While this presentation is about felon disenfranchisement, it is by default about the importance of upholding the most fundamental right of citizenship: the right to vote.

The right to vote forms the foundation of American democracy and "the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society. Any restriction on that right strikes at the heart of representative government." Moreover, casting a vote is arguably the most widely understood and effective way to have one's voice heard in American politics. Voting creates the possibility that one's voice will continue to be heard long after any given election if the elected official enacts policy that has lasting benefits for the voter's community.

Over the course of American history access to the vote has expanded from an exclusive privilege for propertied white men to be gender- race- and class-blind. Today it is seen as a fundamental right for all American citizens.

However over the past 40 years we have seen increasing numbers of people losing their right to vote due to a felony conviction

Today, individuals with a felony conviction are the last and largest group of American citizens who are systematically denied the vote and so cannot contribute to the choice of who will govern. And in Minnesota, the vast majority of disenfranchised felons are not incarcerated but rather living in communities and, in most cases working and paying taxes.

This presentation will explore the historically and globally unique issue of felon disenfranchisement, its rapid rise over the past 40 years, the residual effects on communities, and what steps we can take to address this growing problem.

In the United States today 5.8 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. This, in turn, is a direct result of a sudden and swift rise in felony convictions and incarceration rates over the past four decades.

Never in American history has such a large percentage of citizens been saddled with a criminal record or locked up in prisons or jails.

This is an issue of growing concern and one that is increasingly on our collective radar. Eric Holder in his remarks to the bar association in San Francisco expressed his concern by saying: “We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish deter and rehabilitate – not merely to convict, warehouse and forget.” Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the fed, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable…It imposes a significant economic burden (totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone) and it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.” Holder concluded by describing this shameful aspect of our justice system as “profoundly outdated, unjust and counterproductive."

Incarcerating such a large number of American Citizens is a new development and one that poses significant challenges and creates residual effects.

Throughout most of American history the number of people incarcerated remained extremely stable. For about 50 years, from the mid 1920s up until the early 1970s incarceration rates hovered around 110 per 100,000 people, varying only slightly and in step with changes in the overall population. In 1973, federal and state prisons in held 200,000 adults. Yet by 2009 that number increased astronomically, by over 500% [my math puts it at 1015% - need to check] to 1.5 million, with an additional 700,000 serving time for felonies in local jails bringing the total of incarcerated adult citizens to 2.23 million. To put this in perspective the general population increased by only 40% during this time.

There has been a commensurate increase in correctional control. In the U.S. between the same time period--the early 70s to 2012--there has been a 327% increase in probationers and a 488% increase in people on felony probation.

Despite the breathtaking rise in people under some form of correctional control, this does not, in fact, reflect the fact that the country has become more criminal or violent. A more accurate explanation has to do with politics and policy.

This graph was compiled by the Prison Policy Initiative. Data Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (Graph: Prison Policy Initiative, 2010)

The rise in incarceration can be attributed to a number of factors but generally boils down to four major policy initiatives or trends.

The war on drugs and its impact on our prison and criminal justice system could be a presentation in and of itself. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, over 50% of federal current prison inmates are serving time for drug offenses. Between 1980 and 2010 the incarceration rate for drug crimes increased ten-fold. Since its official beginning in 1982, the number of American incarcerated for drug offenses has skyrocketed from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 in 2011.

In addition, President Johnson promoted a tough on crime stance in the 60s that played surprisingly well politically. This message was adopted as a winning political strategy by the republican party.

Not only are many more things are considered criminal today, since the 1970s, Congress and state legislatures have enacted a number of changes to prison and sentencing laws that have mandated prison time for lesser offenses resulting in more people going to jail and serving considerably longer sentences.

The rise in incarceration rates since the 1970s has been astronomical. The numbers of people under correctional control has outpaced population growth as well. The number of US citizens on probation and parole has increased by 327% and 488% respectively.

The rise in incarceration, probation and parole has resulted in an unprecedented. 5.8 million, number of US Citizens disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. Thinking about this statistic in another way, this is 1 of every 40 voting eligible adults. The problem becomes more concerning when we look more closely at how felon disenfranchisement laws disproportionately effect minority communities. 38% or 1 in 13 African American men (8% of the total African American) of voting age have been disenfranchised or 2.5% of the total voting age population.

In both rate and sheer numbers the United States is a global outlier in incarceration. In 2012 2.23 million people were behind bars according to the International Centre for Prison Studies. In total numbers China was next in line, but with half a million less, 1,701,344,

Looking at percentage of the population, our prison population rate is the highest in the world as well at 707 per 100,000. This is five to ten times the rate of other European countries and considerably higher than the Russian Federation at 474 or Saudi Arabia at 162. While the United States has only 5% of the world's population, 25% of the worlds prisoners are American citizens locked up on American soil.

See The Sentencing Project's Fact Sheet: Trends in U.S. Corrections for great graphics ideas. . .

In a global context, the United States is exceptionally severe in terms of both incarceration and disenfranchisement rates. The U.S. is the only country in the democratic world that systematically disenfranchises large numbers of non-incarcerated offenders who have finished their sentences and have been released back into the community.

The United Nation's Human Rights Committee, co-authored a report with seven other civil and human rights organizations in September 2013 documenting how United States disenfranchisement laws violates civil and human rights obligations, specifically under Articles 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the U.S. ratified in 1992.

Under Article 25, governments may impose reasonable restrictions on the right to vote, such as prohibiting voting by inmates. However, permanent or extended disenfranchisement violates the requirement that voting rights are objective and reasonable and that the suspension of rights be proportionate to the offense and sentence.

The United States' outlier status is further affirmed by the reluctance of other nations to enact felon disenfranchisement laws 1999 South African high court struck down legislation that would have disenfranchised prisoners noting that a republic is “founded on. . .universal adult suffrage” which is “one of the fundamental values of the consitutional order.” The European Court of Human Rights struck down similar laws in the UK and Austria as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This approach has been echoed by the Canadian Supreme Court as well that the “Universal franchise has become. . . an essential part of democracy.” “If we accept that governmental power in a democracy flows from the citizens, it is difficult to see how that power can legitimately be used to disenfranchise the very citizens from whom the government’s power flows”

Yet despite all this these antiquated practices continue in the US.

While Minnesota’s incarceration rate is one of the lowest in the nation--ranking 48th out of 50 states--still, the number of people incarcerated has increased 6x since the 1970s. While Minnesota has not kept pace with the nation as a whole--having seen felon disenfranchisement increase by 11 times our state level increase is concerning.

What is unique and interesting about Minnesota is the relatively high number of people under correctional control with more people on probation or parole than most states, ranking 4th in the country. The numbers of people on probation have increased significantly.

o The above stats differ from those given in the UN Human Rights report: In this report they purport that 7.7% of adult AA (or 1 in 13) is d. This is 4x greater than non-AA population rate of 1.8%. In three states, at least one out of every five AA adults is d (Florida 23%, Kentucky 22%, and Virginia 20%). Nationwide 2.2 million AA are d on the basis of involvement with the criminal justice system, more than 40% of whom have completed the terms of their sentences.
o Info on d rates of other groups extremely limited but the data suggest felony d laws may disproportionately impact those of Hispanic origin and others. Hispanics are incarcerated at higher rates than non-H’s: about 2.4 times greater for Hispanic men and 1.5x for Hispanic women. If current incarceration trends hold, 17% of H men will be incarcerated during their lifetimes, in contrast to less than 6% of non-H white men. It is therefore reasonable to assume that H are likely to be barred from voting under Fd at disproportionate rates.

Minnesota also differs from national statistics in terms of racial breakdown with relatively more white citizens with felony convictions.

In 2012, 63,300 Minnesotans were disenfranchised, yet only about 17,500 were serving time behind bars, reflecting a national trend.

In 2012 16,000 African Americans approximately 8% of the voting age population were disenfranchised.


o Minnesota has the 15th highest rate of Fd for Aas higher than 85% of the rest of the country including states like Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Missouri
o Over 12% of AA men in MN can’t vote because of felon disenfranchisement compared to 1% of white Minnesotans [CHECK THIS FROm J TERREL W/OUT SOURCES]
o In the U.S. overall, the policy has a disproportionate impact on communities of color because these communities are incarcerated at a much higher rate. In 2010 1.2% of White Americans were unable to vote compared to 9.9% of African Americans and 6.6% of American Indians LWVWebsite.

1.47% of Minnesotans are disenfranchised. A close look at the numbers tells a more interesting story:

AA’s make up 5% of MN’s population yet represent over 25% of those disenfranchised.

American Indians make up less than 2% of MN’s population and 6% of those disenfranchised (RTVMN).

And so on.

Along with the breathtaking increase in incarceration rates came a commensurate increase in disenfranchisement rates, the U.S. has seen a rise of almost 400% since of 1974 while in Minnesota that rises to over 600%

Currently, 5.85 million fellow citizens or 2.5% of the eligible voting population are prohibited from voting because of a current or previous felony conviction (The Sentencing Project).

According to the Brennan Center, 4.4 million of these people are living in their communities, working and paying taxes. To be clear, those who are incarcerated account for only 25% of the disenfranchised community. The lions share have "done their time."

Each individual U.S. state determines whether or when citizens with a felony conviction may exercise their right to vote, resulting in a diverse array of policies throughout the United States. Two states, Maine and Vermont, do not disenfranchise felons at all, allowing them to continue to vote, even while incarcerated. Florida, Iowa and Kentucky among 11 states at the opposite extreme, revokes the right to vote permanently once a citizen is convicted of a felony. Most states fall somewhere in between either restoring the vote upon release or after the individual is no longer on paper.

States with the most draconian policies – including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia – more than 7% of the adult population is barred from the polls sometimes for life.

Minnesota is one of 24 states where citizens with a felony conviction are prohibited from voting as long as they are under correctional control or “on paper,” while on probation or parole. 18 states have less restrictive laws [check this!]

Many policies defy logic: In four states, including New York, felons on parole can’t vote but felons on probation can. In some states, felons must formally apply for restoration of their voting rights which state official can grant or deny on the most arbitrary of grounds.

Florida is a special case indeed. Of the estimated 5.8 million Americans nationwide who are affected by these laws, approx 1/4 or 1.5 millionlive in FL where only 6% of the population resides. The state’s ban applies to an almost ludicrous range of offenses, from 1st degree murder to disobeying a police officer to messing with someone’s crab trap. 2010 figures indicate 70 percent are serving sentences for nonviolent offenses and 61 had no prior convictions; 1/5 are drug offenders. AA comprise half of all FL prisoners but only 15% of the state’s overall population.

Map from the sentencing project.

Many policies defy logic: In four states, including New York, felons on parole can’t vote but felons on probation can. In some states, felons must formally apply for restoration of their voting rights which state official can grant or deny on the most arbitrary of grounds.


The laws and policies surrounding felon disenfranchisement in Minnesota are often unclear and misunderstood not only by the individuals with felony convictions but probation and parole officers, election officials and judges. Many people become or remain disenfranchised by default, for fear of inadvertently breaking another law.

i. From Dayton’s Task Force on Election Integrity’s First Report (January 2012)“[N]o data base exists that can accurately identify when a felon regains the eligibility to vote, and … the question of disenfranchisement creates significant confusion among the public, election judges, election administrators, and the individual convicted of a felony.”15 The report also noted that no consistent notification procedures exist to inform felons of the status of their voting rights. The 2012 report recommended improved procedures, including notification to felons that voting while on supervised release or probation is itself a felony, and modification of Minnesota law regarding the duty of county attorneys to investigate and prosecute voting violations. Neither of these recommendations were adopted in subsequent legislative sessions.

Reliable information on the rate and number of individuals whose rights have been restored is difficult to obtain, but preliminary data suggest that in states like Minnesota, that continue to disenfranchise after the completion of an individual’s sentence is completed, the percentage of restoration ranges from less than 1% to 16%. This data indicates that the vast majority of individuals in these states remain disenfranchised. (only citation: See List of Issues Submission by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights at 6.)

Counterproductive/undermines nation’s commitment to rehabilitate – we want to do everything we can to get people back on their feet and productively involved in their communities.

Residual effects – generational – future voters discouraged. Learned behavior.

Disproportionately impacts/marginalizes minority communities – dilutes diverse voices. Engenders a culture of non-participation that erodes mainstream civic engagement. Dilutes black voting power.

Logical
Voting is a reflection on democracy and restoring the vote to citizens once they have completed jail or prison sentences upholds American ideals.

Ex-cons are expected to be responsible parents, community members, workers and tax-payers. It only makes sense to allow them to vote as well. Voting is one of the most significant duties of citizenship.

Restoring the vote also promotes responsible citizenship, second chances, and redemption. We don't need to hold onto the vestiges of civil death.

Finally there is a link based on a Florida study, that correlates voting with lower recidivism.