514 10TH S TREET NW, S UITE 1000
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
TEL: 202.628.0871 • FAX: 202.628.1091
S TAFF@S ENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG
WWW.S ENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG

Losing the Right to Vote:
Perceptions of Permanent Disenfranchisement and the
Civil Rights Restoration Application Process
in the State of Kentucky

Elizabeth A.Wahler

April 2006

This report was written by Elizabeth A. Wahler, MSW, an independent researcher in Lexington,
Kentucky. The author gratefully thanks Patricia G. Cook and Jocelyn L. Hill for their support,
contribution to the planning and implementation of this project, and assistance with the editing of
this report.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged in research and advocacy
on criminal justice policy issues. Funding for this project was made possible by support from the
JEHT Foundation, Open Society Institute, Tides Foundation, and Atlantic Philanthropies.
The Sentencing Project is a partner in the Right to Vote Campaign, a national campaign to
remove barriers to voting faced by people with felony convictions.
Copyright © 2006 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this document in full or part in
print or electronic format only by permission of The Sentencing Project.
For further information:
The Sentencing Project
514 10th St. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

Executive Summary
This study examines the personal experiences of 40 individuals who have lost their right
to vote in the state of Kentucky. Data was collected by conducting open-ended interviews that
examined respondents’ opinions of disenfranchisement, their knowledge of the application
process for restoration of their civil rights, and their perceptions of their own ability to complete
the application process. Key findings include:
•

Kentucky’s disenfranchisement policy alienates a significant group of people
who would otherwise vote.
o Over half of the respondents (57.5%) had voted before being convicted of
a felony.
o More than two-thirds of the respondents who had not previously voted
before their felony conviction described an increased desire and
motivation to participate in the democratic process now that they were
older, had families, and had more of an appreciation for the value of
voting.

•

Ninety percent of the respondents did not know the application process for
restoration of their voting rights.
o Several respondents (10%) even stated that they had no knowledge of an
application process at all, and mistakenly believed that there would not be
an opportunity to regain their right to vote.

•

Respondents felt demeaned by the fact that they would be required to apply
for restoration of their voting rights despite completing their full sentence.

i

o All of the respondents felt that permanent disenfranchisement for all
felony convictions was unfair, particularly after being released from
parole, working, paying taxes, and otherwise being considered full
citizens.
•

Many respondents did not have the skills or the resources necessary for
successful completion of the application process.
o Although 88% of the respondents felt that they would be able to complete
the writing portion of the application, 83% of those respondents reported
that they had little to no experience with writing formal letters or essays.
o Thirty percent of respondents did not have their high school diploma or
GED.
o Three-quarters did not know anyone who could help them with the
application process, and none of the respondents had knowledge of any
organized groups in the state they could utilize for assistance.
These findings have important implications for the state of Kentucky, particularly

drawing attention to the need for current legislation to be reexamined and revised. In the
meantime, parole officers and election officials must be correctly informed of the
application process and eligibility requirements so they can properly educate ex-felons.
In addition, advocates must help ensure that correct information about the process, along
with information about resources available for assistance with the application process, is
disseminated to all convicted felons in the state.

ii

Losing the Right to Vote:
Perceptions of Permanent Disenfranchisement and the
Civil Rights Restoration Application Process in the State of Kentucky

Disenfranchisement laws prevent many individuals from participating in the democratic
process, and are affecting increasingly large numbers of individuals across the United States.
Forty-eight states bar prison inmates from voting, 36 states bar convicted felons from voting
while they are on parole, and 31 of these states also exclude felony probationers from voting. 1
Three states, including Kentucky, are permanent disenfranchisement states, prohibiting all exfelons from voting even after they have completed their full sentence. 2 Nine other states
prohibit voting for people convicted of specific types of offenses, or allow for voting rights
restoration for certain types of offenses after a specified waiting period.3
Disenfranchisement in the United States
Disenfranchisement laws have been in effect for many years, but are impacting an
increasing number of individuals as the United States criminal justice system continues to
convict and imprison more people in recent years than ever before in history. It has been
estimated that approximately 2.5% of the population (5.3 million) have lost their right to vote
due to a felony conviction. 4

1

“Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States” as accessed from http://sentencingproject.org on
December 20, 2005.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy by J. Manza and C. Uggen (2006), Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

2

Disenfranchisement laws are preventing a large number of people from voting in this
country, but they are having the biggest impact on the African American population. While
these laws are preventing 2.5% of the total adult population from voting, they are preventing
13% of the total population of African American males from voting due to disproportionate
felony conviction rates in that community. 5
Consequences of Disenfranchisement
Felony convictions continue to have consequences on ex-felons long after they have
completed their sentence. Losing the right to vote is only one such enduring consequence.
Others, depending on the jurisdiction, can include being disqualified from many types of
employment, being denied opportunities for safe and affordable housing, and having parental
rights terminated. Depending on the specific felony conviction, other long-lasting consequences
may be assigned to ex-felons. Some appear to be based on the premise of improving public
safety, such as requiring convicted sex offenders to maintain their information on a public
registry or denying individuals with a felony conviction the right to own a firearm. 6 Others
appear to be simply punitive, such as forbidding individuals convicted of felony drug offenses
from applying for educational loans, income-based housing, or public welfare benefits. 7
Disenfranchisement in Kentucky
The latest available statistics from Kentucky show that almost 18,000 prisoners were
incarcerated in January of 2005, and an additional 33,000 people were on probation and 7,500 on

5

“Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?” by Marc Mauer (2004), from Human Rights:
Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 31(1), pp. 16-19.
6
“Reanalyzing the Prevalence and Social Context of Collateral Consequence Statutes”, by K. G. Buckler & L. F.
Travis (2003), from Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2003), pp. 435-453.
7
“Invisible Punishments Block Housing, Education, Voting” by Marc Mauer (2003), from Joint Center for Political
and Economic Studies ‘Focus’, May/June 2003, pp. 3-4, as accessed from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/mauer-focus.pdf on February 13, 2006.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

3

parole.8 African Americans are represented disproportionately in Kentucky’s criminal justice
system just as they are in the United States criminal justice system as a whole. While African
Americans make up 7.3% of the state population, 9 they comprise 31% of the total prison
population in Kentucky. 10 This statistic indicates that Kentucky will continue to permanently
deny the right to vote to a growing number of African Americans as it convicts and incarcerates
a disproportionate number of this population.
According to Kentucky’s constitution, voting rights restoration for individuals convicted
of a felony is left up to the Governor’s discretion. Until recently, Kentucky’s ex-felon
population could apply to have their civil rights reinstated upon completion of their full sentence
and probation/parole term with a one-page application outlining their convictions and sentences
served. Because many ex-felons were not aware of their voting eligibility or how to obtain an
application, legislation was enacted in 2001 that streamlined the process to make voting rights
restoration easier for ex-felons completing parole by requiring the Department of Corrections to
inform and assist those eligible with completion of the application. 11 While that policy is still in
effect, Governor Ernie Fletcher enacted a policy in 2004 that made the process of reinstatement
more difficult by adding a ‘character test’ to the application process. Now, instead of a relatively
simple one page application, eligible individuals must make their initial application to the
governor’s office (and can receive assistance from the Department of Corrections with this
portion), but then must submit an additional written letter or essay explaining why they think
their rights should be reinstated along with three letters from character references. After
8

Kentucky Department of Corrections Inmate Profile (January 2005), as accessed from
http://www.corrections.ky.gov/about/factsfigures.htm on February 13, 2006. Probation figures from “Probation and
Parole in the United States, 2004” by Lauren E. Glaze and Seri Palla (November 2005) as accessed from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus04.pdf on April 7, 2006.
9
U.S. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights of Kentucky (2000), as accessed from
http://factfinder.census.gov on February 13, 2006.
10
Kentucky Department of Corrections Inmate Profile (January 2005).

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

4

receiving the paperwork, the governor’s office forwards the individual’s name and application to
that individual’s county prosecutor to give the prosecuting attorney an opportunity to object if
they do not feel that the individual should have their voting rights restored.
These changes reflect a general shift in attitude from the administration of the state of
Kentucky, moving toward a more punitive approach to dealing with convicted felons. John
Roach, the Governor’s General Counsel, has stated that the new process “allows us to actually
make sure that they’re worthy of having their civil rights restored.”12 Roach had previously
written an op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader stating, “not every convicted felon deserves the
right to vote” in an effort to justify why the governor’s office requires the character test portion
of the application. 13 Both quotes indicate that the state’s administration believes that a character
test is required to distinguish those ex-felons who are rehabilitated from those who are unworthy
of participating in the democratic process.
During fiscal year 2004-05, 941 applications for rights restoration were submitted to the
governor's office and 464, or 49% were approved. These figures were down considerably from
the application total of 1,266 in 2002-03 prior to the policy change. The number of applications
approved declined even more markedly, by 62%, from the figure of 1,231 in 2002-03 (97%
approval). For the second half of 2005, the number of successful applications -- 104 -- has
declined even more dramatically, representing just 25% of all applications.14
Nearly 110,000 people have lost their right to vote in Kentucky due to a felony
conviction. Only 1% of those individuals had their rights restored between 2002 and 2004,
11

“Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States” by The Sentencing Project (2005).
“Legislators View Data on Felons’ Rights- Critics Unhappy That Half Can’t Get Back Voting Rights” (2005,
November 3). The Lexington Herald Leader, p. A1.
13
“Governor Following Law on Felon Voting” (2004, September 20). The Lexington Herald Leader, p. A8.
14
Voting Rights Coalition, "Promoting the Hallmark of Democracy: The Right to Vote," citing data from the
Department of Corrections.
12

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

5

which leads to several policy questions. 15 Why did such a small number of those eligible submit
applications? Is it that this population does not see the importance of voting? Do they not have
enough knowledge about the application process for reinstatement of their rights, or do they not
have the means to complete the application? What is the impact of adding a character test to the
reinstatement application process?
While in some situations it might be appropriate to examine an ex-felon’s behavioral
attributes, voting does not appear to be one of them. Personal attributes and potential character
flaws do not prevent citizens from registering to vote, and character tests are not given to ensure
that voters are “worthy” of voting, so it seems that ex-felons should not be prevented from voting
based on these same reasons. 16
Background of Felony Disenfranchisement
A report by The Sentencing Project discusses the unprecedented rise in the United States’
use of incarceration in its criminal justice system over the last three decades, indicating that the
number of people in U.S. prisons and jails increased from 330,000 in 1972 to 2.1 million in
2005. 17 According to this report, while the total population increased by less than 40% between
1970 and 2000, the total number of people incarcerated in the country rose by more than 500%.
This rise in felony convictions and incarceration rates has led to the subsequent increase in the
number of American citizens who have lost their right to vote.
While there has been research examining disenfranchisement policies throughout the
United States, only one study, completed by the Kentucky American Civil Liberties Union,

15

Ibid.
“Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Representation, and the Debate over Felon Disenfranchisement” by P. S.
Karlan, from Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, as accessed from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/karlan-stanford-fvr.pdf on March 20, 2006.
17
“Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship” by R.S. King, M. Mauer, & M.C. Young (2005), as accessed
from http://sentencingproject.org on January 20, 2006.
16

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

6

examined disenfranchisement specifically in Kentucky. The ACLU-KY examined whether or
not parole officers and county elections officials knew the correct information regarding the
eligibility of individuals on probation or parole to vote. The study found that 48% of the parole
officers surveyed, and 70% of the elections officials surveyed, misunderstood the state law.18
Since these are the individuals who are supposed to have the knowledge needed to inform exfelons of their rights and responsibilities regarding regaining the right to vote, this is likely to
affect the prospects for voter registration.
Another study, by Cardinale, examined the first-person accounts of individuals directly
affected by disenfranchisement, but this study was carried out in a state that did not permanently
disenfranchise convicted felons. 19 No existing studies have examined personal accounts of
losing the right to vote in a state that practices permanent disenfranchisement.
The existing body of literature leaves a significant question unanswered. How does
disenfranchisement, particularly the concept of permanent disenfranchisement, affect the
individuals who have lost their right to vote? This study seeks to enhance our understanding of
how disenfranchisement affects people facing a lifetime without voting rights, as well as how an
onerous and complicated application process for civil rights restoration appears to the people
who must navigate the system if they wish to vote again.
Methodology
This study utilized a cross-sectional design based on interviews conducted with
individuals on parole for felony convictions in Kentucky. Respondents were recruited by flyers

18

“ACLU Finds Kentuckians are Being Denied the Right to Vote Because of Faulty Information” by American
Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (2005, November 21) as accessed from http://www.acluky.org/news.html#ROVR%20Study%20Results on December 23, 2005.
19
“Triple-Decker Disenfranchisement: First-Person Accounts of Losing the Right to Vote Among Poor, Homeless
Americans with a Felony Conviction” by M. Cardinale (2004) as accessed from
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/mcardinale.pdf on February 1, 2006.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

7

posted on public bulletin boards in agencies serving individuals on parole in an urban area of
Kentucky. Sites included the local probation and parole office, halfway houses, drug treatment
programs, homeless shelters, and job training programs. Individuals responding to the flyer were
asked to call the Principal Investigator (P.I.) for more information about the study or to schedule
an appointment for an interview.
Once respondents contacted the P.I., they were given information about the general
nature of the questions, the approximate length of the interview, and the amount they would be
paid for their time ($15). If interested, the individual scheduled a time to complete the interview
with the P.I. All interviews were conducted in a private office to protect the respondents’
confidentiality. At the time of the interview, respondents were fully informed of the purpose of
the study, and the consent form was thoroughly reviewed with each subject. IRB approval was
received before beginning the study, and there was minimal risk involved to the individuals
participating in the interviews.
Interviews lasted approximately 20-30 minutes. Study respondents were asked openended questions regarding their opinions about losing the right to vote after being convicted of a
felony, their knowledge of the application process for restoration of voting rights in Kentucky,
their perception of their ability to complete the application process. Interviews were recorded,
with permission from each respondent. Information obtained during the interviews was
transcribed and then analyzed thematically to identify common statements and ideas utilizing
Atlas TI.
There were several limitations to this study. Since the study only interviewed forty
people on parole in Kentucky, the sample is not representative of the entire population of people
in the state who have been convicted of felonies and lost their right to vote. Respondents who

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

8

were interested in participating in the interviews had to respond to the advertisement and call the
principal investigator for an interview. One could assume that most of the people who would go
through the trouble to respond to an ad, schedule an appointment, and meet the interviewer at an
office, were people who were either very interested in the issue of disenfranchisement, or were
motivated to complete the interview to receive the financial compensation. Because they had to
respond to a written ad, it can also be assumed that the respondents were literate or were with
someone who was literate. Moreover, in addition to the possibility of over-reporting their
confidence levels with the application process, respondents could also have misrepresented their
intentions to complete the application process or their intentions to contact resources for
assistance with the process.
Another limitation of the study was that many of the respondents could have
misrepresented themselves during the interview, and the results of this study might not truly
reflect the abilities of the respondents. It is difficult to know whether respondents were being
completely honest throughout the interview, or if they felt influenced to give certain answers
because of the pressure of a face-to-face interview. There is a possibility that some of the
respondents could have stated that they intended to go through the application process because
they felt that this was what the interviewer wanted to hear, instead of giving their true opinion.
Findings
1. Demographic Information
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample (N=40) included in the
analysis. One quarter of the sample was female (n= 10) and the majority of the respondents were
male (n=30), which is comparable to the national parole population (12% female, 88% male).20

20

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole Statistics (2004), as accessed from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pandp.htm on March 21, 2006.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

9

The sample was almost equally comprised of Caucasian (n=18) and African American (n=19)
individuals, with three individuals self-identifying as other races. This is also comparable to the
national parole population, which consists of 40% Caucasian, 41% African American, and 18%
Hispanic.21
The majority of the sample was between the age of 36 and 45 (n=14), and 45% had either
completed high school or earned their GED (n=18).
Almost all of the respondents were living in residential facilities, with the majority
residing in substance abuse treatment programs. Eighteen were currently in substance abuse
treatment, 12 were living in halfway houses for criminal offenders, six were living in the
community, and four were residing in homeless shelters.
Most of the respondents had only recently been paroled, with the mean length of time on
parole being 17.8 months. Time on parole ranged from 2 weeks to 12 years.
Respondents were asked about lifetime criminal convictions as part of the interview, and
the majority (n=33) reported that they had been convicted and imprisoned for only non-violent
crimes, such as drug possession and nonpayment of child support. Two individuals stated that
they had been convicted and incarcerated for only violent crimes, such as armed robbery, sexual
assault, and physical assault, and five reported being convicted and imprisoned for a combination
of non-violent and violent crimes.
Regarding previous voting behavior, over half (n=23) reported that they had voted before
being convicted of a felony, with 15 respondents reporting that they had voted multiple times in
the past and eight reporting that they had voted only once.

21

Ibid.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

10

Table 1
Subject Characteristics
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Race
Caucasian
African American
Latino
Biracial
Other
Total
Age
18-25
26-35
36-45
46+
Total
Education
No High School Diploma/GED
High School Diploma/GED
Some College
Total
Type of Crimes Committed
Violent
Non-violent
Combination of Violent and Non-violent
Total
Previous Voting Behavior
Never Voted
Voted Once
Voted Multiple Times
Total

Frequency

% of All Respondents

30
10
40

75.0
25.0
100.0

18
19
1
1
1
40

45.0
47.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
100.0

7
11
14
8
40

17.5
27.5
35.0
20.0
100.0

12
18
10
40

30.0
45.0
25.0
100.0

2
33
5
40

5.0
82.5
12.5
100.0

17
8
15
40

42.5
20.0
37.5
100.0

2. Opinions of Disenfranchisement
When asked about their general opinion of disenfranchisement, there were three common
themes that arose. Some felt that it was fair temporarily and was a natural consequence for the
crime they had committed. One woman commented on losing the right to vote while she was
incarcerated and said, “I think it’s right. I think we shouldn’t have that privilege, because by
society’s standards, we’re a menace.”

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

11

Views on Disenfranchisement Policy
Even though some of the respondents felt that temporary disenfranchisement was a fair
punishment for the crime they committed, none of the individuals interviewed felt that
permanent disenfranchisement was fair to implement in all cases.
One respondent remarked, “They’re still making me serve the time for a crime that I’ve
committed, even though I’ve already served their time. I feel that, once I’m off paper and I have
been a productive member of society, then I should have my voting rights restored without me
applying for it. Because I have done everything that my parole or probation officer has asked me
to do.”
Another stated, “I think it’s wrong! You know, I mean I’ve done the crime, but I’ve done
my time. We do get rehabilitated, you know, and I think it’s only fair that we get the chance to
get our voting rights back.”
Another respondent commented, “You know, to me it seems like they want to penalize
you for the rest of your life for a mistake that you’ve made.”
An additional theme arose out of the data, and several respondents felt that permanent
disenfranchisement might be a fair consequence, depending on the type of felony that had been
committed.
“I don’t think certain felonies should stop you from voting. I don’t have no violent
felonies, just child support, and I think I should be able to vote if I want to. It should depend on
what kind of felony you got.”
“There are certain levels of crime, big, small, you know, and I just think they need to
look at what the crime was, and how big it was.”

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

12

“I believe it should be different for each felony. I don’t think for child support you
should lose your vote, or your right to vote. I mean, I know it’s breaking the law, but at the same
time, it’s not anything like the more serious crimes. I don’t believe they should take it away. I
believe I should still have the right to vote, on a child support charge, because nobody wasn’t
injured and there wasn’t a law broken other than not paying.”
Other respondents felt that disenfranchisement was always unfair, no matter what the
circumstances.
“I don’t think it’s right….You know, just because you did some wrong doesn’t mean that
you can’t vote for who’s going to be president or governor.”
“I think it’s ridiculous, honestly. I mean, I can understand why carrying a firearm or
whatever, but we should all be able to voice our opinion! I mean, we all live in this country, so I
don’t think it’s fair.”
Personal Impact of Disenfranchisement
Many respondents commented on the effect that permanent disenfranchisement had on
them.
One individual stated, “I think it’s absolutely appalling. I think it’s extremely difficult
for the citizens of this country to understand what an individual man or woman goes through
while he’s incarcerated. And for it to continue- for the state to continue- having its’ foot on an
individual’s neck…after he’s released, it takes away your self esteem, and, in many respects,
your pride.”
“Well, it kind of hurts me because I still feel that I am a citizen, even though I did wrong.
I feel that a person shouldn’t lose his right to vote or his citizenship, even though he committed a
crime.”

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

13

Prior Political Participation
Many of the respondents had previously voted, and 12 out of the 17 people who had not
previously voted reported having an increased desire to participate in the democratic process
now that they were getting older, had families, and had more of an appreciation for the value of
voting.
One interviewee stated that he planned on applying for restoration of his voting rights
“because now I have kids and I want to do the right thing. Plus, I want to have a say in what
happens around me. I don’t like the President and the government now and I didn’t get to vote to
say what’s happening….If I don’t vote, then I can’t complain about it, I guess.”
Another stated, “I’m tired of living the way I’ve been living, and seeing my children
follow in my steps. And, with some of the stuff out there I need to be a part of it, and voting
makes me a part of it.”
Yet another said, “I feel like I should have some type of say in it. But, even if I do vote,
I’m still only going to have only so much say in it, but I still want that little bit of say, or pass it
on to my son or my daughter and say, ‘this is why you should vote’.”
It is significant that many of the individuals interviewed had previously voted, and a large
group of the respondents who had not previously voted reported having an increased desire to
participate in the democratic process at this point in their lives. This indicates that current
disenfranchisement policy in Kentucky alienates a significant group of individuals who would
otherwise vote.
3. Knowledge of the Application Process for Rights Restoration
Sixteen of the respondents thought they knew the application process for restoration of
their civil rights in Kentucky, but when asked to discuss the process in their own words, only

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

14

four respondents were close to knowing the correct process. Twenty respondents knew that there
was an application process to try to get their right to vote restored, but were unsure about the
process, and four respondents stated that they did not even know if it was possible for them to
ever try to get their voting right back.
When asked if he was familiar with the process to apply to have his voting rights
restored, one subject replied, “I heard that there wasn’t a process. It’s kind of the general
consensus of inmates or people that’ve been in that it’s not the norm to get them back. Every
now and then, if you was somebody that works in Frankfort or works for the governor or
something, or somewhere that has some kind of pull, then you might be able to get them back.
But, other than that, you know, generally we don’t address the issue or even pursue it.”

Table 2
Knowledge of the Application Process

Knew the correct application process
Thought they knew the process, but were
misinformed
Knew there was a process, but did not know what
it was
Did not know there was an opportunity to apply
for restoration of their voting rights
Total

Frequency
4
12

% of All Respondents
10.0
30.0

20

50.0

4

10.0

40

100.0

It was disturbing to note how many respondents were uninformed, or had been
misinformed, by parole officers about the process of application for restoration of their voting
rights. Several respondents had never been informed that there even was an application process
for civil rights restoration, and were under the mistaken impression that they could never attempt
to get their voting right back. Many respondents had been mistakenly informed that they would
have to wait five years after being released from parole, when in actuality there is no time limit

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

15

as long as the individual has been released from parole and has no pending charges or
outstanding fines. While it must be acknowledged that all of the respondents were still on parole
and therefore not yet eligible for restoration of their voting rights, one would think that education
about the process and eligibility requirements should begin taking place when an individual is
convicted of a felony and incarcerated, or at the very least once they are on parole.
4. Impression of the Application Process for Rights Restoration
After being correctly informed of the application process for voting rights restoration in
Kentucky, many respondents reported feeling overwhelmed at the requirements or disgusted by
the fact that they would be asked to go through so many steps to get their voting rights back.
One subject stated, “I think it’s stupid that you have to write an essay and get three
references to get a right that you’ve already been given! That right is something that we should
never lose….I would probably never go through with it just because it’s too much trouble.”
Half of the respondents felt that the writing portion of the application was unfair, or were
unsure how it was relevant to the restoration of their voting rights. One subject commented on
how biased the process could be, stating “It seems like they’re just trying to pick and choose who
they’re choosing to allow to vote. Just by the essay, you can read so much into an essay about
what somebody’s saying in general, and get a basic knowledge about what the person’s trying to
express. And, if he’s saying the wrong thing you can deny them the process right there….You
can just give general information, like ‘male, hair color, address’, you know, just general
information and you don’t know their political views. But, if they write an essay you can
basically generalize and, you know, read the way they’re going to vote, whether it’s democrat or
whatever. ‘Let’s eject them’, you know. It’s biased, I think it’s really biased.”

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

16

Another subject commented that the writing portion of the application implied that you
had to be intelligent to be able to vote, and stated, “I really don’t see the point….You’d think
you’d have to be pretty smart, you know, just to vote, when everyone should be able to vote.”
Several respondents noted that they felt it was demeaning that the state government
would ask them to go through so many steps to try to get their civil rights back. One particular
subject remarked, “It’s just like you’re begging. They’re just trying to make a bigger fool out of
you! That’s all it is.”
Another noted, “I really think that it’s just an extra step just to see how willing you are,
how much you want your voting rights back. It’s like a trick for a dog to do. You know, if the
dog wants that treat bad enough he will roll over. If someone wants their voting rights back bad
enough, then they’ll write this essay.”
More respondents (n=26) seemed to feel that the references were more relevant than the
written portion of the application.
“I’m in the construction business, so I always have to show references. So, I understand
that. It makes sense to me, but the essay part doesn’t.”
Another stated, “That’s okay, because if you want to get a job or anything, you’ve got to
have references. I think everybody has references they could ask.”
One individual remarked, “It makes sense to do it because if you’re doing the right thing,
then you should have three references. If you’re not doing the right thing, then of course you’re
not going to get your dope dealer to write you a reference.”
5. Perception of Respondents’ Ability to Complete the Application Process
While five respondents reported that they would not feel comfortable with the written
portion of the application, and three respondents reported that they did not know three people

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

17

who they could utilize for personal references, the majority of the respondents (n=32)
interviewed felt that they would be competent completing the entire application process.
However, out of the 35 respondents who stated that they would be able to complete the written
portion of the application, 29 of those respondents had reported earlier in the interview that they
had little to no experience with writing formal letters or essays, and 12 respondents did not have
a high school diploma or GED.
Eight respondents remarked that although they felt they had the ability to complete the
application process, they were concerned about other people they had been incarcerated with
who would lack the necessary writing skills to be able to apply for their voting rights.
One subject stated, “It’s not fair, because a lot of people can’t write…really well.
Luckily, I can write pretty good, so to me it wouldn’t be no problem. But, I know a lot of people
who can’t really write, especially a lot of them who are felons. They can’t really read or write
much.”
Another said, “I don’t think it’s fair at all. Everybody probably cannot write an essay or,
some people can’t even write. And a lot of people don’t understand the process of writing an
essay or a formal letter. So, it’s not fair to everybody. Some people can and some can’t, so it’s
just not fair.”
Even though many respondents felt that the process was complicated, lengthy, and unfair,
28 respondents stated that they intended to apply to get their voting rights back once they were
eligible, and five stated that they were unsure. Seven respondents stated that they had no
intention of applying to have their civil rights restored.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

18

Table 3
Respondents’ Perception of Their Ability to Complete the Application Process

Could complete the written portion
Could not complete the written portion
Total

Frequency
35
5
40

% of All Respondents
87.5
12.5
100.0

Could obtain three references
Could not obtain three references
Total

37
3
40

92.5
7.5
100.0

Could complete the entire application process
Could not complete the entire application process
Total

35
5
40

87.5
12.5
100.0

It was interesting to note the number of respondents who reported feeling comfortable
with the written portion of the application process, yet many of those respondents reported
having little to no writing experience, and some did not have their high school diploma or GED.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the respondents’ confidence levels and their actual
writing experience. It is worth noting that since this was a face-to-face interview, many
respondents could have misrepresented their writing ability in an effort to not admit perceived
incompetence.
It was also intriguing to note the number of respondents who felt that they would be
competent in completing the application process, but felt others would not be able to do so. One
wonders whether this was an honest and accurate reflection, an attempt to appear more
competent than they may have truly felt, or if it was self-deception on the part of the
respondents.
Despite the limitations of this study, these interviews still provide valuable information
about the personal impact of being disenfranchised. The application process for civil rights
restoration in Kentucky is a lengthy, complicated process. While one would think that this

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

19

process would deter individuals from attempting it, the majority of the respondents interviewed
for this study did not report feeling that they would be deterred as a result of the steps in the
application process. In fact, it was surprising how many people who reported that they did not
intend to complete the application process stated that they would not because they either did not
intend to vote, resented the fact that they were not automatically given the right to vote, or felt
like it would be “begging” to try to get their voting right back. Very few of those who said they
were not going to go through the application process reported feeling that way because of the
difficulty involved in the actual process.
6. Utilization of Assistance
Thirty of the respondents interviewed stated that they did not know of anyone who could
assist them in completing the application. The 10 respondents who did know of resources said
that they either had family members they could ask for help, or they would ask a counselor in
their treatment program or their parole officer if they needed assistance with the application
process.
Once informed of organized groups in Kentucky that could help them with the
application process, 24 stated that they would definitely call them for help, and five stated that
they might use one of the groups for assistance. Of the 11 respondents who stated that they
would not call one of those groups for help, eight stated that they would not call since they felt
confident in their own ability to complete the application and three stated that they would not call
because they had no intention of going through the application process to try to get their voting
rights restored. Of all the respondents interviewed, some of those who intended to try to apply
for restoration of their rights expressed concern that they would either lose the numbers for the

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

20

resources or they would be back in prison on new charges and would therefore be unable to
apply for their voting rights.

Table 4
Utilization of Assistance

Knew of people who could help them with the
application process
Did not know of people who could help them
Total
Would utilize organized advocacy groups for
assistance
Might utilize organized advocacy groups for
assistance
Would not utilize organized advocacy groups for
assistance
Total

Frequency
10

% of All Respondents
25.0

30
40

75.0
100.0

24

60.0

5

12.5

11

27.5

40

100.0

Conclusion
Disenfranchisement has a long-term negative effect on individuals, affecting their
feelings about the value of their own lives and their view of the world around them. One of the
goals of our criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, which implies that we should assist
ex-felons in learning the value of their own life, the importance of becoming part of the
community they live in, and the significance of voting and having a say in choosing the people
who govern their community. Kentucky’s current disenfranchisement policy seems to be
counterproductive in that respect.
In order to promote public safety, it is essential that our criminal justice system continue
to look for effective ways to rehabilitate criminal offenders instead of merely warehousing them
in prison. Sentencing laws and criminal justice policies should encourage efforts that enhance

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

21

connections in the community after people get out of prison and reenter society. 22 Regaining the
right to vote is one such way to give ex-offenders a stake in their community and help them
continue to become more engaged in their community.
State legislators should examine the wisdom of the current policy and consider placing a
constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow voters to support automatic restoration of rights
upon completion of sentence. If that is not possible, then the Governor should reconsider the
current application process, given the reduced number of applications and successful rights
restorations since the change in policy. Voting and civil rights advocates also need to conduct
public education and voter outreach regarding the restoration process. Many respondents in this
study were uninformed about the process to apply to get their voting rights restored, and some
even believed that there was no process to apply for restoration of their civil rights. Correct
information is essential to enable eligible individuals to complete the process, so advocates
should try to inform felons about the application process as early on in their sentence as possible
so they are aware of the process and its requirements. It is also imperative that parole officers
are educated about the process so they can inform parolees of the necessary steps as they are
preparing to be released from parole. Election officials in the state should also be informed and
educated about the eligibility requirements so they can appropriately address questions from
applicants, as well as direct those who are ineligible to the correct place to begin the application
process.
None of the respondents interviewed were familiar with any of the organizations in the
state that can assist with the application process. Since the majority of the respondents stated
that they would utilize the voting rights advocacy groups for assistance in completing the

22

“Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?” by Marc Mauer (2004), from Human Rights:
Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities, 31(1), pp. 16-19.

Losi ng the Ri ght to Vo te: Perceptions of Disenfranc hise me nt

22

application, but had not heard of the groups and were afraid they would lose the names and
phone numbers before they completed their time on parole, more publicity needs to be done on
behalf of these groups to ensure that people interested in applying for their civil rights are
afforded the opportunity to obtain needed assistance. While the majority of the respondents in
this study stated that they felt competent with the written portion of the application, one would
suspect that many ex-felons do not feel secure in their writing skills and would be more likely to
complete the application process if they knew how to access assistance.