Collateral Consequences Hearing Touches on Disenfranchisement

The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held an oversight hearing Wednesday morning entitled “Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions: Barriers to Reentry for the Formerly Incarcerated.” The goal of the hearing was to collect testimony on the barriers faced by formerly incarcerated individuals in their attempt to reenter society. There are a multitude of such barriers–Richard Cassidy of the Uniform Law Commission testified that a study of eight states showed an average of more than 700 collateral laws per state–and the right to vote is among them.

Although the right to vote was not the subcommittee’s primary focus, the issue was raised several times. Chairman Robert Scott (D-VA) stated in his opening remarks that many states do not give formerly incarcerated persons the right to vote, which in turn discourages political participation.

Research supports Scott’s assertion. A summary chart of felon voting laws around the country, created by Project Vote, shows that only two states do not disenfranchise felons at all, and nine states permanently disenfranchise some or all offenders. A study by Matthew Cardinale and research and advocacy organization, the Sentencing Project shows that “felony disenfranchisement is a politically alienating experience that undermines political trust and diminished political involvement.”  In fact, two-thirds of survey respondents who had been politically active before losing the right to vote ceased engaging in political activity after their disenfranchisement.  Numerous respondents also reported that they no longer felt like full citizens.

Mark Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, was the first witness to speak.  He noted in his summary testimony that, in a study of 10 states, 33 percent of local election officials misinterpreted the applicable laws relating to felon disenfranchisement. This is a concerning statistic because former convicts themselves are often unlikely to know whether they may register to vote, and thus they are dependent on local officials. If the officials themselves do not know the law, it becomes more likely that former convicts will be disenfranchised even in those states where they have the legal right to vote.

Two other witnesses indirectly touched on the problem of felon disenfranchisement. Richard Lewis, from ICF International, listed voting as something that formerly incarcerated individuals need access to, along with housing, employment, education, student loans, welfare benefits, and substance abuse treatment. Dr. Pamela Lattimore, principal scientist at RTI International, noted that automatic restoration of rights is granted in other countries, usually after a set time period depending on the crime committed.  She also mentioned that some former offenders may be unable to obtain driver’s licenses. Although Dr. Lattimore was not discussing the right to vote, her testimony is important because it means that felons who are not disenfranchised as a result of their conviction may still be at serious risk of disenfranchisement if their states require photo identification to vote.

In response to the panel’s testimony, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), the ranking member of the subcommittee, did not go so far as to agree that felon disenfranchisement is a problem per se. In fact, he expressed interest in setting a blanket time period during which felons would not be permitted to vote or hold government jobs. However, he did make a point of agreeing with Mr. Mauer that better education is needed for election officials so that people are not wrongly enfranchised or disenfranchised.

Finally, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated that there would be a full committee hearing on the subject of collateral consequences in August in Detroit, Michigan.  The goal of the hearing is to enlarge the panel to cover other ways in which collateral consequences are harmful.

Given the scant and mostly indirect attention that the issue of disenfranchisement received during Wednesday’s hearing, Project Vote encourages Rep. Conyers to invite an expert to testify on disenfranchisement as a collateral consequence.  Specifically, the committee should hear testimony as to the wide disparity in disenfranchisement laws throughout the states, the effect that disenfranchisement has on felons’ sense of belonging to the community, and the need for a blanket policy throughout the country with regard to felon disenfranchisement in national elections.

Michelle Rupp is a legal intern with Project Vote