Expanding the Vote
State Felony Disenfranchisement
Reform, 1997-2008
Ryan S. King
September 2008

For further information:
The Sentencing Project
514 Tenth St. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004

The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization
engaged in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy
issues. Support for The Sentencing Project has been provided
by the following individual and foundation donors:

(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Ford Foundation
Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
Herb Block Foundation
Open Society Institute
Public Welfare Foundation
Anonymous Donor at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Elizabeth and Arthur Roswell Foundation
Sandler Family Foundation
The Starfish Group
Wallace Global Fund

This publication was written by Ryan S. King, policy analyst,
with editorial assistance from Laura Brinkman.
Copyright © 2008 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or in part in print or electronic format only by permission of
The Sentencing Project.

1

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

"Once somebody has truly paid their debt to society, we should recognize it. We should
welcome them back into society and give them that second chance. Who doesn't deserve a
second chance?"
– Florida Governor Charlie Crist, Restoration of Rights Summit, June 17, 2008.

I

n 1998, The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch published Losing the
Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, which
documented the broad sweep of laws that restrict voting rights for people with

felony convictions. Since that time, felony disenfranchisement policies have received
high-level policymaker and media attention. This increased public exposure has
extended across the spectrum, from high-stakes presidential politics in Florida in
which purging procedures were questioned, to neighborhood-level efforts to educate
and register people with felony convictions. This escalation in attention to felony
disenfranchisement policies has translated into substantial state-level reform.
This report provides an assessment of the national movement for reform over the
past eleven years. We find that since 1997, 19 states have amended felony
disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand
voter eligibility. These include:
•

Nine states either repealed or amended lifetime disenfranchisement laws

•

Two states expanded voting rights to persons under community supervision
(probation and parole)

•

Five states eased the restoration process for persons seeking to have their right
to vote restored after completing sentence

•

Three states improved data and information sharing

2

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

These policy changes represent a national momentum for reform of restrictive voting
rights laws. As a result of these reforms, at least 760,000 persons have regained the
right to vote. These include:
•

Texas’s repeal of the two-year waiting period before regaining eligibility to
vote restored rights to an estimated 317,000 persons

•

A simplification of Florida’s clemency process resulted in the restoration of
voting rights for 115,000 residents

•

Governor Tom Vilsack’s executive order in Iowa restored voting rights to
nearly 100,000 state residents

•

New Mexico’s repeal of its lifetime disenfranchisement provision restored the
right to vote to more than 69,000 individuals

•

Maryland’s repeal of its lifetime prohibition against voting for persons who
have completed sentence resulted in the restoration of voting rights for more
than 52,000 residents

•

Nebraska’s reform to its disenfranchisement law regarding persons who have
completed sentence resulted in the return of the right to vote to more than
50,000 residents

•

Connecticut’s repeal of its ban on voting for persons on probation extended
the right to vote to more than 33,000 residents

•

Rhode Island’s repeal of a state prohibition against voting for persons on
probation and parole resulted in the restoration of voting rights to more than
15,000 residents

•

Delaware’s repeal of lifetime disenfranchisement for individuals convicted of
felonies restored the right to vote to 6,400 persons

•

In Virginia and Kentucky, recent efforts to ease the restoration process by
their respective governors have resulted in the restoration of voting rights to
5,000 residents

3

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

In addition to these developments, procedural changes in states like Alabama and
Tennessee have eased the process of restoration, thereby resulting in an increase in
the number of persons who have regained their voting eligibility. And reforms in
Nevada and Wyoming have expanded the pool of eligible voters, although there are
not yet any estimates to measure their impact.
As the public has become increasingly aware of these restrictive policies, there has
been a groundswell of support for change. Public opinion surveys report that 8 in 10
Americans support voting rights for persons who have completed their sentence and
nearly two-thirds support voting rights for persons on probation or parole.
Despite these reforms, in November, an estimated 5 million people will be ineligible
to vote in the Presidential election, including nearly 4 million of whom reside in the
35 states that still prohibit some combination of persons on probation, parole, and/or
people who have completed their sentence from voting. In addition, the racial
disparities in the criminal justice system translate into higher rates of
disenfranchisement in communities of color, resulting in one of every eight adult
black males being ineligible to vote.

4

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

Felony Disenfranchisement Policy Reforms, 1997-2008
State

Reform

ALABAMA

Streamlined restoration for most persons upon completion of sentence
(2003)
Restored voting rights to persons on felony probation (2001), Repealed
requirement to present proof of restoration in order to register (2006)
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement, replaced with five-year waiting
period for persons convicted of most offenses (2000)
Simplified clemency process (2004 & 2007), Adopted requirement for
county jail officials to assist with rights restoration (2006)
Codified data sharing procedures regarding removal and restoration
process (2006)

CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
HAWAII
IOWA

Eliminated lifetime disenfranchisement law (2005)

KENTUCKY

Simplified restoration process (2001 & 2008); modified restoration
process (2004, repealed in 2008)
Required Department of Public Safety and Corrections to provide
notification of rights restoration process (2008)

LOUISIANA
MARYLAND

Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement laws (2002 & 2007)

NEBRASKA

Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement, replaced with two-year waiting
period (2005)
Repealed five-year waiting period to restore rights (2001), Restored voting
rights to persons convicted of first-time non-violent offense (2003)
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement law (2001), Codified data sharing
procedures, certificate of completion provided after sentence (2005)

NEVADA
NEW MEXICO
NORTH
CAROLINA

Required state agencies to establish a process whereby individuals will be
notified of their rights (2007)

RHODE ISLAND

Restored voting rights to persons on felony probation and parole (2006)

TENNESSEE

Streamlined restoration process for most persons upon completion of
sentence (2006)

TEXAS

Repealed two-year waiting period to restore rights (1997)

UTAH

Clarified state law pertaining to federal and out-of-state convictions (2006)

VIRGINIA

Required notification of rights and restoration process by Department of
Corrections (2000), Streamlined restoration process (2002)
Restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time non-violent offense
(2003)

WYOMING

5

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

ALABAMA
Streamlined restoration for most persons upon completion of sentence
(2003)

In Alabama, persons who have completed a sentence for a felony conviction can file
an application to request a pardon from the Board of Pardons and Parole in order to
restore their right to vote. In 2003, Act 2003-415 streamlined the process for
application by allowing eligible persons convicted of a non-violent offense to apply
for a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote immediately upon completion of
sentence. The Board is required to issue a Certificate within 50 days of application,
or to issue an explanation for denial within 45 days. In 2004, approximately 2,000
restorations were granted and by 2005 this number increased to 3,589 restorations.
Demand for restoration certificates continues to rise, and five years after expansion,
the Board of Pardons and Parole remains overwhelmed. One survey indicated that
82% of applications within a given month are not reviewed within the statutorily
prescribed timeframe.
Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 250,046 1

Populations:

Rate: 7.37%

•

Prison

•

Probation

African American Disenfranchisement: 124,398

•

Parole

Rate: 15.3%

•

Post-Sentence
(certain offenses)

1

All state estimates from Jeff Manza and Chris Uggen, Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and

American Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2006, at 248-253.

6

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

CONNECTICUT
Restored voting rights to persons on felony probation
(2001); repealed requirement to present proof of
restoration in order to register (2006)
In Connecticut, the right to vote was extended to persons on probation for a felony
conviction in 2001, although the language in the reform bill required “proof of
eligibility.” By repealing the ban against probationers voting, Connecticut restored
the right to vote to more than 33,000 residents. Subsequently, in 2006, the state
legislature repealed the requirement that persons seeking to register to vote must
provide “written or satisfactory proof” of eligibility to be an elector. This removes
potential complications that may arise in securing such proof and increases the
likelihood that eligible residents with felony convictions will take advantage of their
right to vote.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 22,854
Rate: 0.86%
African American Disenfranchisement: 14,304
Rate: 6.72%

7

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

DELAWARE
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement law, replaced with five-year waiting
period for persons convicted of most offense types (2000)

In 2000, Delaware amended its constitution to permit individuals convicted of a
felony offense to apply to the Board of Elections for the restoration of their voting
rights five years after the completion of sentence. The law still restricts persons with
certain convictions (murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, or violations of the public
trust) from voting unless they have received a pardon. However, the new law
restored the right to vote to 6,400 individuals, or about one-third of the state’s
disenfranchised population.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 46,677
Rate: 7.54%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 20,862

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 19.63%

(most offenses 5 years)

8

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

FLORIDA
Simplified clemency process (2004 & 2007); adopted
requirement for county jail officials to assist with rights
restoration (2006)
Since receiving national attention in the wake of controversy surrounding inaccurate
voter purges in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, Florida has taken a number
of steps to address one of the nation’s most restrictive disenfranchisement laws. In
2004, to alleviate a back-logged system in which tens of thousands of applications for
rights restoration were on file, Florida Governor Jeb Bush amended the Rules of
Executive Clemency to expedite the voting restoration process. Whereas previously
individuals were required to appear at a hearing before the Governor, the rule change
allowed many persons to apply to vote without a hearing so long as they were not
convicted of a violent crime and had remained crime-free for five years. Persons
convicted of all other offense types are required to complete a 15-year crime-free
period before becoming eligible to apply.
In 2006, the Florida legislature passed a law requiring facilities to provide people in
prison with rights restoration application information at least two weeks before their
release date. This change was in response to the difficulties presented by Florida’s
complex and confusing restoration process.
In that same year, Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist proclaimed his
support for the automatic restoration of voting rights for persons upon the
completion of sentence and promised to work to expand voting rights to persons
with a felony conviction in his capacity as a member of the Board of Executive
Clemency. Crist stated, “I think the time has come in our state that we look for
automatic renewal of those [voting] rights.” Only months after winning the election
and taking office, Governor Crist and the Board of Executive Clemency voted to
change the rules of clemency, thereby making the restoration of voting rights
automatic for individuals convicted of certain, mostly non-violent, offenses. Persons
who have been convicted of more serious crimes, not including some violent and sex

9

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

crimes, can now have their rights restored without a hearing before the Board.
People convicted of certain serious offenses, such as murder or sex crimes, can either
wait 15 years after the completion of sentence (during which they must have
remained crime-free) to apply without a hearing, or petition the Board directly for a
review and in-person hearing. While it was estimated that this change would
eventually impact between 250,000 and 300,000 of Florida’s 1 million residents who
are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a July 2008 figure indicates that
115,000 Floridians have had their right to vote restored since the new policy took
effect 15 months prior. The Governor’s office has acknowledged that a shortage of
staff has limited the pace at which applications can be reviewed. In August 2008,
Governor Crist issued an order to state parole agencies to provide additional
information regarding the restoration process to persons who have completed their
sentence.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 1,179,687
Rate: 9.01%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 293,545

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 18.82%

(certain offenses)

10

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

MICHAEL HARGRETT, FLORIDA
“I was number 84 out of 150 people lined up to
request their rights back from the governor,”
recalls Michael Hargrett, a 52-year-old father of
twin daughters. “I watched just about
everybody get their rights turned down. It was
bad.”
After appealing to the governor and executive
committee and “selling” himself, Hargrett’s
voting rights were restored March 1, 2007.
Though Hargrett, a BMW service advisor, is
happy he can now vote and that some changes
have come for others like him, he still questions Florida’s lifetime felony
disenfranchisement policy. Hargrett was sentenced in 1993 for a crime
committed while visiting family in Florida. After a four-year sentence, he
returned to his home state of Illinois, where he voted because the state
automatically restores voter eligibility upon release from prison. When his
father had taken ill, Hargrett relocated to Florida – only to find out that his
name was on the state’s felon list and he was permanently barred from
voting. He petitioned the state with the help of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Florida, but only after several years of interviews and investigations,
was he granted a hearing before the Executive Clemency Board. “They
thoroughly vetted me like I was interviewing to be an FBI agent, Hargrett
recalls. “They should let this [voter restoration] process be automatic.”

11

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

HAWAII
Codified data sharing procedures regarding removal
and restoration process (2006)
In Hawaii, a person’s right to vote is restored upon release from prison. However,
due to the manner in which corrections agencies share data, many people who have
been released from prison are either incorrectly coded or have not been included in
the eligible voter database. To correct this issue, in 2006 Hawaii passed legislation to
reform data sharing between agencies and to require the clerk of the court to transmit
an individual’s name, date of birth, address, and social security number to the
offender’s county within twenty days of release.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 6,530
Rate: 0.68%
African American Disenfranchisement: 366
Rate: 1.71%

12

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

IOWA
Eliminated lifetime disenfranchisement law (2005)

Before 2005, Iowa had placed a lifetime voting restriction on anyone convicted of an
“infamous crime.” The only mechanism in place to restore voting rights was a
gubernatorial pardon. In 2005, Governor Tom Vilsack issued Executive Order 42,
which immediately restored voting rights to all persons in the state who had
completed their sentence and made the restoration process automatic for new persons
completing their sentence. Since the order was issued the number of disenfranchised
people has been reduced by 81%, or an estimated 100,000 persons.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 121,418
Rate: 5.39%
African American Disenfranchisement: 14,705
Rate: 33.98%

13

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

KENTUCKY
Simplified restoration process (2001 & 2008);
modified restoration process (2004, repealed in
2008)
Kentucky, like Florida, has one of the most restrictive laws regarding the loss of
voting rights for a felony conviction and, like Florida, these laws have received
significant public attention since 2000. The Kentucky Constitution disenfranchises
all persons for life upon conviction for a felony offense. In 2001, the Kentucky
Legislature passed a bill to simplify the process of applying to the governor for rights
restoration. The new law requires the Department of Corrections to inform
individuals of their right to apply to the governor for the restoration of voting rights.
In addition, the Department is directed to collect information regarding all eligible
persons who have inquired about having their voting rights restored and to transmit
that list to the governor’s office.
In 2004, Governor Ernie Fletcher issued an executive order that reversed some of the
progress made toward easing the restoration process in 2001. The policy change
required all applicants to submit a formal written letter explaining why they believed
their voting rights should be restored in addition to three letters of personal
reference. Consequently, the numbers of people who had their rights restored under
the Fletcher administration declined relative to prior governors. This policy was
subsequently abolished in March 2008 by Governor Steve Beshear. The new policy
eliminates the requirements of a filing fee, personal statement, and letters of
reference. As of July 2008, Governor Beshear had restored rights to 790 people since
the policy change in March.

14

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 186,348
Rate: 5.97%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 49,293

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 23.70%

TAYNA FOGLE, KENTUCKY
When she was a star basketball player at the
University of Kentucky, Tayna Fogle understood the
importance of voting. After receiving her degree in
1984 and becoming the recreational director at the
Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center in La
Grange, Fogle continued to take seriously her right to
vote. So after her conviction for a drug offense, a six-year incarceration and
drug treatment, she quickly sought the return of her voting rights.
“It took me 13 years to get my voting rights back,” said Fogle as she recalled
the painstaking pardon process required in Kentucky for voter restoration. At
the time Fogle regained her voting rights, Kentucky policy required citizens
with felony convictions to “jump through hoops” for the governor to even
consider a restoration application. Fogle jumped through the hoops, she said,
and received backing from a mayor, senator and officer of the court. In
September 2006, Fogle’s right to vote was finally granted. “I cried as I came
out of the voting booth,” she stated. “It was like my first Christmas.” Still,
reform is not moving as fast as she would like for others who are
disenfranchised. She believes automatic restoration upon completion of
sentence must be adopted as a Constitutional amendment, so she volunteers
in grassroots campaigns and voter registration drives in hopes of advancing
reform.

15

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

LOUISIANA
Required Departments of Public Safety and Corrections to provide
notification of rights restoration process (2008)

In Louisiana, persons in prison, on parole, or serving a suspended sentence on
probation are prohibited from voting. In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed a
bill requiring the Departments of Public Safety and Corrections to inform
individuals who have completed sentence of their right to vote and to provide
assistance in registering to vote.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 98,190
Rate: 2.96%
African American Disenfranchisement: 67,850
Rate: 6.78%

16

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

MARYLAND
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement laws
(2002 & 2007)

Maryland has experienced a number of changes in felony disenfranchisement policy
in recent years. Prior to 2002, persons convicted of a first-time felony offense
regained their voting rights after completion of sentence, but all others were
disenfranchised for life. In 2002, Maryland amended the restoration process for
persons convicted of two or more non-violent crimes. Under the new policy, all
persons convicted of a second non-violent offense were automatically eligible to vote
three years after the completion of sentence. Persons convicted of a violent offense
were still required to apply to the governor for a pardon. Attaching voter eligibility
to a sliding scale of offense types and criminal history created great confusion among
individuals with felony convictions as to the status of their right to vote and
presented many logistical difficulties among state agencies in maintaining an accurate
database of eligible voters.
In 2007, the patchwork law regarding post-sentence disenfranchisement was repealed
by the Maryland legislature and replaced with automatic restoration for all persons
upon completion of sentence. This reform resulted in the restoration of voting rights
to more than 52,000 people.
Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 111,521
Rate: 2.7%
African American Disenfranchisement: 64,403
Rate: 5.8%

17

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

KIMBERLY HAVEN, MARYLAND
Tears of joy ran down Kimberly Haven’s face
as she stood outside the doors of the
Baltimore City Board of Elections and
prepared to enter to submit her voter
registration application. She was joined by a
crowd of onlookers, supporters, and other
individuals who recently won back their right
to vote. It was July 2, 2007, the first day on which 52,000 newly eligible
citizens in Maryland who had previously been denied the right to vote because
of a felony conviction could apply for voter registration cards. “It’s a very
sobering, very powerful moment for me,” said Haven. “We’re changing the
political landscape in Maryland… [and] it has the ability to ripple across the
country.”
Haven wanted her voting rights restored after her release from a Maryland
prison in 2001. As the Executive Director of Justice Maryland, Haven led the
campaign that resulted in the 2007 law change.

18

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

NEBRASKA
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement, replaced with
two-year waiting period (2005)

In 2004, the Vote Nebraska Initiative, issued a final report with 16
recommendations designed to avoid electoral controversies such as those faced by
Florida in 2000. Recommendation 10 called for automatic restoration of voting
rights to persons with a felony conviction upon the completion of sentence. At the
time, Nebraska prohibited all persons convicted of a felony from voting for life. In
the legislative session following the issuance of the report, a bill was introduced to
repeal the lifetime disenfranchisement provision and restore voting rights upon
completion of sentence. The bill passed, with an amendment that requires a 2-year
waiting period between the completion of sentence and automatic restoration. This
law has restored the right to vote to 50,000 Nebraskans.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 61,996
Rate: 4.77%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 11,403

•

Post-Sentence (2 years)

Rate: 22.7%

19

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

NEVADA
Repealed waiting period to apply to restore rights (2001); restored
voting rights to persons convicted of first-time non-violent offense
(2003)
Prior to 2001, Nevada prohibited all persons convicted of a felony from voting for
life, absent a restoration by the Board of Pardons Commissioners or the sentencing
court (in the case of probation). In 2001, Nevada eliminated waiting period
requirements for persons to apply to have their voting rights restored. Prior to this
change, people released from probation had to wait six months to petition for the
restoration of their voting rights. All others had to wait five years from completion
of sentence before applying for rights restoration. Within the same bill, Nevada also
allowed persons discharged from probation to file directly with the Division of Parole
and Probation rather than go through the court system, thereby simplifying the
process. In 2003, the Nevada Assembly further revised the state’s disenfranchisement
laws by passing legislation that automatically restores the right to vote to any person
convicted of a first-time, non-violent offense upon completion of sentence.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 43,594
Rate: 2.63%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 12,632

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 12.39%

(except first-time nonviolent )

20

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

NEW MEXICO
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement law (2001); codified data
sharing procedures, certificate of completion provided after
sentence (2005)
New Mexico repealed its lifetime felony disenfranchisement law in 2001, restoring to
all persons convicted of a felony their right to vote upon completion of sentence.
This returned the right to vote to nearly 69,000 residents. In 2005, in order to make
the restoration procedure easier, the New Mexico legislature implemented a
notification process by which the Department of Corrections is required to issue a
certificate of completion of sentence to an individual upon satisfaction of all
obligations. The Department of Corrections is also required to notify the Secretary
of State when such persons become eligible to vote.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 18,080
Rate: 1.32%
African American Disenfranchisement: 1,722
Rate: 6.71%

21

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

NORTH CAROLINA
Required state agencies to establish a process
whereby individuals will be notified of their rights
(2007)
North Carolina prohibits all persons in prison, or on probation or parole due to a
felony conviction, from voting. The right to vote is automatically restored upon
completion of sentence and individuals can register to vote after filing a certificate
demonstrating unconditional discharge and the restoration of voting rights with the
county of conviction or residence. As in many other states, there has been concern
that confusion about eligibility requirements and restoration procedures may be
preventing some persons from registering to vote. In 2007, the North Carolina
legislature passed a bill requiring the State Board of Elections, the Department of
Corrections, and the Administrative Office of the Courts to establish and implement
a program whereby individuals are informed of their eligibility to vote and instructed
regarding the steps they must take in order to register.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 73,113
Rate: 1.16%
African American Disenfranchisement: 42,227
Rate: 3.31%

22

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

RHODE ISLAND
Restored voting rights to persons on felony probation and parole
(2006)

Prior to 2006, Rhode Island was the only state in New England with felony
disenfranchisement laws extending to persons on both probation and parole. In
November 2006, voters in Rhode Island approved a ballot referendum to amend the
state constitution and extend voting rights to persons on probation and parole. The
new law restores the right to vote to more than 15,000 residents.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 20,793
Rate: 2.5%
African American Disenfranchisement: 5,183
Rate: 18.86%

23

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

ANDRES IDARRAGA, RHODE ISLAND
While a student at Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, Andres Idarraga became a prominent
advocate for restoring the right to vote to thousands of
people disenfranchised in the state because of a
felony conviction. His commitment to the cause was
deeply personal. Because of a felony conviction he
received when he was 20 years old, Idarraga would
have to wait over 30 years to complete probation
before he could vote. Now that the law has changed,
he has registered and voted for the first time. “I do
know I have enjoyed the journey and enjoyed the process of being able to turn
my life around,” said Idarraga. “It feels great to see the spectrum of what our
entire society has to offer … from the underbelly, to the very privileged setting
being at Brown. I'm learning how to put it to good use and give back to society
and that starts with participating in the democratic process and encouraging
others to vote.”
In fall 2008, Idarraga began his first year at Yale Law School.

24

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

TENNESSEE
Streamlined restoration process for most
persons upon completion of sentence (2006)
In 2006, Tennessee passed legislation that simplified what was previously the
nation’s most complex and confusing disenfranchisement laws. Prior to 2006,
eligibility and the process of restoration varied significantly based on the type of
offense and the date of conviction. Under the new law, persons convicted of certain
felonies after 1981 can apply for voting rights restoration directly with the Board of
Probation and Parole upon sentence completion. However, the new law requires
that all outstanding legal financial obligations, including child support, must be paid
before voting rights will be restored. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit
in February 2008 to challenge this law on the basis that it is tantamount to a poll tax,
and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 94,258
Rate: 2.12%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 43,198

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 6.42%

(certain offenses)

25

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

TEXAS
Repealed two-year waiting period to restore rights (1997)

Texas has been incrementally reforming its felony disenfranchisement laws since
1983. It has moved from a state that practiced a lifetime prohibition against voting
for persons with a felony conviction before 1983 to one that automatically restores
voting rights for all persons upon completion of sentence. In 1997, under Governor
George W. Bush, Texas eliminated the 2-year waiting period and adopted the policy
of automatically restoring voting rights at the completion of sentence. The
elimination of the waiting period restored the right to vote to 317,000 individuals.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 522,887
Rate: 3.29%
African American Disenfranchisement: 165,985
Rate: 9.3%

26

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

UTAH
Clarified state law pertaining to federal and out-of-state convictions
(2006)

Until 1998, Utah was one of four states where all persons with a felony conviction,
including those in prison, were permitted to vote. However, a 1998 public
referendum resulted in a change to the state constitution and a prohibition against
voting for persons serving a felony sentence in prison. Voting rights are
automatically restored upon release from prison. However, due to a quirk in the
wording of the law, those convicted out-of-state but residing in Utah were restricted
from voting for life. In 2006, the Utah General Assembly corrected this oversight
and identified a “convicted felon” as a person convicted in “any state or federal court
in the United States.”

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:
•

Prison

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 5,970
Rate: 0.37%
African American Disenfranchisement: 459
Rate: 3.43%

27

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

VIRGINIA
Required notification of rights restoration process
by Department of Corrections (2000); streamlined
restoration process (2002)
Virginia is one of two states that currently prohibits all persons convicted of a felony
from voting for life, absent gubernatorial action. However, there have been a
number of policy developments since 2000 that have expanded voting rights to a
growing number of Virginia residents. In 2000, Virginia passed a bill requiring the
Department of Corrections to notify individuals under its jurisdiction about the loss
of voting rights and the process of applying for restoration.
Upon taking office in 2002, Governor Mark Warner streamlined the process of
applying for a gubernatorial restoration of rights. He reduced the necessary
paperwork from 13 pages to 1 for most persons convicted of a non-violent offense
and decreased the waiting period to apply to three years. The prior requirement of
three letters of reference was also rescinded. In his four years in office, Governor
Warner restored the voting rights of 3,414 Virginians, exceeding the combined total
of all governors between 1982 and 2002. His successor, Governor Tim Kaine, has
continued this commitment to rights restoration, granting voting rights to 1,809
persons since taking office in 2007.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 377,847
Rate: 6.76%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 208,343

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 19.76%

28

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

KEMBA SMITH, VIRGINIA
Kemba Smith’s 24-year federal sentence was commuted
by President Bill Clinton in 2000, but the consequences of
her conviction― including losing her right to vote, were not.
Smith’s relationship with an abusive, drug-dealing
boyfriend and the harsh mandatory sentences associated
with crack cocaine offenses led to her long sentence. As a
resident of Virginia, she faces life-long disenfranchisement
under state law.
Smith, now an advocate for voting rights restoration and the repeal of
mandatory minimum sentencing, struggles daily with the fact that she cannot
vote. When her 13-year-old son asked her who she was going to vote for, she
found it hard to explain that she was not allowed to vote. Virginia law bans
Smith from even requesting rights restoration from the governor until 2010 –
ten years after her release. “It’s one thing to affect me, but for our kids to
realize that their parents are different is another thing. I don’t focus on the
psychological ramifications that go along with it and I’ve tried to lock out the
emotion, but come this historic Election Day, I’m going to be upset.”

29

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2008

WYOMING
Restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time nonviolent offense after five-year waiting period (2003)

In 2003, Wyoming revised its lifetime felony disenfranchisement law. Under the
current law, persons convicted for a first-time, non-violent offense may apply to the
Board of Parole to have their right to vote restored five years after completion of
sentence. Persons convicted of any other offense must wait five years before applying
for restoration.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 20,198
Rate: 5.31%

•

Prison

•

Probation

•

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 685

•

Post-Sentence

Rate: 20.03%

(certain offenses 5 years)

FURTHER READING AVAILABLE AT www.sentencingproject.org:

Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in The United States
Relief from the Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction: A State-By-State
Resource Guide
The Vanishing Black Electorate: Felony Disenfranchisement in Atlanta, Georgia