State-Level Estimates of Felon
Disenfranchisement in the
United States, 2010
Christopher Uggen and Sarah Shannon,
University of Minnesota
Jeff Manza, New York University
July 2012

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 Christopher Uggen, Professor of Sociology
at the University of Minnesota; Sarah Shannon, Ph.D. candidate at
the University of Minnesota; and Jeff Manza, Professor of Sociology
at New York University.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on criminal justice issues.
The work of The Sentencing Project is supported by many individual
donors and contributions from the following:
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Ford Foundation
Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church
JK Irwin Foundation
Open Society Foundations
Public Welfare Foundation
David Rockefeller Fund
Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation
Tikva Grassroots Empowerment Fund of Tides Foundation
Wallace Global Fund
Working Assets/CREDO
Copyright @ 2012 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or in part, and in print or electronic format, only by
permission of The Sentencing Project

1

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

T

he United States is one of the world’s strictest nations when it comes to
denying the right to vote to citizens convicted of crimes. A remarkable 5.85
million Americans are forbidden to vote because of “felon
disenfranchisement,” or laws restricting voting rights for those convicted of felonylevel crimes. In this election year, the question of voting restrictions is once again
receiving great public attention. This report is intended to update and expand our
previous work on the scope and distribution of felon disenfranchisement in the
United States (see Uggen and Manza 2002; Manza and Uggen 2006). The numbers
presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felon
disenfranchisement as of December 31, 2010, the most recent year for which
complete data are available. Our goal is to provide statistics that will help
contextualize and anticipate the potential effects of felon disenfranchisement on
elections in November 2012.
Our key findings include the following:


Approximately 2.5 percent of the total U.S. voting age population – 1 of
every 40 adults – is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony
conviction.



Ex-felons in the eleven states that disenfranchise people after they have
completed their sentences make up about 45 percent of the entire
disenfranchised population, totaling over 2.6 million people.



The number of people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction has
escalated dramatically in recent decades as the population under criminal
justice supervision has increased. There were an estimated 1.17 million
people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.34 million in 1996, and over 5.85 million in
2010.



Rates of disenfranchisement vary dramatically by state due to broad
variations in voting prohibitions. In six states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia – more than 7 percent of the adult
population is disenfranchised.



1 of every 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more
than four times greater than non-African Americans. Nearly 7.7 percent of

2

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.8
percent of the non-African American population.


African American disenfranchisement rates also vary significantly by state. In
three states – Florida (23 percent), Kentucky (22 percent), and Virginia (20
percent) – more than one in five African Americans is disenfranchised.

STATE DISENFRANCHISEMENT LAW
To compile estimates of disenfranchised populations, we take into account new U.S.
Census data on voting age populations and recent changes in state-level
disenfranchisement policies, the latter reported in Expanding the Vote: State Felony
Disenfranchisement Reform, 1997-2010 (Porter 2010). For example, in 2007, Maryland
repealed its lifetime voting ban for all ex-felons. Several other states have revised
their waiting periods and streamlined the process for regaining civil rights. As shown
in the following table, Maine and Vermont remain the only states that allow prison
inmates to vote. Thirty U.S. states deny voting rights to felony probationers, and
thirty-five states disenfranchise parolees. In the most extreme cases, eleven states
continue to deny voting rights to some or all of the “ex-felons” who have
successfully fulfilled their prison, parole, or probation sentences (for details, see
notes to Table 1).

3

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Table 1. Summary of State Felon Disfranchisement Restrictions in 2010
No
restriction
(2)
Maine
Vermont

Notes:

Inmates only
(13)
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island*
Utah

Inmates &
Parolees
(5)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
New York
South Dakota*

* indicates a recent change (since 2004)

Inmates,
Parolees, &
Probationers
(19)
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa*,1
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland*
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Washington*
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Inmates,
Parolees,
Probationers, &
Ex-felons
(11)
Alabama
Arizona2
Delaware3
Florida
Kentucky
Mississippi
Nebraska*,4
Nevada5
Tennessee6
Virginia
Wyoming

1 Governor Tom Vilsack restored voting rights to ex-felons via executive order on July 4, 2005. Governor
Terry Branstad reversed this executive order on January 14, 2011.
2 State disenfranchises recidivists.
3 State requires a five-year waiting period.
4 Nebraska reduced its indefinite ban on ex-felon voting to a two-year waiting period in 2005.
5 State disenfranchises recidivists and those convicted of violent felonies.
6 State disenfranchises those convicted of felonies since 1981, in addition to those convicted of select
crimes prior to 1973.

METHODOLOGY
We estimated the number of ex-prisoners and ex-felons based on demographic life
tables for each state, as described in Uggen, Manza, and Thompson (2006) and
Shannon et al. (2011). We modeled each state’s disenfranchisement rate in
accordance with its distinctive felon voting policies, as described in Table 1. For
example, some states impose disenfranchisement for five years after release from

4

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

supervision, some states only disenfranchise recidivists, and some only
disenfranchise those convicted of violent offenses. 1
In brief, we compiled demographic life tables for the period 1948-2010 to determine
the number of released felons lost to recidivism (and therefore already included in
our annual head counts) and to mortality each year. This allows us to compute the
number of ex-felons in a given state and year who are no longer under correctional
supervision yet remain disenfranchised. Our duration-specific recidivism rate
estimates are derived from large-scale national studies of recidivism for prison
releasees and probationers. Based on these studies, we assume that most ex-prisoners
will be re-incarcerated (66 percent) and a smaller percentage of ex-probationers and
jail inmates (57 percent) will cycle back through the criminal justice system. We also
assume a substantially higher mortality rate for felons relative to the non-felon
population. Both recidivists and deaths are removed from the ex-felon pool to avoid
overestimating the number of ex-felons in the population. Each release cohort is
thus reduced each successive year – at a level commensurate with the age-adjusted
hazard rate for mortality and duration-adjusted hazard rate for recidivism – and
added to each new cohort of releases. Overall, we produced more than 200
spreadsheets covering 63 years of data. 2 These provide the figures needed to compile
disenfranchisement rate estimates that are keyed to the appropriate correctional
populations for each state and year.
In Florida, some can avoid a formal felony conviction by successfully completing a period of probation. According to
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, as much as 40 percent of the total probation population holds this
“adjudication withheld” status. According to reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about 50 percent of
Florida probationers successfully complete probation. In light of this, we reduce the annual current disenfranchised
felony probation numbers by 40 percent and disenfranchised ex-felons by 20 percent (.4*.5=.20) in each year in the
life tables.
2 Our data sources include numerous United States Department of Justice (DOJ) publications, including the annual
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, as well as the Prisoners and Jail
Inmates at Midyear series. Where available, we used data from state departments of corrections rather than national
sources, as in the case of Minnesota. For early years, we also referenced National Prisoner Statistics, and Race of
Prisoners Admitted to State and Federal Institutions, 1926-1986. We determined the median age of released
prisoners based on annual data from the National Corrections Reporting Program. The recidivism rate we use to
decrease the releasee population each year is based upon the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989) “Recidivism of
Prisoners Released in 1983” study and “Recidivism of Felons on Probation 1986-1989.” For prisoners and parolees,
we use a reincarceration rate of 18.6% at one year, 32.8% at two years, 41.4% at 3 years. Although rearrest rates
have increased since 1983, the overall reconviction and reincarceration rates used for this study are much more
stable (Langan and Levin 2002, p. 11). For probationers and jail inmates, the corresponding three-year failure rate is
36%, meaning that individuals are in prison or jail and therefore counted in a different population. To extend the
analysis to subsequent years, we calculated a trend line using the ratio of increases provided by Hoffman and StoneMeierhoefer (1980) on federal prisoners. By year 10, we estimate a 59.4% recidivism rate among released prisoners
and parolees, which increases to 65.9% by year 62 (the longest observation period in this analysis). Because these
estimates are higher than most long-term recidivism studies, they are likely to yield conservative estimates of the exfelon population. We apply the same trend line to the 3-year probation and jail recidivism rate of 36%; by year 62, the
recidivism rate is 57.3%. 1948 is the earliest year for which detailed data are available on releases from supervision.
1

5

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

DISENFRANCHISEMENT RATES IN 2010
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 5.85 million disenfranchised felons across
correctional populations. Current prison and jail inmates only represent about onefourth of those disenfranchised. The remaining 75 percent are living in their
communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while
on probation or parole.
Figure 1. Disenfranchisement Distribution across
Correctional Populations, 2010

6

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Variation across States
Due to differences in state laws and rates of criminal punishment, states vary widely
in the practice of disenfranchisement. The maps and tables below represent the
disenfranchised population as a percentage of the adult voting age population in each
state. As noted above, we estimate that 5.85 million Americans are currently
ineligible to vote by state law. As Figure 2 and the statistics in Table 3 show, statelevel disenfranchisement rates in 2010 varied from less than .5 percent in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Utah (and zero in Maine and
Vermont) to more than 7 percent in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia.
Figure 2. Total Felon Disenfranchisement Rates, 2010

7

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

These figures show significant growth in recent decades, even as many states began
to dismantle voting restrictions for formerly disenfranchised populations. Figure 3
displays disenfranchisement rates in 1980, retaining the same scale as in Figure 2. At
that time, far more of the nation had disenfranchisement rates below .5 percent and
no state disenfranchised more than 5 percent of its adult citizens.

Figure 3. Total Felon Disenfranchisement Rates, 1980

8

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

The cartogram in Figure 4 provides another way to visualize the current state of
American disenfranchisement. Cartograms distort the land area on the map
according to an alternative statistic, in this case total felon disenfranchisement. States
that disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of former felons, such as Florida,
Kentucky, and Virginia appear bloated in the cartogram. In contrast, the many
Northeastern and Midwestern states that only disenfranchise current prison inmates
shrivel in size. This distorted map thus provides a clear visual representation of the
great range of differences in the scope and impact of felon disenfranchisement
across the 50 states.

Figure 4. Cartogram of Total Disenfranchisement Rates by State, 2010

9

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Variation over Time
Figure 5 illustrates the historical trend in U.S. disenfranchisement, showing growth in
the disenfranchised population for selected years from 1960 to 2010. The number
disenfranchised dropped between 1960 and 1976, as states began to expand voting
rights in the civil rights era. Many states have continued to pare back their
disenfranchisement provisions since the 1970s (see Behrens, Uggen, and Manza,
2003; Manza and Uggen, 2006). Nevertheless, the total number banned from voting
continued to rise with the expansion in U.S. correctional populations. Today, we
estimate that 5.85 million Americans are disenfranchised by virtue of a felony
conviction.

Figure 5. Number Disenfranchised for Selected Years, 1960-2010

10

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Variation by Race
Disenfranchisement rates vary tremendously across racial and ethnic groups, such
that felon voting restrictions have an outsized impact on communities of color. Race
and ethnicity have not been consistently reported in the data sources used to compile
our estimates, so our ability to construct race-specific estimates is limited. This is
especially problematic for Latinos, who now constitute a significant portion of the
criminal justice population. Nevertheless, we developed a complete set of statespecific disenfranchisement estimates for the African American voting age
population, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. We will first show a map of the African
American disenfranchisement rate for 1980, and then show how the picture looks
today. By 1980, the African American disenfranchisement rate already exceeded 10
percent of the adult population in states such as Arizona and Iowa, as shown in
Figure 6. The figure also indicates that several Southeastern states disenfranchised
more than 5 percent of their adult African American populations at that time.

Figure 6. African American Felon Disenfranchisement Rates, 1980

11

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Figure 7 shows the corresponding rates for 2010, again retaining a common scale
and shading to keep the map consistent with the 1980 map in Figure 6. African
American disenfranchisement rates in Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia now exceed
20 percent of the adult voting age population. Much of the nation now
disenfranchises at least 5 percent of its African American adult citizens.

Figure 7. African American Disenfranchisement Rates, 2010

RECENT CHANGES
The rate of total disenfranchised ex-felons in 2010 (2.50 percent) is quite similar to
the 2004 figures reported by Manza and Uggen in 2006 (2.42 percent), despite state
changes in disenfranchisement policy and population growth. Our estimates for
African American disenfranchisement in 2010, however, are lower than those for
2004 – 7.66 percent versus 8.25 percent, respectively. For these estimates, we used
the most inclusive denominator for the African American voting age population
available from the 2010 Census to ensure that we do not overestimate the
disenfranchisement rate for this population. While growth in the baseline population

12

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

for African Americans contributes to the decline in the disenfranchisement rate from
previous estimates, the lion’s share of the difference is due to an important
refinement in our estimation procedures. For 2010, we used new race-specific
recidivism rates (resulting in a higher rate for African Americans) that more
accurately reflect current scholarship on recidivism. This results in a higher rate of
attrition in our life tables, but produces a more conservative and, we believe, more
accurate portrait of the number of disenfranchised African American felons. Though
lower than in 2004, the 7.66 percent rate of disenfranchisement for African
Americans remains more than four times greater than the non-African American rate
of 1.77 percent.
Given the size of Florida’s disenfranchised population, we also note a change in our
estimation procedure for this state. Based on a state-specific recidivism report in
1999, our 2004 estimates included much higher recidivism rates for African
Americans in Florida (up to 88% lifetime). A 2010 report from the Florida
Department of Corrections shows that rates of recidivism for African Americans are
now more closely in line with the national rates we apply to other states. In light of
this more recent evidence, we begin applying our national rate of recidivism for
African Americans (up to 73% lifetime) to Florida’s African American ex-felons
from 2005 onward. In 2010, more people were disenfranchised in Florida than in any
other state and Florida’s disenfranchisement rate remains highest among the 50
states.
As Table 1 noted, there have been several significant changes in state
disenfranchisement policies since 2004. Most notably, Maryland and Washington
eliminated disenfranchisement after the completion of sentence. Governor Tom
Vilsack of Iowa re-enfranchised all of that state’s ex-felons by executive order on
July 4, 2005 – though that order was then reversed by his successor, Governor Terry
Branstad, in January 2011. Other states have also reduced disenfranchisement
through streamlining restoration of rights or re-enfranchising certain groups of
felons. For example, Rhode Island now restricts voting rights only for prison inmates
as opposed to all current felons, including those on probation and parole. Nebraska
also instituted automatic restoration of voting rights after a two-year waiting period
following sentence completion. In 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist enacted

13

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

procedures to restore voting rights to ex-felons more quickly. This process was later
reversed by Governor Rick Scott in 2011 and replaced by a five-year waiting period
before former felons can apply for restoration of civil rights.
Our intent here is to provide a portrait of disenfranchisement that would be accurate
as of December 31, 2010. This provides a good basis for understanding the potential
impact of disenfranchisement on turnout for elections in November, 2012, so long
as there have not been significant legal changes or major shifts in correctional
populations in the intervening two years.

DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
States typically provide some limited mechanism for disenfranchised felons and
former felons to restore their right to vote. These vary greatly in scope, eligibility
requirements, and reporting practices. It is thus difficult to obtain consistent
information about the rate and number of disenfranchised Americans whose rights
are restored through these procedures. Nevertheless, Table 2 provides some basic
information about state restoration of rights policies in those states that
disenfranchise beyond sentence completion. The table shows how many people were
disenfranchised, the number of restorations reported by state officials in a given
reporting period, and the number restored as a percentage of the total number of exfelons disenfranchised. For comparative purposes, we also show the total number of
felons released over that reporting period and the number restored as a percentage of
those released. Because some of those whose rights were restored had been released
in earlier years, this only provides a rough estimate of a state’s re-enfranchisement
rate. The percentages of felons and former felons whose rights were restored vary
widely, from less than 1 percent of all ex-felons in several states to over 16 percent in
Delaware.
Despite our best efforts, we were unable to obtain complete data for all states on
restoration of civil rights. Nonetheless, we subtracted the available numbers granted
restoration of civil rights or full pardon from each state’s total disenfranchised exfelons. Even accounting for these restorations, it is clear that the vast majority of exfelons in these states remain disenfranchised. Indeed, some states have significantly
curtailed restoration efforts since 2010, including Iowa and Florida.

14

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Table 2 - Restoration of Voting Rights in States that Disenfranchise Ex-Felons
State
Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
Tennessee
Virginia
Wyoming

Disenfranchised
Ex-Felons
(2010)
198,031
95,893
14,032
1,323,360
115,210
180,984
127,346
7,819
59,919
247,808
351,943
19,470

Restorations
8,4663
N/A4
2,2425
264,0596
115,2107
4,2608
1069
N/A10
28111
9,55812
8,58013
4814

Period of
Restoration
Estimates
2004-2011
1988-2010
1990-2011
2005-2010
2008-2010
2000-2010
1990-2011
1990-2011
2002-2010
2003-2011

% of Total
ExFelons1
4.10%
13.78%
16.63%
100%
2.30%
.08%
.47%
3.71%
2.38%
.25%

Felons
Released
in Period2
113,778
89,245
736,984
61,426
73,770
37,754
169,517
461,347
309,943
17,303

%
Restored
7.44%
2.51%
35.83%
100%
5.77%
.28%
.17%
2.07%
2.77%
.28%

Notes:
1 Denominator is total ex-felons before reduction for restorations.
2 Release information compiled from annual Bureau of Justice Statistics sources (without reduction for recidivism or
mortality).
3 Source: Sarah Still, Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole, email communication on December 7, 2011.
4 Voting rights in Arizona are restored on a county-level basis and no statewide records are kept. Email
communication with Donna Kish, Maricopa County Elections.
5 In Delaware, most felons can apply for automatic restoration of voting rights after a five year wait period. Our life
tables account for this process. However, people convicted of certain felonies (e.g. murder, sex offenses), must
receive a pardon to have their voting rights restored. This number represents the total number of pardons for the
time period, which is a conservative number for our purposes. Source: Judy Smith, Delaware Board of Pardons, email
communication December 5, 2011.
6 Source: Tammy Salmon, Office of Communications/Legislative Affairs, Florida Parole Commission, email
communication on December 29, 2011.
7 Governor Vilsack issued an Executive Order on July 4, 2005 ending Iowa’s previous disenfranchisement practice.
On January 14, 2011, Governor Branstad reversed Vilsack’s order, reinstating disenfranchisement of felons postsentence.
8 Source: Nicole D. Porter, October 2010, “Expanding the Vote: State Felony Disenfranchisement Reform, 19972010.” The Sentencing Project.
9 Voting rights in Mississippi can be restored through executive order from the governor or bills of suffrage in the
legislature. By far, the most common route is via suffrage bill, as per email conversation with Phil Carter, Special
Assistant Attorney General on December 6, 2011. Numbers here reflect successful suffrage bills in the Mississippi
legislature. Source: Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System, accessed online:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/sessions.htm.
10 Voting rights in Nebraska are automatically restored after a two-year waiting period. Our life table estimates have
fully accounted for this process.
11 Source: Brian Campolieti, Nevada Parole Board, email communication December 5, 2011.
12 Source: Cara Harr, Division of Elections, Tennessee Department of State, email communication December 19,
2011.
13 See note 2.
14 Source: Joanne Struebing, Wyoming Board of Parole, email communication December 6, 2011.

15

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

SUMMARY
This report provides new state-level estimates on felon disenfranchisement for 2010
in the United States to update those provided by Uggen and Manza for previous
years. In Tables 3 and 4, we provide state-specific point estimates of the
disenfranchised population and African American disenfranchised population,
subject to the caveats described below.
Despite significant legal changes in recent decades, over 5.85 million Americans
remained disenfranchised in 2010. When we break these figures down by race, it is
clear that disparities in the criminal justice system are linked to disparities in political
representation. The distribution of disenfranchised felons shown in Figure 1 also
bears repeating: only about one-fourth of this population is currently incarcerated,
meaning that over 4 million of the adults who live, work, and pay taxes in their
communities are banned from voting. Of this total, nearly one million are African
American ex-felons alone. Public opinion research shows that a significant majority
of Americans favor voting rights for probationers and parolees who are currently
supervised in their communities, as well as for former felons who have completed
their sentences (Manza, Brooks, and Uggen 2004). How much difference would it
make if state laws were changed to reflect the principles most Americans endorse?
The answer is straightforward: Voting rights would be restored to well over 4 million
of the 5.85 million people currently disenfranchised.

CAVEATS
We have taken care to produce estimates of current populations and “ex-felon”
populations that are reliable and valid by social science standards. Nevertheless,
readers should bear in mind that our state-specific figures for the 11 states that bar
ex-felons from voting remain point estimates rather than actual head counts. In
other work, we have presented figures that adjust or “bound” these estimates by
assuming different levels of recidivism, inter-state mobility, and state-specific
variation. With these caveats in mind, the results reported here present our best
account of the prevalence of U.S. disenfranchisement in 2010. These estimates will
be adjusted if and when we discover errors or omissions in the data compiled from
individual states, U.S. Census and Bureau of Justice Statistics sources, or in our own
spreadsheets and estimation procedures.

16

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Table 3. Estimates of Disenfranchised Felons, 2010
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WI
WV
WY
Total

Prisoners
5,597
31,764
16,204
40,130
165,062
22,815
19,321
6,598
104,306
49,164
5,912
9,455
7,431
48,418
28,028
9,051
20,544
39,445
11,312
22,645
44,113
9,796
30,623
21,067
3,716
40,116
1,487
4,587
2,761
25,007
6,659
12,653
56,656
51,712
26,252
14,014
51,264
3,357
23,578
3,434
27,451
173,649
6,807
37,410
18,235
22,724
6,681
2,112
1,391,123

Parolees
2,089
9,006
21,106
7,993
105,133
11,014
2,894
560
4,093
25,091

Fel. Prob.
6,959
22,017
27,250
54,135

3,197
3,957

8,862
13,721

5,063
14,628
26,202

3,704
25,688
42,599

13,195

26,164

5,807
19,421
6,434

42,661
54,916
26,793

3,621

36,869

941

4,080

15,563
3,146
4,964
48,542

57,517
17,781
8,067

2,627

21,642

6,412
2,843
12,157
104,763

11,739
52,178
247,136

2,624
6,956
19,572
1,796
682
524,092

56,654
26,785
22,602
6,876
3,236
1,233,412

4,448
103,318
197,013

Jail Inmates
7
1,536
633
1,583
8,282
1,370
6,525
4,597
374
386
2,085
1,255
691
1,998
3,648
1,448
1,584
1,820
962
1,064
1,173
230
1,826
97
312
184
2,289
781
717
2,935
2,130
970
683
3,608
1,427
145
2,221
6,939
672
2,840
1,114
1,361
288
157
76,949

Ex-felons
198,031
95,893

14,032
1,323,360

180,984

127,346

7,819

59,919

247,808

351,943

19,470
2,626,604

Total
14,652
262,354
65,193
199,734
278,477
35,199
22,215
25,638
1,541,602
275,866
5,912
21,888
25,495
50,503
29,283
18,509
243,842
111,894
12,760
63,588
45,933
59,226
106,024
182,814
3,946
82,432
1,584
17,739
2,945
100,376
28,367
86,321
108,133
53,842
51,491
14,697
54,872
3,357
43,156
6,422
341,815
532,487
7,479
451,471
53,090
66,259
15,640
25,657
5,852,180

VAP
522,853
3,647,277
2,204,443
4,763,003
27,958,916
3,803,587
2,757,082
692,169
14,799,219
7,196,101
1,056,483
2,318,362
1,138,510
9,701,453
4,875,504
2,126,179
3,315,996
3,415,357
5,128,706
4,420,588
1,053,828
7,539,572
4,019,862
4,563,491
2,211,742
765,852
7,253,848
522,720
1,367,120
1,029,236
6,726,680
1,540,507
2,035,543
15,053,173
8,805,753
2,821,685
2,964,621
9,910,224
828,611
3,544,890
611,383
4,850,104
18,279,737
1,892,858
496,508
6,147,347
5,143,186
4,347,494
1,465,576
428,224
234,564,071

Disf. Rate
2.80%
7.19%
2.96%
4.19%
1.00%
0.93%
0.81%
3.70%
10.42%
3.83%
0.56%
0.94%
2.24%
0.52%
0.60%
0.87%
7.35%
3.28%
0.25%
1.44%
0.00%
0.61%
1.47%
2.32%
8.27%
0.52%
1.14%
0.30%
1.30%
0.29%
1.49%
1.84%
4.24%
0.72%
0.61%
1.82%
0.50%
0.55%
0.41%
1.22%
1.05%
7.05%
2.91%
0.40%
0.00%
7.34%
1.03%
1.52%
1.07%
5.99%
2.50%

17

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

Table 4. Estimates of Disenfranchised African American Felons, 2010
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Total

AA
Prisoners
528
18,460
7,185
5,301
47,775
4,409
8,054
3,762
50,966
30,729
250
2,425
181
27,798
10,280
2,993
5,438
27,521
3,206
16,624
23,798
3,474
11,969
14,029
103
22,823
105
1,205
171
15,399
518
3,611
28,628
24,399
7,497
1,431
25,347
964
15,296
187
13,052
62,575
454
22,810
3,440
9,610
856
94
587,730

AA
Parolees
217
5,416
8,558
1,051
29,179
1,828
1,246
310
2,264
14,842

AA Fel.
Prob.
724
10,905
9,573
5,960

555
82

1,348
287

1,465
3,841
16,899

1,104
4,708
24,626

9,738

14,583

1,512
6,602
4,035

9,034
16,367
17,014

2,068

18,529

223

500

6,785
213
1,650
21,610

27,949
1,035
2,400

911

5,084

4,333
162
5,541
39,239

12,198
20,698
54,257

1,779

29,190

598
20
835
245
237
180

1,283
7,604
205
36
203,282

4,033
5,057
668
95
445,493

23
303
94
17
18,059

2,041
31,225
114,300

AA Jail
Inmates
2
801
40
426
1,210
411
3,227
71
145
94
135
29
291
382
1,255
94
617
775
201
235
433
68
201
27
94
29
766
45
25
1,080
881
34
185
1,203

AA Exfelons
101,896
10,345

5,718
432,839

42,552

Total
1,471
137,478
25,357
23,083
78,164
6,648
9,300
11,831
520,521
159,942
250
4,473
645
27,933
10,309
5,853
56,920
70,301
3,300
41,562

188,999

24,573
14,221
35,172
107,758
171
43,621
132
3,368
200
50,898
1,811
21,823
51,318
25,280
13,526
1,616
26,550
964
32,425
369
145,943
156,316
691
242,958

563
976,458

8,779
22,574
1,822
805
2,231,022

72,248

1,346

14,137

105,817

AA
VAP
20,257
917,500
321,201
206,087
1,896,556
164,797
281,143
143,062
2,232,437
2,140,789
24,540
64,856
8,267
1,378,729
430,526
129,082
254,797
1,040,701
354,452
1,293,821
11,442
1,046,127
195,676
511,505
773,869
4,133
1,536,233
6,302
60,954
12,839
933,354
37,145
173,233
2,442,295
1,048,613
216,073
61,380
1,045,246
51,527
953,961
7,810
771,351
2,196,259
22,683
1,192,554
5,276
207,299
252,719
52,816
4,403
29,138,677

AA Disf.
Rate
7.26%
14.98%
7.89%
11.20%
4.12%
4.03%
3.31%
8.27%
23.32%
7.47%
1.02%
6.90%
7.80%
2.03%
2.39%
4.53%
22.34%
6.76%
0.93%
3.21%
0.00%
2.35%
7.27%
6.88%
13.92%
4.14%
2.84%
2.10%
5.52%
1.55%
5.45%
4.87%
12.60%
2.10%
2.41%
6.26%
2.63%
2.54%
1.87%
3.40%
4.73%
18.92%
7.12%
3.05%
20.37%
0.00%
4.24%
8.93%
3.45%
18.29%
7.66%

18

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

REFERENCES
Behrens, Angela, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza. 2003. “Ballot Manipulation
and the ‘Menace of Negro Domination’: Racial Threat and Felon
Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-2002.” American Journal of
Sociology 109:559-605.
Florida Department of Corrections. 2010. “2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study:
Releases from 2001 to 2008.” Florida Department of Corrections: Bureau of
Research and Data Analysis.
Manza, Jeff and Christopher Uggen. 2006. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement
and American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manza, Jeff, Clem Brooks, and Christopher Uggen. 2004. “Public Attitudes toward
Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” Public Opinion Quarterly
68:275-86.
Porter, Nicole D. 2010. “Expanding the Vote: State Felony Disenfranchisement
Reform, 2010.” The Sentencing Project, Washington DC.
Shannon, Sarah, Christopher Uggen, Melissa Thompson, Jason Schnittker, and
Michael Massoglia. 2011. “Growth in the U.S. Ex-Felon And Ex-Prisoner
Population, 1948 to 2010.” Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meetings of
the Population Association of America.
Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza, and Melissa Thompson. 2006. “Citizenship,
Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders.” Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science 605:281-310.
Uggen, Christopher and Jeff Manza. 2002. “Democratic Contraction? The Political
Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” American
Sociological Review 67:777-803.

19

STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Uggen is currently supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Health
Investigator Awards Program.