Felony Voting Rights

Background

The United States of America denies people convicted of criminal offenses the right to exercise their political will through the revoking of voter’s rights. Different states have varying rules that determine whether the disenfranchisement is permanent or whether it terminates upon the completion of the sentence or probation. The affected person suffers additional civil state penalties such as the cancellation or restriction of professional work permit, nullification of the eligibility for welfare benefits, loss of access to housing and jobs among other privileges (Siegel, 2011). Many countries deny criminals the right to franchise, and the United States is one of the most ruthless countries in denying felons their right to vote (Pilkington, 2012). The U.S. Constitution through the Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to deprive people the right if found guilty of rebellion or other crimes that may depend on a state’s definition. The law continues to elicit debate due to the manner in which it targets specific groups of people, especially African Americans. Thus, there is the need for thorough review to identify its demerits and facilitate the revision so as to ensure that it fairly targets all criminals. Amendments to the United States Constitution are inevitable to harmonize the application and usage of the law in different states to eliminate discriminatory tendencies as well as racial motivations. 

The law affects several millions of people, and by 2012, there was a registered increase in the number of victims from 1.2 million in 1976 to 5.85 million. The figures represent 2.5% and 8% of the general voters and African American voters respectively. The most affected population was from the Florida state, and the number was 1.5 million (Pilkington, 2012). Below is a description of facts surrounding the disenfranchisement;

Constitutionality

The Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides guidance for the deprivation of voters rights based on rebellion or other crimes whose definition lies in the hand of the different states (Fourteenth Amendment) but does not allow other factors to necessitate the punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the practice during the Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) under the argument that it did not deny the voters equal protection. In 1985, during a hearing in the Hunter v. Underwood, the Supreme Court emphasized that the denial of voter’s right is legal as long as it depicts no discriminatory impact or racial motivation. The juries further reprimanded the Alabama State for manipulating the rule to target the black population.

Termination of the Deprivation Rule

A few states do not deprive felons of the voter’s right, but a majority of them does. The punishment in some jurisdictions ends upon the completion of the sentence while, in others, the victim gains his/her rights after a probation or parole. In some states, the affected person can petition the Governor for pardon or restoration of the rights. An application for reversal of disenfranchisement also works, but a person must provide details of the judgment, conviction, and the term served among other details. The restoration of the privilege also occurs through a motion sponsored by the area representative and a consequent two-thirds majority vote. 

Controversies Surrounding the Issue

Complexion Based Prejudice

The law was enacted between 1860 and 1870s, when there was a debate over the suffrage of the African Americans, and thus, it was apparently manipulated to target the population in question (Chin, n.d.). In 1890, the Supreme Court of the Mississippi State termed the Negroes as careless and impaired thinkers and went ahead to twist the law in the manner that targeted the Blacks by narrowing down on the crimes they commit most. During the Hunter v. Underwood (1985), the United States Supreme Court established that the Alabama State used the law to target the Black-Americans (Hunter v. Underwood, 1985). According to Siegel (2011), African Americans constitute 13% of the United States population, yet they form 38% of the convicted people. The Hispanic tribe makes 15% of the population while the inmates of the same descent make 20% of the total detainees. The figures depict the biased conviction of minorities, and this combined with the felony disenfranchisement try to suppress the political rights of the former.

Violation of the “Equal Protection”

During the Hunter v. Underwood (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the disenfranchisement law is only valid if it does not depict racial motivation or discriminatory tendencies (Hunter v. Underwood, 1985). However, the implementation of the rule in various states has some elements of double standards, because states with a small percentage of the blacks eased their stance on the law while Florida, Mississippi, and other states that have a large population of the blacks adopted strict measures that extended the deprivation of the rights even after the sentence. The avoidance/less emphasis on the law by such states prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legislation is a weapon targeting the Black-Americans.

Violation of the Fundamental Right to Vote

The United States Constitution guarantees suffrage for all people. Thus, denial of the right leads to the violation of the victim’s civic duty as well as membership in the society, and these contravenes the doctrine of democracy. In the post-war America, when the economy was in tatters, Blacks were embraced in the society to boost the reconstruction efforts but when the economy stabilized, many states took a U-turn and started suppressing the suffrage of colored people by formulating laws that narrowed down on the offences they commit most as opposed to those of the Whites (Ziegler, 2011).

Inhumane Treatment to Ex-Convicts

The purpose of conviction is to rehabilitate offenders by reforming their behavior to facilitate their reintegration into the society upon the completion of the sentence. The denial of franchise rights and other punishments should, therefore, end after the completion of the sentence or after probation so as to acknowledge a person through restoring his/her rights. Many states like Mississippi and Florida among others fail to terminate the disenfranchisement even after the convict serving full sentence and thus exposing their unfair treatment of offenders.

Transgender Disenfranchisement

Transgender people have a variety of gender identities, and behavior that deviate from the female and male gender norms, and they thus face stigmatization based on their sex. Such individuals are victims of unfair arrests and incarcerations with 7% of the population falling victims of police bias due to their gender expression/identity. The groups also face challenges such as harassment in workplaces, and homelessness among other issues that makes them land in jails. Statistics shows that 16% of the population has a history of incarceration as compared to 2.7% of the general population in America and thus exposing the discriminatory tendency of the law (Grant, Mottet, Tanis, Harrison, Herman, & Keisling, 2011).

Conclusion

In conclusion, felony disenfranchisement, whose legality was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, is a good idea because criminals are violators of the same law that guards human rights, and thus, the law does not owe them protection. However, the punishment needs to be fairly administered to all convicts regardless of the race or social status, unlike in the observed trend that depicts racial prejudice, violation of the “equal protection”, inhumane treatment to ex-prisoners as well as the bias against the transgender groups. The offenses that warrant the punishment in question must be revised to avoid favoring some groups. Upon the completion of the sentence, the ex-convicts should be placed on probation followed by the restoration of their voting rights. Judicial reforms are also inevitable to curb the unprofessional behavior of some juries who promote prejudice and unfairness in court rulings.