Remnants of Southern Jim Crow laws exist in state-sanctioned efforts to permanently deprive ex-felons of their voting rights. Currently, fourteen states disenfranchise convicted felons after the completion of their prison sentences. The disenfranchised class formed from these states' voting disenfranchisement laws cannot vote in local, state, or federal elections -- they are second class citizens. Proponents of permanent criminal disenfranchisement laws claim that they are maintaining the "purity of the ballot box." In fact, the result of these laws is to disenfranchise a disproportionate number of minorities and dilute the voting power of African-Americans at the local and national level.
Criminal disenfranchisement was not originally adopted for the purpose of discrimination. The practice was brought to the United States from British law at the time of colonization and has remained a part of state constitutions. However, after the Civil War, former Confederate states convened "disenfranchising conventions" where Southern White Democrats strategized ways to deny African-Americans access to the ballot box.
One of the seemingly race-neutral (yet racist) ways Southern Democrats devised to disenfranchise African-Americans was to expand criminal disenfranchisement provisions to include crimes thought to have been committed at a higher rate by African-Americans. Thus, examples of crimes added to states constitutional provisions were "crimes of moral turpitude," "infamous crimes," and "petite larceny." By rigorously enforcing criminal disenfranchisement laws in combination with grandfather clauses, poll taxes, etc., Southern Whites were able to take back political power through discriminatory means.
Today, criminal disenfranchisement laws still have a hugely disproportionate impact on the African-American population. 1.4 million African-American men (13 percent of the adult male African-American population) are disenfranchised. In seven states, 25 percent of the adult male African-American population is disenfranchised. And, given current rates of incarceration, 30 percent of the African-American male population can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime according to The Sentencing Project. These statistics are alarming and show the severity of the problem caused by criminal disenfranchisement laws.
In light of their racially discriminatory intent, one question that must be asked of criminal disenfranchisement laws is: are they constitutional? Although courts have gone both ways when considering the constitutionality of criminal disenfranchisement laws, the conclusion should be a definitive "no."
The most compelling legal argument that can be made against criminal disenfranchisement laws is that they violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which bars any voting qualification that results in a negative disproportionate impact to a minority population.
Legal arguments can also be made concerning the Fourteenth (Equal Protection and Due Process) and Fifteenth Amendment; however, these require a showing of discriminatory intent in the formulation of the law. Although most of the laws were expanded post-Reconstruction for the purpose of discrimination, proving that the racist intent still lingers can often be an uphill battle in the courtroom.
However, this is not just a legal issue. Criminal disenfranchisement laws undermine the democratic process in general. Most permanently disenfranchised felons are not violent or filled with animosity towards the democratic process.
I have met and worked alongside many disenfranchised ex-felons and have learned that they are among the most committed citizens in the country. During the 2002 gubernatorial election, I went door-to-door in Baltimore registering voters alongside men and women who themselves could not vote.
The actions of ex-felons during the 2002 election showed me their amazing courage and commitment to the democratic process. Although they could not vote themselves, they knew the importance of expanding the democratic process and were committed to registering hundreds of voters as a way to make their voice heard. If anyone should be voting,
It is these disenfranchised men and women who are fully committed to democratic participation and understand the importance of "the right to vote."
Depriving ex-felons of the right to vote does nothing for the democratic process and nothing for rehabilitation. Communities are not safer because of these laws and recidivism is certainly not decreased. Once a convicted criminal steps out of jail, he/she has served the punishment that the government deems necessary and should immediately start the process of rehabilitation. Restoration of voting rights should be an integral part of the rehabilitation process, not a means to permanently punish individuals for past crimes.
Maryland is one of the fourteen states that disenfranchise some classes of felons for life. Students on this campus can help to reverse Maryland's racially discriminatory and undemocratic practice by pressuring the state legislature.
Currently, Senate Bill 462 and House Bill 12, both of which would repeal Maryland's criminal disenfranchisement law, are being considered in Annapolis. Students should speak out on this issue and tell the government to expand the democratic process by enfranchising ex-felons.
--Morgan Macdonald is a senior political science major.
