United States 2 Disfranchisement

many states intentionally retract franchise convicted felons, differ when or if franchise can restored. in states, felons prohibited voting in federal elections, if convictions state crimes.

maine , vermont allow prison inmates probationers , parolees vote.

twenty states (alaska, arkansas, georgia, idaho, iowa, kansas, louisiana, maryland, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, new jersey, new mexico, north carolina, oklahoma, south carolina, texas, washington, west virginia, , wisconsin) not allow persons convicted of felony vote while serving sentence, automatically restore franchise person upon completion of sentence. in iowa, in july 2005, governor tom vilsack issued executive order restoring right vote persons have completed supervision, iowa supreme court upheld on october 31, 2005.

thirteen states (hawaii, illinois, indiana, massachusetts, michigan, montana, new hampshire, north dakota, ohio, oregon, pennsylvania, rhode island, , utah) plus district of columbia allow probationers , parolees vote, not inmates.

five states (california, colorado, connecticut, new york, , south dakota) allow probationers vote, not inmates or parolees.

eight states (alabama, arizona, delaware, kentucky, mississippi, nevada, tennessee, , wyoming) allow some, not all, persons felony convictions vote after having completed sentences. have qualifications of this: example, delaware not restore franchise until 5 years after release of person. similarly, kentucky requires person take action gain restoration of franchise.

two states (florida , virginia) permanently disfranchise persons felony convictions.

disfranchisement due criminal conviction, particularly after sentence served, has been opposed sentencing project, organization in united states working reduce arbitrary prison sentences minor crimes , ameliorate negative effects of incarceration enable persons rejoin society after completing sentences. website provides wealth of statistical data reflects opposing views on issue, , data united states government , various state governments practice of felony disfranchisement.

such disenfranchisement policy excludes 1 in 6 african-american males. example, in 1998 elections, @ least 10 states formally disenfranchised 20 percent of african-american voters due felony convictions (journal of blacks in higher education, 1999). excluding felons provided “a small clear advantage republican candidates in every presidential , senatorial election 1972 2000” (manza & uggen, 2006, p. 191). in addition, felon disenfranchisement may have changed course of history costing al gore 2000 presidential election (uggen & manza, 2002). similarly, if not felon disenfranchisement, democratic senatorial candidates have prevailed in texas (1978), kentucky (1984 , 1992), florida (1988 , 2004), , georgia (1992) (manza & uggen, 2006, p. 194).