictions
have been eliminated. But now, whe
ther through indifference or intent,
current pohcies are resulting in more
minorities’ losing their voting rights
every day.
Any modern rationale for barring
felons from voting is difficult to de
fend. Supporters of disenfranchise
ment have sometimes suggested that
these laws guard against voter fraud
and protect the “purity” of the bahot
box. Perhaps this might be relevant
for offenders convicted of electoral
fraud. But it seems rather unlikely
that a car thief who has completed his
sentence would present any threat to
the voting process. Furthermore, the
restrictions on voting by ex-felons
clash with long-standing notions
of justice—that once offenders have
paid their debt to society, they are
free to resume normal fives in the
community.
Even denying the right to vote to
prisoners is problematic. Since the
vast majority of prisoners will be re
turning to the community someday,
it is clearly in the pubhc interest that
they develop strong ties to the com
munity. Surely participation in the
electoral process—a cornerstone of
democracy—can only enhance prison
ers’ sense of commitment and respon
sibility to society.
Contrary to the arguments of somjfc
proponents, losing the vote is not ari
inherent aspect of punishment. Im
prisonment itself is a profound pen
alty, as it imposes a basic loss of lib
erty. But offenders do not forfeit all
other rights, except where the exercise
of those rights interferes with the safe
and orderly functioning of a prison.
Inmates do not, for example, lose the
right to communicate with their loved
ones outside prison or to read newspa
pers. It is hard to imagine that permit
ting inmates to vote by absentee bahot
once a year would pose an undue bur
den on prison operations.
Voting disenfranchisement violates
any sense of proportionahty of pun
ishment. In those states that disen
franchise offenders for life, a person
whose crime requires one year’s proba
tion is disenfranchised just the same
as a person whose crime mandates life
without parole. In addition to the se
riousness of the crime, the broad na
ture of disenfranchisement laws also
precludes any effort to relate loss of
the vote to the nature of the crime—
such as tampering with the electoral
process.
Some observers have suggested/that
the practical/ impact of tfip^e £ la^s
be relatively modest since many of
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Today, for Americans, voting is
right, not a privilege, and one possessed by all.
As with any right, it should not be restricted
unreasonably. We should be particularly
wary when the harm to basic
democratic rights is compounded
by severe racial disparities.
Given current rates of conviction
and incarceration, we can expect that 30
to 40 percent of the next generation of black
men will be disenfranchised for some
or all of their adult lives.