For many people with a felony conviction on their record, time spent in prison is not the only way they must repay their debt to society. Felony disenfranchisement laws that limit or remove the voting rights of those with felony convictions have disenfranchised millions of people across the country. Although legislation attempting to lift restrictions on suffrage materializes in different states each year, the fight to restore voting rights is an uphill battle.
Of the 48 states engaged in some type of voting rights restrictions, only a handful require the difficult process of obtaining a pardon by the governor before voting rights are restored. In Kentucky, shoplifting could permanently remove an individual’s right to vote. This February, Kentucky lawmakers introduced HB 70, which would have automatically restored voting rights to those convicted of non-violent felony offenses after the completion of their sentence. It has since been reassigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the meantime, the Kentucky Senate passed SB 299, which does not automatically restore voting rights. Instead, it merely permits the legislature to establish rules for restoration of voting rights for those with non-violent felony convictions upon completion of their sentences. Challengers of SB 299 criticized the bill, arguing that it does not go far enough.
There is an even bigger hurdle to overcome for thousands of people in Mississippi, a state that permanently prohibits those with felony convictions (even crimes like ‘timber larceny’) from voting. House Bill 788 offered modest improvement to the state’s harsh disenfranchisement laws. The bill provided restoration of voting rights only after completion of one’s sentence, a three-year waiting period, and the submission of a sworn petition to the court. Still, notwithstanding the presence of such strict conditions, the bill died in committee.
Unfortunately, Florida’s HRJ 729 met the same fate. The restoration bill proposed a constitutional amendment to automatically restore the right to vote after time served for nonviolent felony convictions. Instead of providing Floridians a chance to weigh in by voting on this amendment, lawmakers let the measure die.
What is truly outstanding is that the aforementioned bills did not purport to overhaul the current state of disenfranchisement laws. On the contrary, these bills offered only potential for reprieve from archaic interpretations of the Constitution.
The situation is remarkably better in Hawaii for those who are presently incarcerated for felony convictions. Currently, only Hawaiians serving a prison sentence for a misdemeanor are allowed to vote while behind bars. If enacted, recently introduced HB 2773 would also permit men and women serving time for felony convictions to vote absentee. Sponsors of the bill argue that disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect Native Hawaiians and other people of color and hope that such a bill would encourage civic engagement. If Hawaii were to pass HB 2773, it would join Maine and Vermont as the only states, where the status of an individual’s criminal record has no bearing on their right to vote. California has also introduced favorable legislation (AB 2466), which seeks to clarify the state’s election code to ensure that thousands of residents are not unfairly disenfranchised. Project Vote has submitted testimony in support of the bill.
Recently passed legislation in Maryland to restore voting rights to more than 40,000 individuals with felony convictions on probation or parole, has also restored hope to many that other states will follow their lead. The desire to improve existing felony voting laws is growing. In 2016, Project Vote monitored more than 40 bills to do just that. However, supporters of such legislation must remember the bill’s legislative history: a narrowly overturned gubernatorial veto is evidence that restoration attempts have strong opposition across the country and in high places.
What this means for people who have been convicted of felony convictions down the road is unclear; supporters and opponents of restoration laws seem capable of only the smallest of compromises, if any, as demonstrated by bills like Kentucky’s SB 299. Millions of American citizens have been stripped of their most fundamental right and barred from participating in the governance of their own communities long after they have paid their debt to society. It is difficult to see how a country ruled by the tenants of democracy can continue to allow such a large segment of the population to remain disenfranchised.
Courtnay Sellers is a legislative intern with Project Vote for the spring of 2016.