The ProjectI. What are the origins of voting restrictions on the voting rights of criminal

offenders? How have they varied across countries and in the states?

II. How is disenfranchisement justified legally, politically, philosophically, and in the criminal justice?

III. Does felon disenfranchisement have any impact on democratic elections, or is its impact largely symbolic?

IV. Does the right to vote have anything to do with the likelihood of recidivism or desistance?

V. Are existing processes of restoration through clemency fair and reasonable?

VI. Do these laws enjoy public support today?

VII. What are some of the policy implications?

Pre-Modern Origins of Felon Disenfranchisement

ANCIENT GREECE: loss of citizenship rights (atimia)

ROMAN EMPIRE: offenders subject to infamia

RENAISSANCE EUROPE: “outlawry” /“civil death”: loss of all civil rights▫ ENGLISH LAW: attainder, in extreme cases “dead in law”

Early American History:

Colonial Period: “moral qualifications” a key requirement for participation in early colonial township

How did the Right to Vote Become an Entitlement in the US?

Constitution?▫ States allowed the right to regulate access to the

ballot

▫ Amendments setting limits on states (14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th)

▫ Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court cases of the 1960s establishing so-called ‘strict scrutiny’ of state restrictions

Allowable Restrictions Legal Immigrants

Children

Uncounted Ballots?

Felons and Ex-felons

*14th Amendment (1868): • section 1=equal protection clause• Section 2=removes protection for those convicted of

rebellion or other crimes• Richardson v. Ramirez (1974)

Criminal Justice Master Trends

Rise in incarceration and conviction rates (over 600% since 1972)

2 million incarcerated, 7 million under correctional supervision

Crime rates stable (trendless fluctuation) until the early 1990s, then falling

State Disenfranchisement Laws, 2004

Disenfranchisement in 2004 Approximately 5.3 million disenfranchised felons in the U.S.

▫ 2.4% of the voting age population, 2.75% of the voting eligible population

2 million African Americans

▫ 8% of the African American VAP, and about 15% of all black men

Ex-felon estimates adjusted for mortality and recidivism to avoid double-counting

Estimated Distribution of Legally Disenfranchised Felons in the U.S., 2004

overall vote dilutionFelon Disenfranchisement as Percentage of VAP (2004)

8.3%

1.7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

2004

African American Non-African American

3,342,586

1,176,2341,762,582

4,686,539

5,358,282

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Year

Total

Dise

nfran

chise

dSize of Disenfranchised Felon

Population, 1960-2004

Inmate Voting Rights Around the World

Europe: No Restrictions: Bosnia, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland,

Finland, Greece, Latvia Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine

Selective Restrictions: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Norway, San Marino

Current Prisoners Disenfranchised: Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Romania, Russia, United Kingdom

Elsewhere: No Restrictions: South Africa, Canada, Israel

Selective Restrictions: Australia, New Zealand

Percentage of States Disenfranchising Felons and Ex-Felons, 1788-2002

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Decade

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sta

tes

Disf

ranc

hisi

ng

States that Disfranchise States that Disfranchise Ex-felons

1. 14th and 15th Amendments (1868, 1870)

2.19th Amendment (1920)

3. Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965)

4. Voter’s Registration Act (1993)

1 2 3 4

Two Key Historical Conclusions for Contemporary Debates:

1. Laws Precede Recent Changes in Criminal Justice System

2. Legal changes since 1960 have generally been in a liberalizing direction

2,629,602

6,805,368

1,140,076

4,705,458

9,833,235

1,378,1263,342,586

1,378,126

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1960 1976 1992 2000

Year

Tota

l Num

ber D

isen

franc

hise

d

Total Disenfranchised under 1960 Law Total Disenfranchised under Year-Specific Law

What if 1960 Laws Existed in 2000?

What is the Contemporary Impact of Disenfranchisement?

Rising a Who b Vote c Electoral Punishment Votes Choice Outcomes Rates

Policy Feedback Processes

d

A Counterfactual Approach What would happen if felons and ex-felons

had been allowed to participate in national elections?

Would some narrow elections won by Republicans have been won by Democrats instead?

Methodological Issues No survey data measuring voting behavior of felons

or ex-felons

Cannot assume felons would turnout and vote like rest of the population

Solution: “Match” characteristics of the felon population to information about turnout and voting behavior among similar eligible voters, as measured through election surveys

Overall Turnout Rates and Estimated Turnout among Disenfranchised Felons, Presidential

Elections 1972–2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Year

national turnout estimated felon turnout

Tur

nout

Per

cent

age

Democratic Preference Overall and among Felons, Major Party Voters in Presidential

Elections, 1972-2000

What is the Impact of Felon Disenfranchisement?

Rising a Who b Vote c Electoral Punishment Votes Choice Outcomes Rates

Policy Feedback Processes

d

Estimated Impact of Disenfranchisement on Presidential Elections

2000 Election: What if Felons had been Allowed to Vote? . Actual Hypothetical* Net Counter-(R) Total Est. Est. Lost (D) factual (D)

Unit Margin Disfranc’d Turnout %Dem Votes MarginUnited States -539,947 4,695,729 29.7% 68.9% 527,171 1,067,118

Florida 537 827,207 27.2% 68.9% 85,050 84,513 50% Turnout 13.6% 68.9% 42,525 41,988 Ex-felons Only 613,514 13.6% 68.9% 31,540 31,003

1960 Election: What if we Disenfranchised in 1960 at the Rate we do Today? . Actual Counter Net Counter-(D) Total Factual Est. Lost (D) factual (R)

Unit Margin Disfr’d Disfr’d Turnout Votes MarginUnited States 118,550 694,329 2,502,211 40% 361,576 243,026 50% Turnout 20% 180,788 62,238 *Hypothetical assumes 75% Democratic party preference.

Estimated Impact of Felon Disenfranchisement on the U.S. Senate 1978-2000

Total Turnout Pct. Actual Counter- Held Actual Counter-Year State Disfr’d Rate Dem. Margin factual Until Senate factual1978 VA 93,564 16% 80% 4,721 -4,547 2002+ 58:41 (D) 60:39 (D)1978 TX 190,369 13% 80% 12,227 -3,181 2002+ 58:41 (D) 60:39 (D)1982 - 54:46 (R) 52:48 (R)1984 KY 75,064 38% 69% 5,269 -5,655 2002+ 53:47 (R) 50:50 (-)1986 - 55:45 (D) 58:42 (D)1988 FL 293,512 26% 79% 34,518 -11,217 2000 55:45 (D) 60:40 (D)1988 WY 9,982 24% 79% 1,322 -116 2006+ 55:45 (D) 60:40 (D)1990 - 56:44 (D) 61:39 (D)1992 GA 131,911 30% 75% 16,237 -3,052 2000 57:43 (D) 63:37 (D)1994 - 52:48 (R) 54:46 (D)1996 - 55:45 (R) 51:49 (D)1998 KY 126,040 25% 70% 6,766 -5,848 2004+ 55:45 (R) 51:49 (D)2000 - 50:50 ( - ) 54:46 (D)In Virginia, Warner (R) def. Miller (D) in 1978, Harrison in 1984, Spannaus in 1990, and M. Warner in 1996; In Texas, Tower

(R) def. Krueger (D) in 1978; Gramm (R) def. Doggett in 1984, Parmer in 1990, and Morales in 1996; In Kentucky, McConnell (R) def. Huddleston (D) in 1984, Sloane in 1990, and Beshear in 1996; In Florida, Mack (R) def. MacKay (D) in 1988 and Rodham in 1994; McCollum (R) def. Nelson (D) in 2000. In Wyoming, Wallop (R) def. Vinich (D) in 1988 and Thomas (R) def. Sullivan (D) in 1994; In Georgia, Coverdell (R) def. Fowler (D) in 1992 and Coles in 1998; succeeded by Miller (D) in 2000. In Kentucky, Bunning (R) def. Baesler (D) in 1998.

III. meaning - political life of felons

General survey: Youth Development Study Those who experience criminal sanctions

▫ …have lower turnout, but much of the effect is due to differences in education

▫ …are less trusting of the government and express lower levels of political efficacy

▫ …may be more likely to self-identify as political independents

political attitudes

Never Arrested

Never Arrested

Never Arrested

Never Arrested

Never Arrested

Arrested

Arrested

Arrested

Arrested

Arrested

Incarcerated

Incarcerated

Incarcerated

Incarcerated

Incarcerated

2 2.5 3 3.5

Government cannot betrusted*

People runninggovernment are crooked*

No confidence incriminal justice system*

People like me have nosay*

Get nowhere talking topublic officials*

Never Arrested Arrested Incarcerated

meaning to those affected Felon interviews: 33 Minnesota prisoners,

probationers, and parolees.▫ Political experiences and participation▫ Salient issues▫ Stigma and reintegration▫ Partisanship, trust, other civil disabilities

Diverse in race, gender and age; all major offense categories represented

Quick sample today

Dylan: irrationality and reintegration What is the fear that someone who has committed a felony

would actually have a voice? … we’re going to have some organized crime guy running for office, and we’re all going to get behind him?

They have the expectation that you’re going to reintegrate back into society, become a functioning, contributing member of society. But yet you’re not allowed to have a say-so… I can’t imagine the logic behind that other than as a continuing form of punishment, which again makes no sense. The whole principle of our legal system is you pay your debt. Debt’s done, you move on.

Pamela – salt and loss [G]etting back in the community and being a contributing member is

difficult enough …‘Yeah, we don’t value your vote either because you’re a convicted felon from how many years back’ … [I] have paid for that and would like to someday feel like a, quote, ‘normal citizen,’ a contributing member of society, and you know that’s hard when every election you’re constantly being reminded… a little salt in the wound. You’ve already got that wound and it’s trying to heal and it’s trying to heal, and you’re trying to be a good taxpayer and be a homeowner … one little vote, right? But that means a lot …

[L]oss after loss after loss. And this is just another one. Another to add to the pile… I am looking forward to and trying to prepare to be that productive member of society … you telling me that I’m still really bad because I can’t [vote] is like making it sting again. It’s like haven’t I paid enough yet? … You can’t really feel like a part of your government because they’re still going like this, ‘Oh, you’re bad. Remember what you did way back then? Nope, you can’t vote’.(prisoner, 49)

Paul – taxation & voice I have no right to vote on how my taxes is going to be spent or used,

which I have to pay whether I’m a felon or not. …I’m not saying give back gun rights or anything like that … But giving back voting rights is another way to make a person feel part of that community. How can you feel that you’re giving back to a community … when you’re exiled from it by not being able to vote and have a voice in it?

I really get kind of peeved when people say ‘give back to the community’ because I’m not a part of the community anymore as far as I can see it … And so when they [say], ‘What are you going to give back to the community for this and for that?’ I’m like well, hey, community doesn’t want a damn thing to do with me, why should I go back and give anything to do with the community? (prisoner, aged 37)

Peter – “a racial thing” I think that they just want less blacks to vote, you know what

I’m saying? ‘Cause 90% of people’s that’s in jail, they’s black anyway, or on probation or whatever. I feel, I feel that’s what it is though. Less black people to vote, you know? … When less of us vote, that’s more for the other races to vote. …

[L]ook at any jail across the world- we the most people that’s in there. We the most people that’s overcrowding the jails so that’s why I think it’s a racial thing towards us, you know… I mean it’s a white world, you know? — Peter, probationer, age 24

IV. might voting affect crime? Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, 2005

▫ “research shows that ex-offenders who vote are less likely to re-offend.”

National Review’s Peter Kirsanow▫ “the problem with Vilsack’s claim is that there is

absolutely no research to support it. Not one longitudinal study exists showing the effects of the restoration of voting rights on crime rates or recidivism.”

theorizing the relationship Criminology

▫ Adult social bonds to work, family (and community?)▫ Restorative justice, reintegration, identity

Democratic Theory▫ Educative, constitutive, and expressive voting ▫ Democracy molds ‘virtuous’ citizens who identify with the polity and

its norms and values “voting is a meaningful participatory act through which

individuals create and affirm their membership in the community and thereby transform their identities both as individuals and as part of a greater collectivity” (Winkler)

reasons for skepticism Turnout: they wouldn’t vote anyway (Miles) Self-selection: voters are “virtuous” already Weak “treatment”: a limited and passive form of

participation Weak methods: correlational, covariance adjustment

approaches (ours too) Skepticism: from felons and academics

“a stretch” for some felons

Andrew: To me that would be a stretch…I think that people who are more likely to vote are, you know, just at different points in their life, and I just think that the people [who] are more likely to commit crimes aren’t gonna either commit those crimes or not commit those crimes because they have the ability to, to vote. I just don’t think that voting’s gonna be a priority to them (probationer in 20s)

Larry: I don’t think that would have anything to do with it [committing future crime], the right to vote…. I mean I had the right to vote before I came to prison, but I still let my crime happen…I don’t see voting as having an effect on criminal behavior (prisoner in 30s)

survey evidence (YDS)(with Manza; Columbia Human Rights Law Review

2004b)15.6%

5.2%

12.4%

4.7%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

Arrested 1997-2000 Incarcerated 1997-2000

Did Not Vote 1996 (n=250) Voted in 1996 (n=464)

does the association hold net of arrest history?

10.1%

3.5%

26.6%

12.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Arrest History pre-1996(n=122)

No Arrest History pre-1996(n=529)

Did Not Vote 1996 Voted in 1996

strategy Match MN voting and crime records

▫ 1990 releasees through 2004, plus record search Univariate

▫ What percentage voted? [minimum of 17-20%] Bivariate

▫ Compare voters and non-voters with non-parametric survival and hazard plots [significant difference, ~7%]

Multivariate▫ Create time-varying voting variable▫ Run basic recidivism model with voting [big difference]

ikkiii XtVotingXtt ....)()()(hlog 22110

Survival until New DOC Admission by [Fixed] Voting Status

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Perc

ent S

urviv

ing

with

out N

ew A

dmiss

ion

non-voters voters

summary Civic reintegration through voting?

▫ Maybe, if voting taps desire to participate as a law-abiding stakeholder in a larger society

▫ Strong relationship: hazard rate of recidivism is 77% lower for voters in the previous biennial election than for non-voters, net of controls.

• age, marriage, race, gender, offense, sentence length, property ownership

Practicing citizenship by voting may help reinforce identity as a law-abiding citizen▫ Reenfranchisement and public safety▫ Omitted variables and Oregon project

IV. does the public support felon voting bans?

(Public Opinion Quarterly 2004, with Manza and Clem Brooks)

Harris Poll ▫ Monthly omnibus telephone survey, July 18-22,

2002▫ National sample of 1000 adults

Survey experiments ▫ Randomly split sample into fourths and varied

question wording and offense▫ Tested for “non-attitudes”

support for enfranchisement

61%

67%

62%

33%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Probationers1 (N = 206) Probationers2 (N = 228) Parolees (N = 240) Prisoners (N = 235)

framing effects

80%

63%66%

52%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Generic (N = 232) White-Collar (N = 239) Violent Crime (N = 247) Sex Crime (N = 234)

Category of Ex-Felons

provisional answers to 5 questions

I. Impact?• Yes, but only in close Republican victories in states with very strict

laws• Parties can ignore preferences of 5 million poor

II. Origins?• Old idea, tied to racial conflict in the U.S.

III. Do felons care about voting?• Yes, but other rights are more salient

IV. Is voting linked to crime?• Yes, it is correlated • We think it taps civic reintegration• It may reinforce an identity as a law abiding citizen

V. Does the public support strict felon voting laws?• No. Most only want inmates banned

citizens and felons

supplemental slides

05/09/23 48

Minnesota turnout in yds

Never Arrested

Never Arrested

Never Arrested

Arrested

Arrested

Arrested

Incarcerated

Incarcerated

Incarcerated

25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95%

% 2000 Plans

% 1998 Turnout

% 1996 Turnout

Never Arrested Arrested Incarcerated

Table 1. Characteristics of Minnesota Felon Sample Variable Mean Recidivism Recidivated 35.7% Civic Participation Voted in any Election 17.2% Registered to Vote 20.1% Demographic Characteristics Race and Ethnicity White 64.5% African American 25.6% American Indian 6.9% “Hispanic” ethnicity 2.4% Female 9.4% Offense Characteristics Violent Offense 40.1% Property Offense 44.0% Drug Offense 11.7% “Other” Offense 3.3% Time Served (years) 3.7 (3.5) Post-release Characteristics Ever Married 32.1% Ever Divorced 22.3% Property Owners 5.4% Average age in 1990 31.1 (12.0) N=1311.Standard deviations for continuous variables in parentheses.

Table 2.Cox Regression Estimates of Recidivism with Time-Varying Voting (N=1,307) 1 2 3 Model #3

Civic Participation risk ratio eB Time-Varying Voting -2.193***

(.357) -2.083*** (.357)

-1.468*** (.360) .230 -77.0%

Demographic Characteristics African American (v. white) .618***

(.100) .433***

(.103) 1.542 54.2% American Indian (v. white) .257

(.183) -.049 (.184) .952 -4.8%

“Hispanic” (v. white) -.280 (.359)

.083 (.360) 1.087 8.7%

Female (v. male) -.297# (.166)

.203 (.169) 1.226 22.6%

Offense Characteristics Property Offense (v. violent) .727***

(.108) .143

(.115) 1.154 15.4% Drug Offense (v. violent) .396*

(.161) .374*

(.167) 1.453 45.3% Other Offense (v. violent) .300

(.282) -.001 (.284) .999 -.01%

Time Served (years) .104*** (.021) 1.109 10.9%

Post-release Characteristics Time-Varying Age -.181***

(.008) .834 -16.6% Time-Varying Marriage -.251#

(.153) .778 -22.2% Property Ownership .272

(.212) 1.312 31.2% -2LL 6458.8 6374.6 5632.5 Chi-Square (df) 55.1*** (1) 144.2*** (8) 681.7*** (12) # p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Standard errors are in parentheses

poll wording There has been some discussion recently about the right to vote in this

country. Some feel that people convicted of a crime who are in prison should have the right to vote. What about you? Do you think people in prison should have the right to vote?▫ … who have been released from prison on parole and are living in

the community…▫ who are sentenced to probation (but not prison) and are living in

the community …(Or haven’t you thought much about this?) Now how about people convicted of a crime who have served their

entire sentence, and are now living in the community. Do you think they should have the right to vote?▫ “ … convicted of the illegal trading of stocks … ”▫ “ … convicted of a violent crime … ”▫ “ … convicted of a sex offense … ”

the Voting Rights of Prisoners

No Restrictions: Bosnia, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine

Selective Restrictions: Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino

Complete Ban on Inmate Voting: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, India, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Russia, United Kingdom

Post-Release Restrictions: Armenia, Belgium (sentences over seven years), Chile, Finland (for up to seven years after imprisonment), Germany (court-imposed only in rare cases)