Source+3

[]

[]

Are felon disenfranchisement laws a form of racial discrimination?
> ||||||||||||||||||||= || > ||= **Black** ||= **Hispanic** ||= **White** ||= **Other** ||||||||||= **Total 2 ** || > ||< **Male Prisoners** ||< 563,500 (39.0%) ||< 303,500 (21.0%) ||< 479,000 (33.2%) ||< 97,500 (6.8%) ||||||||||< 1,443,500 (100%) || > ||< **Female Prisoners** ||< 28,200 (26.8%) ||< 17,500 (16.6%) ||< 51,200 (48.7%) ||< 8,300 (7.9%) ||||||||||< 105,200 (100%) || > ||< **Total Prisoners** ||< 591,700 **(38.2%)** ||< 321,000 **(20.7%)** ||< 530,200 **(34.2%)** ||< 105,800 **(6.8%)** ||||||||||< 1,548,700 **(100%)** || > ||< **US Population** ||< 38,901,938 **(12.6%)** ||< 50,325,523 **(16.3%)** ||< 173,206,247 **(56.1%)** ||< 46,311,831 **(15.0%)** ||||||||||< 308,745,538 **(100%)** || > > || ** ** 1 ** ** The term "other," according to the US Department of Justice report "Prisoners in 2009," includes: American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and people identifying two or more races. > > ** 2 ** The prisoner numbers are from the US Department of Justice Report, "Prisoners in 2009." The US population numbers are from the United States Census for 2010. || >
 * = **General Reference (not clearly pro or con)** ||
 * 

> 2009 - 

> 

> [R]acial minorities are overrepresented in the felon population based upon factors that cannot be explained by non-racial reasons. Given that uncontroverted showing, in the words of > > the district court, there can be 'no doubt that members of racial minorities have experienced discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system.'... > Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the discriminatory impact of Washington's felon disenfranchisement is attributable to racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system." >
 * Are felon disenfranchisement laws a form of racial discrimination? ||
 * **PRO (yes)** || **CON (no)** ||
 * In //Farrakhan v. Gregorie//, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated the following in its Jan. 5, 2010 (2-1) ruling: > "[M]inority citizens of Washington state who have lost their right to vote pursuant to the state's felon disenfranchisement provision, filed this action in 1996 challenging that provision on the ground that, due to racial discrimination in the state's criminal justice system, the automatic disenfranchisement of felons results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race...
 * In //Farrakhan v. Gregorie//, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated the following in its Jan. 5, 2010 (2-1) ruling: > "[M]inority citizens of Washington state who have lost their right to vote pursuant to the state's felon disenfranchisement provision, filed this action in 1996 challenging that provision on the ground that, due to racial discrimination in the state's criminal justice system, the automatic disenfranchisement of felons results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race...

> Jan. 5, 2010 - 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic stated in a Sep. 14, 2006 press release titled "ACLU and Rutgers Champion Basic Rights, Citing Racial Discrimination," which announced a petition urging the Inter-American Commission to investigate and declare U.S. felon voting restrictions a "violation of universally accepted human rights standards": >  "Of the approximately 100,000 parolees and probationers subject to the state's felon-disfranchisement law, more than 60 percent are African American or Latino, which the ACLU and Rutgers say is in large measure a consequence of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. As a result, the political power of the African American and Latino communities in New Jersey is diluted because they are disproportionately excluded from voting.[...]  >  The organizations are requesting that the Inter-American Commission investigate the claims made in their petition, declare the federal government and New Jersey and other states with similar post-incarceration voting restrictions in violation of universally accepted human rights standards, and most importantly, to urge all U.S. states to bring their felon disfranchisement laws into line with these standards." >

> Sep. 14, 2006 - 

> 

> 

S. David Mitchell, JD, Scholar in Residence at the University of Colorado, stated in his Dec. 2004 article "The New Invisible Man: Felon Disenfranchisement Laws Harm Communities," published in //Bad Subjects// magazine: >  "The foundation of disenfranchisement was laid long before the Reconstruction era and continues to support a structure of African-American disenfranchisement that is more expansive, and impacts not only the individual African-American male ex-felon but also the African-American community as a whole.[...]  >  Legally, African-Americans have achieved the status of citizen. Practically, African-Americans have to continue to fight obstacles set up to deny their citizenship. Historically, in a number of United States' jurisdictions, African-Americans have had to challenge poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, whites-only primaries, and felon disenfranchisement laws, all designed to prohibit them from voting and thus negate their citizenship. All of the other forms of disenfranchisement have fallen by the wayside, save one — felon disenfranchisement laws." >

> Dec. 2004 - 

Jeff Manza, PhD, Professor of Sociology and Political Science and Associate Director and Faculty Fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, and Christopher Uggen, PhD, the Distinguished McKnight Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, stated in their 2006 book //Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy// : >  "Felon disenfranchisement thus has to be viewed as one of the many side effects of the peculiar history of racial politics in the United States.  >  In the abstract, felon disenfranchisement can be separated from race: state laws are literally race neutral, in that all who are convicted of felonies are subject to the same sanction. Moreover, modern defenders of the practice certainly draw upon nonracial reasons for their position, and we do not intend in this analysis to imply anything to the contrary. This does not, however, mean that there is no connection between race and felon disenfranchisement. > Indeed, when we ask the question of how we got to the point where American practice can be so out of line with the rest of the democratic world, the most plausible answer we can supply is that of race."  >

> 2006 - 

> 

Marc Mauer, MSW, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, stated in his Winter 2004 article "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?," published in //Human Rights// magazine, a publication of the American Bar Association: >  "Disenfranchisement policies have served various political purposes, most notably racial exclusion. In the post-Reconstruction period, coincident with the advent of poll taxes and literacy requirements, legislators in a number of southern states tailored their disenfranchisement statutes with the specific intent of excluding the newly freed black voters. They accomplished this by tying the loss of voting rights to crimes alleged to be committed primarily by blacks while excluding offenses held to be committed by whites. Such laws were in place for one hundred years before being struck down.[...]  >  The racial impact of disenfranchisement policies is sometimes justified as an inevitable if unfortunate aspect of a race-neutral criminal justice system: if members of a particular racial or ethnic group are more involved in crime, the consequent disproportionate loss of voting rights is merely a result of their activity. Such an argument, though, ignores the compelling evidence of discriminatory racial dynamics in the criminal justice system-racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, the racially disparate prosecution of the war on drugs, and glaring inequities in adequacy of counsel as a function of both race and class." >

> Winter 2004 - 

|| Sam Reed, MA, Washington Secretary of State, stated the following in an Oct. 7, 2010 press release "Ninth Circuit Upholds Washington's Felon Voting Ban," available at www.atg.wa.gov: > "We absolutely believe in civil rights and will continue to work toward equality in the criminal justice system, but at the same time, we firmly believe that it is appropriate and reasonable for > society to deny voting rights to people who commit serious crimes... This has been the law in our state since 1866 and nearly every state in America has this sensible policy. There is clearly no > [racially] discriminatory intent. It is about a reasonable sanction we impose based on the person's decision to commit a crime." >

> Oct. 7, 2010 - 

Roger Clegg, JD, President and General Counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated in his article "Felon Disenfranchisement Is Constitutional, And Justified," accessed Sep. 5, 2006 on the website of the National Constitution Center: >  "It is true that the Supreme Court has upheld congressional bans on certain voting practices and procedures - like literacy tests - that are not themselves discriminatory on their face but have disproportionately excluded racial minorities from voting. But, as the Court later stressed, these cases involved bans aimed at practices that historically have been rooted in intentional discrimination. The disenfranchisement of criminals, on the other hand, has no such roots.  >  Indeed, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment itself contemplates this disenfranchisement, since it acknowledges that 'the right to vote' may be 'abridged ... for participation in rebellion, or other crime....' Surely this is some evidence that the reasons for disenfranchising criminals need not be racially discriminatory.[...] > The fact that an overwhelming number of states have passed such disenfranchisement laws also indicates that something other than racial discrimination is indeed the motive."  >

> Sep. 5, 2006 - 

Booker T. Stallworth, Communication Director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, stated in his Apr. 7, 2006 article "ACLU's Lawsuit for Felons' Voting Rights Dishonors Crime Victims," published in //Human Events// magazine: >  "Some, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), equate convicted felons who have failed to complete all the obligations of their sentences, with blacks of the Old South who committed no crime, yet were denied their basic 14th Amendment due process rights. That is not only overblown rhetoric that doesn't live up to the facts; it is blatantly offensive and does a complete injustice to the history of the civil rights movement.[...]  >  This type of rhetoric demonstrates ignorance of what a poll tax really is, and glosses over what is truly at issue: the rights of the public, and especially crime victims, to see justice carried out and those convicted of felonies meet all of their court-imposed obligations.[...] > As we clean ineligible voters from the roll and restore integrity to our voting process, let’s debate victim restitution and other key issues, but let's do so without resorting to rhetorical hyperbole. Some terms -- Nazi, plantation, concentration camp, poll tax, etc. -- are too powerful to be cheapened and used inappropriately." >

> Apr. 7, 2006 - 

Edward Feser, PhD, stated in his Spring 2005 article "Should Felons Vote?," published in //City Journal//: >  "The frequently heard charge is that disenfranchising felons is racist because the felon population is disproportionately black. But the mere fact that blacks make up a lopsided percentage of the nation's prison population doesn't prove that racism is to blame.  >  Is the mostly male population of the prisons evidence of reverse sexism? Of course not: men commit the vast majority of serious crimes - a fact no one would dispute - and that's why there are lots more of them than women behind bars.  >  Regrettably, blacks also commit a disproportionate number of felonies, as victim surveys show. In any case, a felon either deserves his punishment or not, whatever his race. If he does, it may also be that he deserves disenfranchisement. His race, in both cases, is irrelevant." >

> Spring 2005 - 

John Graham Altman III, LLB, former Member of the South Carolina General Assembly (R-Charleston, South Carolina), stated in a Feb. 2001 speech before the state legislature: >  "If it's blacks losing the right to vote, then they have to quit committing crimes. We are not punishing the criminal. We are punishing conduct.[...]  >  You need to tell people to stop committing crimes and not feel sorry for those who do." >

> Feb. 2001 - <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

||

How do US felon disenfranchisement laws compare to those of other countries?
>  (See our <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">[|comparison chart of felon disenfranchisement in democratic countries] )
 * = <span style="color: #262628; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 10pt;">**General Reference (not clearly pro or con)** ||
 * 

|| >
 * Brandon Rottinghaus, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Bureau of Public Affairs Research, University of Idaho, stated in his 2003 article "Incarceration and Enfranchisement: International Practices, Impact, and Recommendations for Reform," published by the International Foundation for Election Systems: >  "A democracy is necessarily constructed of those who are given voice in the political process. Each country listed and analyzed in this study has a specific reason for disenfranchising prisoners or ex-prisoners, seeking a balance between the public order for the protection of society and the extension of democratic voting rights to individual citizens. The tenor and tilt of this balance can be questioned for the same reason that the balance exists in the first place: democracies allow the public will to be translated (although not perfectly) into policy action."

> 2003 - <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

> <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

|| >
 * Debra Parkes, LLM, Asst. Professor of Law at the University of Manitoba, stated in her Fall 2003 article "Ballot Boxes Behind Bars: Towards the Repeal of Prisoner Disenfranchisement Laws," published in the //Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review//: >  "The process of disenfranchising prisoners is neither limited to the United States, nor universal. Denmark, Israel, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland are just some of the countries that place no restrictions on prisoners' rights to vote. Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom currently practice criminal disenfranchisement in a more limited way than the United States, barring only certain offenders from voting, and only while incarcerated."

> Fall 2003 - <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

> <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

|| >
 * The Right to Vote Campaign stated in its Feb. 17, 2003 article "Felons and the Right to Vote," published on their website, that: >  "Eighteen European democracies permit incarcerated prisoners to vote, as do Canada and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., only the states of Maine and Vermont do so. No democracy other than the United States bars parolees from voting."

> 2006 - <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

|| > In these countries, restrictions on prisoner voting are typically based on either the length of the sentence, the nature of the crime committed, or the type of election. Nine European countries bar all current prisoners from voting, but only a handful place any restrictions on nonincarcerated felons, and most of these apply only to a small minority of offenders." >
 * Jeff Manza, PhD, Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, and Christopher Uggen, PhD, Distinguished McKnight Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, stated in their 2006 book//Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy//: >  "Many countries, including a number of European democracies, allow all criminal offenders -- even those currently in prison -- to vote. Israel, Canada, and South Africa allow current inmates to vote on the basis of recent high court rulings. A group of other European nations, as well as Australia and New Zealand, disenfranchise only some current inmates.

> 2006 - <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

> <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

|| > Many countries permit persons in prison to vote. According to research by Penal Reform International, prisoners may vote in countries as diverse as the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Zimbabwe. In Germany, the law obliges prison authorities to encourage prisoners to assert their voting rights and to facilitate voting procedures. The only prisoners who may not vote are those convicted of electoral crimes or crimes (e.g., treason) that undermine the 'democratic order,' and whose court-imposed sentence expressly includes disenfranchisement." >
 * Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project stated in their 1998 report //Losing The Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States//, that: >  "A few countries restrict the vote for a short period after conclusion of the prison term: Finland and New Zealand, for example, restrict the vote for several years after completion of sentence, but only in the case of persons convicted of buying or selling votes or of corrupt practices. Some countries condition disenfranchisement of prisoners on the seriousness of the crime or the length of their sentence. Others, e.g., Germany and France, permit disenfranchisement only when it is imposed by a court order.

> 1998 - <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;">

> <span style="color: #00428f; font-family: arial,helvetica; font-size: 7.5pt; text-decoration: none;"> ||