Expanding the Vote
State Felony Disenfranchisement
Reform, 1997-2010
Nicole D. Porter
October 2010

For further information:
The Sentencing Project
1705 DeSales St., NW
8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

This report was written by Nicole D. Porter, State Advocacy
Coordinator of The Sentencing Project. It provides an update to the
2008 report of The Sentencing Project, “Expanding the Vote: State
Felony Disenfranchisement Reform,” by Ryan King, which provided
a state-by-state analysis of reform efforts during an eleven-year
period.
The data presented in this report represent the most recent and
credible estimates available. The overall estimate of 5.3 million
persons disenfranchised nationally, as well as the data for
individual states, is taken from an analysis of 2004 correctional
populations. In states where a substantial number of persons have
had their rights restored since that time, the current number of
disenfranchised people will be less than those estimates. The
overall estimates will also be affected by the number of new felony
convictions since 2004, the number of persons with a felony
conviction who have died since 2004, and other factors. Depending
on the state, these factors might produce current estimates that are
higher or lower than the previous figures. Therefore, the state-based
estimates should be treated as portraying a relative, but not precise,
picture of the scale of disenfranchisement.
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 generous
donors, including:
Anonymous Donor at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
Ford Foundation
General Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church
Herb Block Foundation
JK Irwin Foundation
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Open Society Institute
Public Welfare Foundation
Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation
Sandler Family Foundation
Tikvah Fund of the Tides Foundation
Wallace Global Fund
Working Assets/CREDO
Copyright © 2010 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or part in print or electronic format only by permission of
The Sentencing Project.

1

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

I

n recent years significant reforms in felony disenfranchisement policies have
been achieved at the state level. Increased public exposure has resulted in
expanding civil rights through legislative initiatives to individuals with felony

convictions and 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 overview of
reforms that have taken place since 1997. We find that since 1997, 23 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



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



Eight 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, 1997-2010

These policy changes represent national momentum for reform of restrictive voting
rights laws. As a result of the reforms achieved during the period from 1997-2010,
an estimated 800,000 persons have regained the right to vote. These include:


Texas’s repeal of the two-year waiting 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 152,000 residents



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



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 their sentence resulted in the restoration of voting rights for
more than 52,000 persons



Nebraska’s disenfranchisement law reform regarding persons who have
completed sentences 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 citizens



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



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



Policy changes in Virginia during the last two gubernatorial administrations
restored the right to vote to over 8,500 citizens



Kentucky streamlined voter restoration procedures through the governor’s
office resulted in extending the right to vote to more than 4,200 persons



A simplified rights restoration process in Alabama has resulted in 7,700
people having their rights restored

3

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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.
In addition to state legislative activity, important litigation efforts challenging state
disenfranchisement policies in federal courts have gained momentum. In January,
disenfranchised plaintiffs in the Washington case Farrakhan v. Gregoire won a 9th
Circuit panel appeal challenging that state’s disenfranchisement policy based on a
violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act barring racial discrimination in
voting. The case, which presented “compelling evidence” of racial and ethnic bias
within Washington’s criminal justice system, was reheard by the full Circuit in
September 2010. In Massachusetts, prison inmates in Simmons v. Galvin are
challenging a 10-year-old state constitutional amendment that stripped them of the
right to vote while incarcerated. They are asking the Supreme Court to review a
ruling issued by the Boston based federal appeals court that Congress never intended
the Voting Rights Act to apply in prison.
Despite these advancements more than 5 million citizens will be ineligible to vote in
the midterm elections in November, including nearly 4 million who 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. Racial disparities in the
criminal justice system also 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, 1997-2010

Felony Disenfranchisement Policy Reforms, 1997-2010
State
ALABAMA
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
HAWAII
IOWA
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MARYLAND
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK

Reform
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)
Eliminated lifetime disenfranchisement law (2005)
Simplified restoration process (2001 & 2008), Restricted restoration
process (2004, amended in 2008)
Required Department of Public Safety and Corrections to provide
notification of rights restoration process (2008)
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement laws (2002 & 2007)
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)
Established procedures requiring state criminal justice agencies to notify
persons of their voting rights when released (2010)
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement law (2001), Codified data sharing
procedures, certificate of completion provided after sentence (2005)
Required criminal justice agencies to provide voting rights information to
persons who are again eligible to vote after a felony conviction (2010)

NORTH

Required state agencies to establish a process whereby individuals will be

CAROLINA

notified of their rights (2007)

RHODE ISLAND

Restored voting rights to persons on felony probation and parole (2006)
Established new procedures to provide training and develop voter

SOUTH DAKOTA

education curriculum to protect the voting rights of citizens with certain
felony convictions (2010)

TENNESSEE

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

5

TEXAS
UTAH

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

Repealed two-year waiting period to restore rights (1997)
Clarified state law pertaining to federal and out-of-state convictions
(2006)
Required notification of rights and restoration process by Department of

VIRGINIA

Corrections (2000), Streamlined restoration process (2002), Decreased
waiting period from three years to two years and established a 60-day
deadline to process voting rights restoration applications (2010)

WASHINGTON
WYOMING

Restored voting rights for citizens who exit the criminal justice system but
still have outstanding financial obligations (2009)
Restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time non-violent
offenses (2003)

6

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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.
As of September 2010, approximately 7,700 persons had their voting rights restored.
Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:




Prison




Parole

Probation

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 250,0461
Rate: 7.37%
African American Disenfranchisement: 124,398
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.

7

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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%

8

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

DELAWARE
Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement law, replaced with fiveyear 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 voting rights
reform law restored the right to vote to 6,400 individuals, or about one-third of the
state’s disenfranchised population.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:






Prison
Probation
Parole
Post-Sentence
(most offenses 5 years)

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 46,677
Rate: 7.54%
African American Disenfranchisement: 20,862
Rate: 19.63%

9

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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 were 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 2007, Governor Charlie 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
crimes, can now have their rights restored without a hearing before the Board.
People convicted of serious offenses, such as murder or sex crimes, can either wait 15
years after the completion of sentence (during which they must have remained crimefree) to apply without a hearing, or petition the Board directly for a review and inperson hearing. While it was estimated that this change would eventually impact

10

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

between 250,000 and 300,000 of Florida’s one million residents who are
disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a June 2010 figure indicates that 152,000
Floridians have had their right to vote restored since the new policy took effect.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:




Prison




Parole

Probation
Post-Sentence
(certain offenses)

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 1,179,687
Rate: 9.01%
African American Disenfranchisement: 293,545
Rate: 18.82%

11

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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 problem, 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, 1997-2010

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



Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 121,418
Rate: 5.39%

Probation
African American Disenfranchisement: 14,705
Rate: 33.98%

13

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

KENTUCKY
Simplified restoration process (2001 & 2008);
restricted 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 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 letter explaining why they believed their
voting rights should be restored, in addition to supplying three letters of personal
reference. Consequently, the number of people who had their rights restored under
the Fletcher administration declined relative to prior governors. This policy was
subsequently repealed 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 2010, Governor Beshear had restored rights to 4,260 people.

14

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:






Prison
Probation
Parole
Post-Sentence

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 186,348
Rate: 5.97%
African American Disenfranchisement: 49,293
Rate: 23.70%

15

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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 Department 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

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 98,190
Rate: 2.96%

Probation
Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 67,850
Rate: 6.78%

16

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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 anyone with two or
more convictions was 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 for 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



Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 111,521
Rate: 2.7%

Probation
African American Disenfranchisement: 64,403
Rate: 5.8%

17

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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:



Prison





Probation
Parole
Post-Sentence (2 years)

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 61,996
Rate: 4.77%
African American Disenfranchisement: 11,403
Rate: 22.7%

18

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

NEVADA
Repealed waiting period to apply to restore rights (2001);
restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time nonviolent offenses (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:






Prison

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

Probation
Parole
Post-Sentence
(except first-time nonviolent )

African American Disenfranchisement: 12,632
Rate: 12.39%

19

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

NEW JERSEY
Established requirement that criminal justice agencies provide
individuals with general information regarding voting rights upon
exit from state prison and community correction facilities (2010)
In 2010, the New Jersey Legislature passed a comprehensive package of reforms that
included notification of voting rights, lifting the ban on food stamps for persons with
felony drug convictions, and placing incarcerated individuals with less than two years
before release in community corrections.
The reform also required state criminal justice agencies to provide exiting prisoners
with general information regarding New Jersey law and their eligibility to vote. The
legislative measure garnered broad bipartisan support that was encouraged by
efforts to address recidivism and remove barriers for incarcerated individuals after
they are released from prison.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:




Prison



Parole

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 127,178
Rate: 1.95%

Probation
African American Disenfranchisement: 70,249
Rate: 8.69%

20

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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
the right to vote to all persons convicted of a felony 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

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 18,080
Rate: 1.32%

Probation
Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 1,722
Rate: 6.71%

21

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

NEW YORK
Required criminal justice agencies to provide voting
rights information to persons who are again eligible to
vote after a felony conviction (2010)
In 2010, the New York legislature required criminal justice agencies to notify persons
exiting criminal justice supervision that they have the right to vote. Persons
convicted of a felony lose the right to vote while in prison or on parole; persons on
probation do not lose their voting rights in New York. Individuals released from
prison or discharged from parole have their voting rights automatically restored and
only need to complete a voter registration card in order to participate in the next
election. A formal notice provision was necessary because according to reports, New
York election officials regularly misapplied the law and some reportedly required
persons to provide unnecessary paperwork in order to register to vote. Researchers
found in 2005 that nearly 30% of persons with prior criminal convictions incorrectly
believed they were ineligible to vote.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:




Prison

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 122,018
Rate: 0.83%

Parole
African American Disenfranchisement: 78,692
Rate: 4.21%

22

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 73,113
Rate: 1.16%

Probation
Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 42,227
Rate: 3.31%

23

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

SOUTH DAKOTA
Created new procedures, training and voter education
curriculum (2010)
In South Dakota, a settlement in a voting rights lawsuit established new procedures,
training, and education by the secretary of state’s office to protect the voting rights of
persons with certain felony convictions.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of two individuals who
were found to have been illegally removed from county voter registration lists
following felony convictions in federal court that resulted in probation but no prison
time. Current law in South Dakota authorizes the automatic removal from voter
registration lists of any person convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison.
Individuals have their voting rights reinstated following the completion of their
prison term.
The settlement requires the secretary of state to propose rule changes to South
Dakota’s Election Board and recommends the board propose policy reforms during
the 2011 Legislature. The secretary of state’s office will also be required to train
county auditors and poll workers about felony disqualifications.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:



Prison

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 3,271
Rate: .058%
African American Disenfranchisement: 142
Rate: 3.71%

24

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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 restored the right to vote to more than 17,000 residents.
According to the Rhode Island Family Life Center, 36% of the citizens reenfranchised in 2006 participated in 2008.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:



Prison

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

25

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

TENNESSEE
Streamlined restoration process for most persons
upon completion of sentence (2006)
In 2006, Tennessee passed legislation that simplified what were 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.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:



Prison





Probation

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

Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 43,198

Post-Sentence

Rate: 6.42%

(certain offenses)

26

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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 a 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

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 522,887
Rate: 3.29%

Probation
Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 165,985
Rate: 9.3%

27

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

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%

28

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

VIRGINIA
Required notification of rights restoration process by
Department of Corrections (2000); streamlined
restoration process (2002); decreased waiting period
and established 60-day deadline to process
applications (2010).
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 3,500 Virginians, exceeding the combined total
of all governors between 1982 and 2002. His successor, Governor Tim Kaine,
continued this commitment to rights restoration, granting voting rights to more than
4,300 persons while in office.
During 2010, Governor Bob McDonnell streamlined the voter restoration process
for individuals with felony convictions by decreasing the waiting period from three
years to two years. The Governor also established a 60-day deadline for processing
civil rights restoration applications after receiving corroborating information from
courts and other agencies. These policy changes represented a reversal of the
administration’s initial policy changes. Prior to the new process, the Governor’s
office had announced that all voting rights applicants would have to write a letter to

29

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

explain why they wanted their voting rights restored as a part of their application.
The process encouraged applicants to offer a “brief description of civic or community
involvement,” although it was not a requirement. Since moving away from that
process, the Governor has restored civil rights to 780 individuals out of 889 eligible
applications from persons with felony convictions.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:




Prison




Parole

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

Probation
Post-Sentence

African American Disenfranchisement: 208,343
Rate: 19.76%

30

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

WASHINGTON
Restored voting rights for citizens who exit the criminal
justice system but still have outstanding financial
obligations (2009)
In 2009, Governor Christine Gregoire signed a bill that eliminated the requirement
of paying all fines, fees, and restitution before regaining the right to vote. Previously,
persons who had completed their term of probation or parole but who had not paid
all the fees and other costs associated with their sentence had been barred from
voting. This provision was compounded by the fact that interest on these legal
system debts accrues at 12% a year.
An overwhelming majority of felony defendants are indigent at the time of
sentencing, and many could never fully pay off their legal system debts – and as a
result never had their voting rights restored. Under the new law, persons remain
obligated to repay their debts, but – like anyone else who owes money – they will not
be denied the right to vote.
The litigation undertaken in Farrakhan v. Gregoire may also have a significant
impact in Washington. In January 2010 a 9th Circuit panel ruled that as a result of
racial discrimination in the state’s criminal justice system, statutory felony
disenfranchisement policies violate the Voting Rights Act. The case was reheard by
the full Circuit in September 2010.

31

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:





Prison

Total Disenfranchisement (2004): 167,316
Rate: 3.61%

Probation
Parole

African American Disenfranchisement: 23,364
Rate: 17.22%

32

EXPANDING THE VOTE | STATE FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT REFORM, 1997-2010

WYOMING
Restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time nonviolent offenses after five-year waiting period (2003)
In 2003, Wyoming revised its lifetime felony disenfranchisement law by authorizing
persons convicted of a first-time non-violent felony to apply to the Wyoming Board
of Parole for a certificate that restores voting rights. Applicants must wait for a
period of five years after successfully completing their sentence in order to be eligible
to apply.

Disenfranchisement Impact

Disenfranchised Populations:






Prison

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

Probation
Parole
Post-Sentence
(certain offenses 5 years)

African American Disenfranchisement: 685
Rate: 20.03%

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

1705 DeSales Street, NW, 8th floor
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202.628.0871 • Fax: 202.628.1091
www.sentencingproject.org