The ‘Electoral Connection’ Of Felon Disenfranchisement Reform

Currently forty-eight states enforce felon disenfranchisement laws, which prohibit individuals from voting based upon prior felony convictions. An estimated 5.3 million Americans are prevented from voting due to these restrictions. While in apparent contradiction with fundamental democratic values, the historical roots of felon disenfranchisement can be traced back to the Civil War. Over forty-five years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the continued presence of these policies demonstrate their resilience. In part, the “tough on crime” rhetoric, which has dominated politics since the late 1980s, has provided a political cover for disenfranchisement laws. Representatives supporting the easing of felon voting restrictions leave themselves vulnerable to being labeled as “soft on crime.” Furthermore, since those who are directly affected by felon disenfranchisement laws are stripped of voting rights, representatives generally avoid direct pressure from these groups to ease felon voting restrictions. Despite this, between 1997 and 2008, there was an increase in the number of state reforms easing felon voting restrictions. In each instance, reform was passed through the state legislature. This paper examines why some states eased felon voting restrictions during this time period while others did not. In particular, I examine the motivations of state representatives to ease felon voting restrictions. I find that states under Democratic control were more likely to ease voting restrictions for felons as the size of their African-American and Hispanic populations increased. Suggesting, I contend, that under certain circumstances Democrats incentives to ease felon disenfranchisement laws.