The Right to Vote and
Ex-Felon Disenfranchisement
in Tennessee

A Report of the
Tennessee Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

June 2014

Letter of Transmittal
Tennessee Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
The Tennessee Advisory Committee issues this report on voting rights and ex-felon disenfranchisement as part of its
responsibility to study and report on civil rights issues in Tennessee. This report was adopted by a vote of9 yes to 0
no at a meeting of the Committee on April21, 2014.
Tennessee's disenfranchisement of ex-felons is one ofthe most restrictive in the nation. Tennessee is one of eleven
states nationwide that permanently disenfranchise citizens from voting. This lifetime ban on voting means that in
Tennessee ex-felons may not vote even after such individuals have fully completed their sentences and satisfied all
related terms and conditions of such sentences. The Tennessee Advisory Committee independently estimates that in
the past thirty years approximately 160,000 Tennessee citizens have been banned from exercising the right to vote
following completion of all terms of their sentences. Although under current state law it is possible for certain exfelons to have their civil rights restored, the Tennessee Advisory Committee found that the process for regaining the
right to vote in Tennessee tends to be both lengthy and complicated-in some instances prohibitively so.
In addition to its lifetime ban on voting rights, Tennessee is one of five states nationwide that make persons
convicted of certain offenses permanently ineligible from ever seeking to have their voting rights restored and it is
one of three states nationwide that apply such permanent bar against restoration to a wide range of offenses. For
these individuals, the return to society is without the opportunity or hope of ever being eligible to seek restoration of
the right to vote. Of particular concern to the Committee is its fmding that the Tennessee ex-felon
disenfranchisement statutes tend to have a disparate impact on African Americans, who make up nearly one-half of
the prison population but only approximately 17 percent of the state's population.
Finally, the Committee finds that the Tennessee law governing restoration of ex-felon voting rights is cumbersome
and complicated. In the last 30 years, a series of amendments to the state's ex-felon disenfranchisement laws have
established a complex statutory scheme for post-1981 convictions as new crimes were added in 1986, 1996 and
2006 for which voting rights can never be restored. Whether an individual is eligible to seek restoration depends not
only upon the type of offense, but also on the particular year the person was convicted, as well as several additional
requirements added in 2006.
Laws that promote the reintegration of ex-felons into society may further the important public policies of
discouraging recidivism and encouraging ex-felons to become productive citizens of society-benefits that accrue to
all Tennesseans. The Tennessee Advisory Committee suggests that the Tennessee General Assembly and Governor
consider the experiences of other states that have ex-felon disenfranchisement statutes that are less restrictive in their
application and the removal of unnecessary barriers to voting rights restoration in order to promote the reintegration
of ex-felons into society after they have served their sentences.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Di Ianni
Chair, Tennessee Advisory Committee

Tennessee Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Chair
Diane Di Ianni
Nashville

Members of the Voting Rights Sub-Committee
J. Gregory Grisham
Collierville

Brian Fitzpatrick
Nashville

Other Members of the Committee
Tiffany Cox
Nashville

John Harris
Murfreesboro

Jean Howard-Hill
Chattanooga

Nika Jackson
Cordova

Jason (Drew) Johnson
East Point

Bernie Miller
Chattanooga

Christopher Sanders
Nashville

Gail S. Seavey
Nashville

Eliud Trevino
Nashville

Table of Contents

;

CONTENTS

I.

Introduction ... .. .... .... ...... .... ... ..... .... ......... .... .... .. ......... ........ ..... .. .. .... ...... .. ... ..... .. ... ... .... .. ... ..... 1

II.

Ex-Felon Voting Ban in Tennessee Compared to Other States ...................... ... ... .... .... ...... .2

III.

Ex-Felons Banned from Voting in Tennessee .......................................... ........ ................... 6

IV.

Tennessee's Ex-Felon Voting Ban Challenged in Federal Court ..... ...... ......... ..... ............. 12

V.

Public Officials Offer Their Opinions Regarding Ex-Felon Voting Rights ...................... 13

VI.

Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................... .................. 17

Technical Notes ....... ... .. ... ............ ...... ..... .... ......... .... .. ...................... .... .. .. .... ...... ...... .... .. ......... ....... 19
Appendix 1: Restrictions on Voting Rights for Ex-Felons in States without
Lifetime Bans ......... ................ .. ..................... ...... .... ... ....... ..... ..... ....... ..... ... ..... .... ........... .... 21
Appendix 2: Restrictions on Voting Rights for Ex-Felons in States with Lifetime
Bans ................................................................................................................ ..... .......... .... .25
Appendix 3: 2006 Tennessee Public Law to Restore Voting Rights ...... .......... .............. ............... 28

TABLES
Table 1: Restrictions on Voting Rights for Ex-Felons in States with Lifetime Bans ..................... .4
Table 2: Restrictions on Voting Rights for Ex-Felons in States without Lifetime
Bans .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Number of Ex-Felons in Tennessee whose voting rights have been
restored, by year: 2000- 2012 ...................................................................................................... 11
Table T1: Number of .Felons Released from Tennessee Prisons for 30-Year
Period: 1981-2010 ....................................... .... ............................ ......... ................................. ......... 19
Table T2: Estimate of Number of Released Felons from Tennessee Prisons Who
Have Not Returned to Prison for 30-Year Period: 1981-2010 ........ ...... ........ ......... .. .. .. .. ...... .. ....... 20

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

Addressing voting rights issues has been an important focus of the U. S. Commission on Civil
Rights (Commission) and its state advisory committees since the Commission's establishment in
1957. Most recently, in 2001 the Commission conducted a series of hearings to examine voting
irregularities in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election1, and in 2012 the Commission
issued a report regarding the impact of Voting Rights Act on re-districting.2
Tennessee is one of eleven states that permanently disenfranchises ex-felons from voting even
after they have fully completed their sentences. In fact, for certain enumerated crimes, ex-felons
are banned for life from seeking formal petition for re-enfranchisement. This is in contrast to
voting procedures for the vast majority of states, where the right to vote is either restored upon
release from incarceration or upon full completion of sentence-generally defined as including
all terms of incarceration, probation and parole.
The law on restoration of voting rights in Tennessee seems to be particularly complicated. In the
last 30 years, a series of amendments to the state's felon disenfranchisement state laws have
established different restrictions for post-1981 convictions. In particular, new crimes were added
in 1986, 1996 and 2006 for which voting rights can never be restored. Restoration therefore
depends both upon the year a person was convicted as well as the type of offense.
Of particular interest to the Tennessee Advisory Committee, African-Americans seem to be
adversely impacted by the Tennessee ex-felon disenfranchisement laws. African Americans
comprise only about 17 percent of the general population in the state, yet they are about one-half
of the prison population. 3
In recent years two other state advisory committees to the Commission have examined voting
rights for ex-felons. In 2009 the Florida Advisory Committee reported on the issue and noted that
as African Americans make up nearly one-half of the prison population but only about 15

1

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election (June
2001).
2

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Redistricting and the 2010 Census: Enforcing Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
(September 2012).

3

The Committee did not undertake a statistical analysis of disparate impact based upon actual offenses and
demographics of the state ex-felon population. Rather, its concern that the law has a disparate impact by race is
based solely on the fact that African Americans make up 17 percent of the state's population and nearly half of the
prison population.

2

percent of the state's population, the state's ex-felon voting ban has a disparate impact on
minorities. 4
The Kentucky Advisory Committee to the Commission also examined the issue of ex-felon
voting rights-noting in its study that the state's lifetime voting ban for ex-felons, similar to
Florida law, is established by the state's Constitution. According to the Kentucky Committee,
although former felons may have their voting rights resorted through executive pardon by the
Governor, the effect of the ban has a discernible adverse impact on African Americans and the
clemency process has become politicized. 5
This study by the Tennessee Advisory Committee follows from a briefing before the Committee
in Nashville, on August 16, 2012, on voting rights for ex-felons. 6 In addition to hearing that the
state of Tennessee had a constitutional provision that barred persons convicted of felonies from
voting, members of the Committee also heard from persons directly affected by the constitutional
ban. This report is a summary statement by the Tennessee Advisory Committee on the issue of
ex-felon voting rights in Tennessee. It should be noted that the Tennessee Advisory Committee
did not view its charge as issuing a legal opinion as to the constitutionality of the current
Tennessee law under applicable legal standards.

II.

EX-FELON VOTING BAN IN TENNESSEE COMPARED TO
OTHER STATES
A.

Eleven States-Including Tennessee-Have Lifetime Voting Bans

Absent a specific act of clemency or restoration of civil rights, eleven states including Tennessee
have lifetime bans on ex-felons excluding them from exercising the right to vote and participate
in the democratic process. 7 Article I, section 5, of the Tennessee Constitution reads: 8

4

Florida Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Ex-Felon Voting Rights in Florida: Revised
Rules ofExecutive Clemency That Automatically Restore Civil Rights to Level-l Offenders is the Right Policy
(September 2009).

5

Kentucky Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Voting Rights in Kentucky: Felons Who
Have Completed All Terms of Their Sentences Should Have the Right to Vote (September 2009).
6

Records of the briefing are available from the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

7

Table I and Appendix 2.

8

Tenn. Const. art. 1, § 5.

3

The elections shall be free and equal, and the right of suffrage, as hereinafter declared, shall never be
denied to any person entitled thereto, except upon a conviction by a jury of some infamous crime,
previously ascertained and declared by law, and judgment thereon by court of competent jurisdiction.

Moreover, Tennessee, along with Alabama and Delaware, is one of only a few states in the
nation that permanently ban voting rights for certain enumerated offenses. 9 In Tennessee, not
only is an ex-felon barred from voting unless he or she successfully seeks restoration, but for
certain offenses there is lifetime ineligibility from ever seeking and obtaining voting rights
restoration. Persons convicted of certain felony offenses including murder, rape, treason, sexual
offenses involving a minor victim, voter fraud, bribery, misconduct involving public officials
and employees, or interference with government operations are permanently ineligible to vote. 10
Among the other states with permanent bans on ex-felons voting, in four states voting rights may
only be restored through an individual petition or application. Those states are Florida, Iowa,
Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Similar to Tennessee, voting rights restoration in five states is dependent on the type of
conviction and/or the outcome of an individual petition or application for clemency. Those states
are Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, and Wyoming.
In Arizona voting rights restoration is dependent on the number of convictions (more than one
felony), and the right to vote can be restored through a judge if pardoned as well as by the
Governor.
In Alabama, there is a permanent ban for impeachment, murder, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse,
incest, sexual torture, enticing a child to enter a vehicle for immoral purposes, soliciting a child
by computer, production of obscene matter involving a minor, production of obscene matter,
parents or guardians permitting children to engage in obscene matter, possession of obscene
matter, possession with intent to distribute child pornography, or treason. In Delaware the
permanent ban is for murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, or offenses against public
administration. 11

9

The other two states are Missouri and Nebraska. See Table 2, Note 1.

10

Tenn. Code Ann.§ 40-20-112 and 40-29-202.

11

Table 1 and Appendix 2.

4

Table 1: Restrictions on Voting Rights for Ex-Felons in States with Lifetime Bans 12
Board of Parole/Probation
Restores Voting Rights

Executive Pardon Restores
Voting Rights

County Board of Elections
Restores Voting Rights
Delaware 1

Alabama 1

Arizona

Tennessee1

Florida

Wyoming2

Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi
Nevada
Tennessee1
Virginia

Source: Tennessee Advisory Committee.
Note I: In Alabama, Delaware, and Tennessee there is a permanent ban on voting for certain offenses.
Note 2: In Wyoming, the Board of Parole may restore voting rights only for first-offenders.

In Mississippi ex-felons are banned for life from voting, but under the state's Constitution may

have their voting rights restored by executive pardon or by a vote of two-thirds of both
legislative houses. 13 In Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada and Virginia, the Governor has executive power
to grant clemency. 14
In Florida the Governor and Cabinet collectively comprise the Clemency Board, which has the
authority to grant executive pardons. 15 In Alabama and Nevada the states' correctional system
has the authority to grant clemency, while in Delaware the local Board of Elections is vested
with the power. 16

12

See Appendix 2 for statutory sources.

13

Ibid.

14

Ibid.

15

Ibid.

161bid.

5

Table 2: Restrictions on Votine Rights for Ex-Felons in States without Lifetime Bans 17

No Prohibitions
On Voting

Incarcerated
Individuals Can
Not Vote

Incarcerated
Individuals and
Persons on Parole
Can Not Vote

Ex-Felons Prohibited
from Voting Until
Sentence is Fully
Complete

Prohibited From Voting
Until Specified Years
Have Elapsed After
Sentence

Maine

Hawaii

California

Alaska

Nebraska)

Vermont

Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota

Colorado
Connecticut
New York

Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri 1

Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah

New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Source: Tennessee Advisory Committee.
Note 1: In Missouri, persons convicted of either felony or misdemeanor offenses connected with the exercise of the
right of suffrage are permanently disqualified from voting. In Nebraska, persons convicted of treason are
permanently disqualified from voting.

In 13 states, former felons are allowed to vote as soon as they are released from prison. In four
states, California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York, ex-felons may vote after they are no
longer incarcerated but only after they have completed all terms of their parole. In 19 states there
is a similar restriction, extending until all terms of the sentence including parole have been
completed, e.g., restitution, community service.l8

17

See Appendix 1 for statutory sources.

18

Table 2.

6

III.

EX-FELONS BANNED FROM VOTING IN TENNESSEE
A.

State Ex-Felon Disenfranchisement Rooted in 1835 Constitution

The first Constitution of the state of Tennessee was written in Knoxville during the winter of
1796, the year the state was created from the geographic area known as the Southwest Territory.
Rather than being put before the state's citizens for adoption and ratification, it was approved by
Congress. The first constitution embedded virtually complete control of state government to the
legislative branch, thus undercutting the established principle of "balance of power" at the
federal level. This fact and others led to the call for a constitutional convention to revise the
state's Constitution. 19
The state's second constitutional convention met in Nashville during the spnng of 1834.
Stemming from the convention, a new constitution was approved and ratified by a vote of the
citizens in March 1835. Unlike the state's first Constitution, which was silent on voting rights for
ex-felons, article I, section 5, of the new constitution introduced the state ban on voting for
persons convicted of a felony. 20 The new constitution separately barred almost all African
American citizens from voting. 21
The 1835 Constitution would remain intact until 1870, when following the Civil War delegates
met in 1869 to amend the constitution to allow for Tennessee to re-enter the Union. The state's
third constitution was ratified by the people in 1870. The 1870 constitution stood unchanged
until1953, when it was first amended. Further amendments followed in 1960, 1966, 1978, 1998,
and 2006. 22 From 1835 through the amended constitution in 1869 and subsequent amendments,
the ex-felon voting provision has remained ensconced and unchanged.

19

Tennessee Blue Book, 2011-12, p. 536.

20

Although the Committee did not conduct historical research, at least one commentator noted that freed slaves
could vote in Tennessee prior to the 1834 second constitutional convention. These changes were ratified in 1835,
and that the period was marked by anti-Black sentiments sweeping the region following the 1831 Virginia slave
rebellion. See "Introduction: A Profile ofAfrican Americans in Tennessee History, "
http://library3. tnstate.edu/1 ibrary/DlGITAL/docum nt. htrn .
21

1834 TENN. CONST., art. 4, sec.l.

22

Tennessee Blue Book, 2011-12, p. 536.

7

B.

Statutory History

Tennessee's constitutional ban on voting by ex-felons is implemented through statutes. Under
the current statutes, a felony conviction suspends the right to vote, hold public office, serve on a
jury, and possess a frrearm. 23 Those state statutes allow certain felony offenders to apply to the
Board of Probation and Parole for voting restoration upon completion of sentence?4 All
convicted felony offenders are ineligible to vote while incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.
Individuals convicted of a felony since 1981 may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole to
have their voting rights restored once their sentence is completed. 25
All court-ordered restitution must be paid, and a convicted person must also be current in child
support obligations. Felons must also secure signatures to a Certification of Restoration that then
must be approved by the State Election Commission (see below). Once they have met the
criteria, like all other citizens, former felons must obtain a government issued ID in order to vote.
But persons convicted of certain other felony offenses including murder, rape, treason, sexual
offenses involving a minor victim, voter fraud, bribery, misconduct involving public officials
and employees, or interference with government operations are permanently ineligible to vote. 26

C.

How the Current Statute Operates

In 2006, after targeted legislative advocacy and broad organizational and bipartisan support,
Public Chapter 860 was enacted into law. The intent of the new legislation was to require
administrators of elections to enter persons on the voter rolls upon verification of their
23

TENN. CONST. art. 1, § 5; TENN. CODE. ANN. §40-20-112 (West 2012).

24

TENN. CODE. ANN. § 40-29-202 .

25

Although the process for restoration prior to 1981 was not part of the Committee's examination, it appears that
from the first enacted statutes in 1851 and 1858 through 1981, restoration of the rights of citizenship was by petition
to the circuit court after 3 years from conviction (or 6 months for lesser crimes) upon a showing of good character
(honesty, respectability and veracity), among other things. See Code 1858, §1994 (deriv. Acts 1851-1852, ch. 30,
§1); Shan., §3635; Code 1932, §7183.)
26

/d. § 40-29-204. Specifically, voting rights may not be restored if a person has been convicted of one of the
following felonies (during the specified time period): (1) first-degree murder (if convicted between July 1, 1986 and
July 1, 1996 or if convicted after July 1, 2006);(2) aggravated rape (if convicted between July 1, 1986 and July 1,
1996 or if convicted after July 1, 2006); (3) treason (if convicted after July 1,1986); (4) voter fraud (if convicted
after July 1,1986); (5) any degree of murder (if convicted after July 1,1996); (6) any degree of rape (if convicted
after July 1, 1996); (7) offenses against administration of government, i.e., bribery, misconduct of a public official,
and interference with government operations (if convicted after July 1,2006); and(8) any sexual offense or violent
sexual offenses designated as a felony where the victim was a minor (if convicted after July 1,2006).

8

certificates of restoration, and also require the person receiving a certificate of restoration to pay
all costs associated with the restoration process. An additional intent of the legislation was to
encourage sentencing courts, the department of correction, and the board of probation and parole
to require their officials to explain citizenship restoration procedures to non-violent offenders
who are being release or discharged. 27
If determined to be eligible, there is then a multi-step process that the ex-felon must initiate to
regain his/her right to vote. The process obligates the ex-felon to:
( 1) secure a form called a Certificate of Restoration;
(2) have the Certificate of Restoration signed by his/her probation or parole officer, or other
incarcerating or pardoning authority, certifying that all probation and parole requirements
have been completed;
(3) have the Certificate of Restoration signed by the Circuit or Criminal Court Clerk, or his
or her agent, certifying that all court-ordered restitution has been paid in full; and
(4) return the completed Certificate ofRestoration to the local election commission.
After the signed and competed Certificate of Restoration has been presented to the local election
commission, local and state election officials must take three actions on each presented and
signed Certificate ofRestoration.
(1) The local election commission sends the Certificate of Restoration to the state election
commission office to certify that all court-ordered child support payments are current and
that the Certificate of Restoration has been completed correctly and fully.
(2) The state election commission office in tum sends notice to the local election commission
office certifying that the Certificate ofRestoration has been approved or denied.
(3) the local election commission sends a letter to the individual that informs the ex-felon
that his/her Certificate ofRestoration has been approved or denied.
When the Certificate of Registration is approved, the individual must return to the local election
commission to complete a voter registration form.

27

TN. B. Summ., 2006 Reg. Sess. S. B. 1678.

9

D.

Criticism of the Current Statute

The restoration process has drawn criticism. Reporting on the issue, the ACLU of Tennessee
charged that most election officials do not know or understand the law. Further, the multiple
requirements for eligibility are extremely burdensome on the applicant and on relevant state
agencies. As such, the process often acts to deter many who could be eligible to vote from doing
so. In addition, the ACLU reported inconsistency on the part of state and local officials regarding
the notification of individuals with felony convictions as to when they were disenfranchised as
well as to when they were returned to the voting rolls. 28
In conducting its study, the ACLU surveyed all 95 local election commission officials to learn
the level of knowledge and understanding of the requirements for registering to vote those
individuals with a felony conviction. The intent of the study was to ascertain whether the staff of
each election commission office understood and could explain to formerly incarcerated
individuals the steps they must take to register to vote.
The survey found that local election officials, whose job it is to assist eligible individuals to
register, had difficulty understanding and accurately applying the state's disenfranchisement
policies. According to the ACLU, "although the State Election Commission was informed of the
impending survey and every local office received written notification, there were an alarmingly
high number of incorrect, inaccurate, and incomplete answers." 29
The Committee also heard concerns about procedural barriers. to restoration from several
sources, including a legislative leader30 , an ex-felon31 , and an attorney with years of experience
in assisting numerous eligible ex-felons in obtaining re-enfranchisement. 32 Such concerns
included, among others, the lack of access to court records necessary to establish compliance
with restitution requirements and those relating to financial hardship in having to pay
accumulated child support prior to seeking re-enfranchisement. In addition, there are a number of

28

ACLU of Tennessee, Addressing Barriers to the Ballot Box: Registering to Vote in Tennessee with a Past Felony
Conviction, Executive Summary (September 2008).

29

Ibid., p. 6.

30

Senate Minority Leader Jim Kyle, interview in Nashville, TN, Dec. 19, 2012.

31

Alex Friedmann, associate director, Human Rights Defense Center, letter to Tennessee Advisory Committee,
Jan. 28, 2013.

32

Charles K. Grant, interview in Nashville, TN, Jan. 29, 2013.

10

empirical studies that offer some support for the view that policies that facilitate the reintegration
of ex-felons help reduce the rate of recidivism. 33
Addressing such concerns, the Tennessee Advisory Committee discussed the issue with Mark
Goins, Elections Coordinator for the State of Tennessee. Mr. Goins noted that although there
have been discussions about the Tennessee law in his office, such discussions for the most part
deal with issues oflegal compliance. 34
Mr. Goins told the Committee that the Tennessee felon voting rights law was amended in 2006
to add new categories of felony convictions that would confer lifetime ineligibility on certain
felons for offenses including sexual crimes against children and government official misconduct
while in office. The new law also provides some streamlining of the restoration process. He
noted that after the changes to the law in 2006, more individuals seeking the restoration of their
voting rights were denied-for instance in 2007 and 2008-than had been denied during earlier
periods. According to data supplied by his office, more individuals also saw their voting rights
restored in 2008 and 2009 than during earlier periods.
Asked about the number of people who seek restoration through his office, Mr. Goins responded
that local offices see a lot of foot traffic and that in addition paperwork is forwarded by probation
officers. He noted that there are two avenues through which ex-felons may have their voting
rights restored. One is through the Elections Office; and a second avenue is through the court
system. 35
He said that his agency had the highest number of requests to restore voting rights in 2008. In his
opinion, this was prompted by a coordinated push by organizations to get residents registered
during that year's presidential election. Although his office prepared for a similar increase in
petitions for 2012 by conducting across-the-board training, the organization-backed push did not
materialize during that election cycle. 36

33

Manza, Jeff and Christopher Uggen in Civil Penalty. Social Consequence (Routledge, 2005), pp. 78 and 83
wherein the authors state that "criminologists and sociologists have long noted the rehabilitative potential for deviant
decertification or reintegrative ceremony [and conclude] that although there is no systematic body of evidence,
early studies suggest that facilitating civic reintegration of offenders will ultimately hasten their desistence from
crime." See also B. Miller, "Civil Death: An examination of ex-felon disenfranchisement and reintegration,"
Punishment & Society Journal, vol. 14, no. 4 (October 2012), pp. 402-428, wherein the author finds "that for a
significant number of ex-felons losing voting rights poses obstacles to successful reintegration."
34

Mark Goins, elections coordinator for the State of Tennessee, interview in Nashville, TN, Jan. 15,2013.

35

Ibid.

36

Ibid.

11

When asked to clarify reasons that restoration applications are sometimes denied, Mr. Goins
noted that there are no subjective criteria for voter restoration. Specifically, the staff in this office
only see the end of the paperwork process, i.e., the Certificate of Restoration. That form is
typically completed in the field by parole or probation officers or correctional facility staff.
Nevertheless and although his office does not therefore have specific information about that part
of the process, Mr. Goins said he does not believe that there is any reason for concern about
whether ex-felons are being properly advised about the process for restoration of voting rights.
He acknowledged that while he has heard complaints about the complicated process from
persons not directly affected such as persons paid per registration form, he has not heard
complaints from former felons on this point. Moreover, he added that according to press reports
following a 2009 review of voting records covering a period of 10 to 20 ye;:rrs, thousands of
ineligible felons were found on the voting rolls due to inaccurate filling out of forms-although
only about 20 percent had actually voted. 37
Table 3: Number of Ex-Felons in Tennessee whose voting rights have been restored, by
year: 2000 - 2012
Year

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Number

137

135

523

340

577

299

502

543

2,483

682

729

373

921

Source: Tennessee Election Commission

Regarding a possible disparate impact on minority voters, Mr. Goins said it is difficult to
determine with accuracy. He explained that while there is an option to indicate race on voter
registration forms in the State, many applicants simply choose to not provide the information.
There is a similar situation with respect to restoration. The Elections Office does not know about
the racial demographics of voting restoration applicants because it does not seek data on race in
connection with voter rights restoration. He explained that the felon voting rights restoration
form, which was updated in 2011 and again in 2012, does not have a box to indicate race. So
such information on race is not collected. 38

E.

An Estimated 160,000 Persons Disenfranchised in Tennessee

Estimates vary on the number of disenfranchised ex-felons in the state. For example, the
Sentencing Project reports that as many as 247,808 ex-felons were disenfranchised in the state
37

Ibid.

38

Ibid.

12

from 1990 to 2010. 39 The ACLU in its report on ex-felon disenfranchisement in the state gave
an estimate of 94,000 persons. 40
The Tennessee Advisory Committee independently estimates that approximately 160,000 former
offenders in the state may be disenfranchised. To obtain its estimate, the Committee acquired the
number of persons released from Tennessee prisons for the 30-year period, 1981-2010. The
Committee then obtained recidivism rates from the Tennessee Department of Corrections.
Adding the number of released ex-felons over the last 30 years and controlling for recidivism,
the Tennessee Advisory Committee estimates 161,361 persons are currently disenfranchised in
the state. (A detailed description of the methodology used by the Committee to obtain its
estimate is set out in the Technical Notes to this report.)

IV.

TENNESSEE'S EX-FELON VOTING BAN CHALLENGED IN
FEDERAL COURT

Generally, the United States Constitution permits the disenfranchisement of ex-felons. 41 This
permission is explicitly expressed in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment and has been affirmed by
the United States Supreme Court in Richardson v. Ramirez. 42 Nevertheless, in its opinion in
Hunter v. Underwoo~ 3 , the Supreme Court found that the Alabama Constitution's criminal
disenfranchisement provision passed in 1901 was motivated by racially discriminatory intent,
and as the law would not have been enacted at that time without the racially discriminatory intent
it therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause. In Hunter (Rehnquist, J.), the Court held that
irrespective of intervening events since enactment, where a law's original enactment was
impermissibly motivated by a desire to discriminate on account of race and continuing racially
discriminatory impact of the laws is demonstrated, equal protection is violated. 44
Convicted felons Terrence Johnson, Jim Harris, Alexander Friedmann, and Joshua Roberts
brought suit in 2008 against state and local officials seeking to invalidate portions of the
Tennessee Code enacted in 2006 that conditioned the restoration of their voting rights upon their

39

JeffManza, Sarah Shannon, and Christopher Uggen, State-Level Estimates offelon Disenfranchisement in the
United States, 2010, The Sentencing Project, July 2012, p. 14.

°Citing Uggen and Manza, Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy, pp. 248-250.

4

41

U.S. CONST. 14TH AMENDMENT,§ 2.

42

418

43

Hunterv. Underwood, 471 U .S. 222 (1985).

44

!d.

u.s. 24, 54 (1974).

13

payment of certain financial obligations, namely restitution and child support. The plaintiffs
sought both declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court held that: (1) the ex-felon voting provision was subject to rational-basis review; (2) the
provision did not create a suspect classification; (3) the provision did not violate equal
protection; (4) the provision did not violate the 24th Amendment; and (5) the provision did not
violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the district court erred in rejecting their challenges under
the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred
by testing their equal protection challenge using the rational basis test, rather than strict scrutiny,
because the re-enfranchisement statute: (1) burdens their fundamental right to vote; and (2)
improperly discriminates against the indigent. Reviewing the case de novo, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the ruling by the district court in a two to one decision. 45

V.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS OFFER THEIR OPINIONS REGARDING EXFELON VOTING RIGHTS

The Tennessee Advisory Committee formally solicited opinions on the state's ex-felon statute
from the Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey, Senate Minority Leader Jim Kyle, and House
Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh. 46

A.

Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey

In speaking to the issue of ex-felon voting rights, Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey said that in his view
there are certain felonies where one loses a privilege and does not get it back, but it is not
something upon which he could make a blanket statement. Rather, it might be appropriate to
consider the matter on a case-by-case basis for lesser felonies. For example, a person could go
before a judge or parole board to get his or her right to vote restored. 47 He noted by way of
example that a 1970s offense for marijuana might not be appropriate for loss of voting rights.
Asked whether in his view the public policy behind the law is to discourage crime, the Lt.
Governor said he did not think that taking away people's voting rights serves as a deterrent to

45

Terrence Johnson, Jim Harris, and Joshua Roberts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Phil Bredsen, Governor of the State
of Tennessee 624 F3d 742 (6th Cir., 201 0). (Alexander Friedmann was not involved in the appeal.)

46

In addition to the interviews cited in this report, during the open comment period the Committee received and
considered opinion from organizations and private individuals.

47

Ron Ramsey, Lieutenant Governor, State of Tennessee, interview in Nashville, TN, Dec. 13, 2012.

14

crime in any way. "When people are thinking about committing a felony, they do not stop and
think about the punishment. " 48
Asked whether the reintegration of ex-felons into society has a role to play in considering the
issue of voting rights restoration, the Lt. Governor generally agreed that this is a valid
consideration. He emphasized, though, that any such return of voting rights should only occur in
cases where the ex-felon has earned it. By way of example, he suggested that earning it might
require that a person wait three or five years before getting back the right to vote. He explained
that requiring ex-felons to earn back the right to vote provides the individual with an incentive to
pursue rehabilitation. 49
Asked about recent changes to the law adding certain offenses that fall within the lifetime ban,
(for example, certain sex crimes); the Lt. Governor stated that he did not know the reason behind
it. Also asked about the justification to extend the loss of voting rights beyond the time spent in
jail, the Lt. Governor said that in his opinion "it depends on what you do." He noted, "a violent
crime using a firearm is clearly one thing; but which specific felonies are or are not applicable to
losing the right to vote after time spent in jail was not on [his] radar screen. " 50
Asked whether politics or race played a role behind taking away felons' voting rights, the Lt.
Governor maintained the current policy has nothing to do with party politics or race. He stressed
that "the thought of either playing a role had never entered [his] mind .... " Essentially, when all
is said and done, the rationale for the current Tennessee law is simply punishment." 51

B.

Senate Minority Leader, Jim Kyle

Senate Minority Leader Jim Kyle was informed that the Committee was examining whether the
current ex-felon statute in Tennessee unfairly denies the right to vote on the basis of race, color,
religion, gender, national origin or disability. Senator Kyle was asked about recently sponsored
bills that carried permanent lifetime voting bans for certain felonies. 52
Senator Kyle explained that all bills relating to voting laws must go through the Senate and
House committees on State and Local Government. As to recent legislation adding certain crimes

48

Ibid.

49

Ibid.

50

Ibid.

51

Ibid.

52

Senator Jim Kyle, interview in Nashville, TN, Dec. 19, 2012.

15

to the permanent disenfranchisement list, he surmised that someone had asked the chairs of these
committees to sponsor the bills and noted that such a request might well have come from the
District Attorney General's Conference, the association of District Attorney Offices throughout
the State of Tennessee. The Senator also added that he was "not familiar with any debate on the
bills," nor did he "know what problem the bills were trying to fix." He surmised that, if asked,
his legislative colleagues likely would take the position that "some crimes are lifetime events and
they should have a lifetime reminder that what they did is wrong, and we should not pretend
otherwise." He referred to it as "a question of policy." As to his personal view on the subject, the
Senator indicated that he did not have a view. 53
Asked about disproportionate impact of the ex-felon voting ban on African American males in
Tennessee, Senator Kyle said he recognized that fact, and he later noted that no one in the
legislature ever would say that the issue of the ex-felon voting rights ban was one of race. He
said that, more than race, it is a cultural discrimination or bias that is in play based on such things
as socioeconomic factors and the rural-urban divide. To that, he added that the Tennessee
Advisory Committee should think more about the barriers making it difficult to vote rather than
the disproportionate number of people being affected. He later referred to available statistics on
disenfranchisement, stating that in Tennessee 16 percent of the population is African American,
while African Americans comprise 40 percent of those Tennesseans who are not allowed to vote.
He noted that there is a disparity as to who is in prison as well.
The Senator said that in his view the fact that there is statistical evidence that the ex-felon
provision has a disproportionate impact on minority voters would likely not be persuasive in the
Tennessee legislature. He emphasized instead that the more important question to consider with
respect to voting should be the "extraordinary walls" that get created "to prohibit people from
obtaining voting restoration." Sen. Kyle noted that wealthy people always will be in a position to
have their rights restored, and he stressed that the question that should be getting attention is the
procedural issue as to getting voting rights restored. 54 To this, he recounted an instance of a
person in Shelby County who attempted to register to vote while ineligible. That person was
actually prosecuted, even though there was a real question about whether the person had
knowledge of the ineligibility. 55
Asked whether the reintegration of ex-felons into society has a role to play in considering the
issue of voting rights restoration, Senator Kyle stated that he understood the position. He stressed
that his focus is on the "mechanism to rehabilitation." In other words, he believes that the focus

53

Ibid.

54

Ibid.

55

Ibid.

16

should be on finding an economical way or method for the restoration of rights. He suggested
that groups and citizens concerned about this issue should look at other states to determine what
they do, i.e., what kinds of persons do other states allow to seek rehabilitation and what are
some of the efficient and appropriate ways other states have developed to allow people to restore
their rights. He noted that "in Memphis there is much discussion of the issue because the law
probably affects more people there than elsewhere in the state." 56
When asked about the policy reasons to extend the loss of voting rights beyond the time served
in jail, Senator Kyle explained that "most Tennessee legislators do not believe [felons] have
served their time." Rather, he added, they believe that felons are simply "let out early due to
space constraints." He indicated that if someone has only served 30 or 40 percent of their
sentence, those in the Tennessee legislature "don't think they've done their time." Taking away
voting continues the punishment. 57

C.

House Minority Leader, Craig Fitzhugh

At the outset of the interview, House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh informed members of the
Tennessee Advisory Committee that there had been a recent change in Tennessee law regarding
expunging certain criminal records in order to enhance the ex-prisoner's ability to obtain gainful
employment, thereby facilitating and promoting the successful reintegration of released inmates
into society as law-abiding and productive citizens. Asked for his views on the subject,
Representative Fitzhugh stated that in his view once a person has served his sentence, paid
restitution, completed any period of parole, etc., at that point the individual has "paid for his
crime" and should be provided with a process by which to have his voting rights restored. He
expressed his agreement with the sentiment, "if society is willing to put you back into society,
why not let you vote. " 58
Asked his position on the current status of ex-felon voting rights in the state, Representative
Fitzhugh said that in his view there should be-as a general rule-no impediments to restoration
of voting rights once a person has paid his or her debt to society and has shown that they wish to
be reintegrated into society. He added, however, that he understood there might be exceptional
circumstances. For example, there might be repeat offenders who, as a practical matter due to
repeat convictions, have imposed on them what is tantamount to a lifetime ban. 59

56

Ibid.

57

Ibid.

58

Representative Craig Fitzhugh, interview in Nashville, TN, Dec. 6, 2012.

59

Ibid.

17

Asked about voter fraud and whether it rose to the sort of crime that should be distinguished as
appropriate for permanent disenfranchisement, Representative Fitzhugh first noted that the term
"voter fraud is a broadly construed term these days." To some, the term might encompass such
disparate conduct as an individual showing up at the wrong polling place without proper ID. To
another, the term might only apply to the serious matter of someone seeking to fraudulently
change the outcome of an election. Therefore, it was his opinion that, instead of making
distinctions between types of crimes, he would rather treat crimes of similar severity the same.
And the severity of the crime would be determined by the category of crime; for example a Class
A felony would be treated as any other Class A felony. 60
Asked about initiatives to reform or amend ex-felon voting laws in the state, Representative
Fitzhugh stated that he did not believe there would be any changes [reform] in this area of the
law in Tennessee in the coming legislative sessions. 61
When asked about the ex-felon voting ban issue as it relates to race, Representative Fitzhugh said
that in his view race was a factor. He indicated that he thought it was a fair assessment to link exfelon disenfranchisement with political efforts tending toward voter suppression, and he agreed
as well with the view that voting on "tough on crime bills" tends to be bi-partisan in nature. The
Leader concluded by emphasizing his views that once one has paid his or her debt to society, he
or she should be able to vote, a basic right, and that barring persons from voting treats them as
"second class citizens." People "should not have to jump through hoops" to be able to exercise
their right to vote, he added. 62

VI.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following findings and recommendations made through the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights to state and local officials are submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section
703.2(e) of the Commission's regulations calling upon Advisory Committees to "initiate and
forward advice and recommendations to the Commission upon matters which the State
Committee has studied."63

60

Ibid.

61

Ibid.

62

Ibid.

63

The findings and recommendation were adopted by a vote of9 yes and 0 no at a meeting of the Tennessee
Advisory Committee in Nashville, TN, on April21, 2014. Members Nika Jackson, Jason Johnson, and Mary
Howard-Hill were not present at the meeting.

18

Findings
1.

Current Tennessee disenfranchisement law is one of the most restrictive in the United
States. Tennessee is one of eleven states with a lifetime ban, one of five states that make
certain ex-felons permanently ineligible from ever seeking restoration of voting rights,
and one of three states that apply this permanent ineligibility to multiple offenses.

2.

Since 1981 there have been several amendments to the Tennessee disenfranchisement
statute that have tended to expand the scope of ex-felon disenfranchisement. These
amendments have been supported by law makers from both major political parties.

3.

While reportedly there is evidence that in the early 20th Century felon disenfranchisement
laws were motivated by a desire to keep African Americans from voting, the Committee
is not in a position to make any fmdings regarding motivation for the several recent
changes to the ex-felon disenfranchisement statutes. The Committee only notes that while
considerations of race, socio-economic status, and the rural-urban cultural divide were
mentioned, the more common suggestion was that such laws seek to impose additional
punishment for committee crimes. Any consideration of motive would need further study,
and as such is not part of this report

4.

The Committee finds evidence of disparate impact on African Americans as a result of
the state's ex-felon voting rights ban. As African Americans make up nearly one-half of
the prison population but only about 17 percent of the state's population, the operation of
the Tennessee statute tends to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans visa-vis other races.

5.

The Committee also learned of concerns regarding procedural and other obstacles to reenfranchisement, including, among others, the lack of access to court records necessary
to establish compliance with restitution requirements and those relating to financial
hardship in having to pay accumulated child support prior to seeking re-enfranchisement.

Recommendation
The Committee suggests that the Tennessee General Assembly and Governor consider the
experiences of other states that have ex-felon disenfranchise statutes that are less restrictive in
their application and remove unnecessary barriers to voting rights restoration in order to promote
the reintegration of ex-felons into society after they have served their sentences.
Laws that promote the reintegration of ex-felons into society may further the important public
policy of discouraging recidivism and of encouraging ex-felons to become productive citizens of
society-benefits that accrue to all Tennesseans.

19

TECHNICAL NOTES
The Tennessee Advisory Committee's estimate for the number of persons disenfranchised as a
result of the state's ban on ex-felon voting was computed in the following manner.
1. The Tennessee Advisory Committee obtained the number of persons released from
Tennessee prisons for the 30-year period, 1981-2010. Those numbers are shown in Table
Tl.
Table T1: Number of Felons Released from Tennessee Prisons for 30-Year Period: 19812010
1980-81

2,869

1986-87

5,663

1992-93

9,285

1998-99

12,683

2004-05

13,043

1981-82

3,213

1987-88

6,342

1993-94

8,559

1999-00

12,595

2005-06

14,289

1982-83

3,599

1988-89

7,103

1994-95

9,298

2000-01

12,508

2006-07

14,349

1983-84

4,031

1989-90

7,956

1995-96

11,039

2001-02

13,144

2007-08

15,567

1984-85

4,514

1990-91

8,175

1996-97

12,870

2002-03

12,568

2008-09

15,430

1985-86

5,056

1991-92

9,146

1997-98

12,624

2003-04

12,953

2009-10

15,144

Source: Tennessee Advisory Committee from Tennessee Department of Corrections data.

2. The Tennessee Advisory Committee obtained from the Department of Corrections the
recidivism rates for felons released between 2001 and 2007. The 4+ year, 5-year recidivism
rates from 2001 to 2004 are: 2001, 57.4; 2002, 55.9; 2003, 54.5; 2004, 51.3. The recidivism
rates for the 3-year period 2005 to 2007 are; 2005, 46.4; 2006, 39.8; 2007, 25.5. The rates
from 2005 to 2007 are declining because they only capture recidivism rates for 1, 2, and 3
years out of prison. As a result, as 2010 is 4+ years for 2005, 2006, and 2007 are estimated at
0.5; the recidivism rate for 2008 at 46.4; for 2009 at 39.6; and for 2010 at 25.5. Using the 4+
recidivism rate between 2001 and 2004 as a high estimate, an estimated recidivism rate of0.5
was used as an estimated recidivism rate for the years 1991 - 2000. To account for double
counting, an estimated recidivism rate of0.3 was used for the years 1981-1990.
3. The recidivism rate was multiplied against the release rate to determine an estimate for each
year of the number of released felons who did not return to prison. Those numbers are shown
in Table T2.

20

Table T2: Estimate of Number of Released Felons from Tennessee Prisons Who Have Not
Returned to Prison for 30-Year Period: 1981-2010
1980-81

2,008

1986-87

3,964

1992-93

4,643

1998-99

6,342

2004-05

6,352

1981-82

2,249

1987-88

4,440

1993-94

4,280

1999-00

6,298

2005-06

7,145

1982-83

2,519

1988-89

4,972

1994-95

4,649

2000-01

6,254

2006-07

7,175

1983-84

2,821

1989-90

5,569

1995-96

5,520

2001-02

5,599

2007-08

8,344

1984-85

3,160

1990-91

4,088

1996-97

6,435

2002-03

5,542

2008-09

9,320

1985-86

3,539

1991-92

4,573

1997-98

6,312

2003-04

5,894

2009-10

11,358

Source: Tennessee Adv1sory Committee from Tennessee Department of Correct10ns data.

4. The estimated number of released felons from Tennessee prisons who did not return to prison
over the 30-year period, 1981-2010, were summed. That total is 161,361, and is the
Committee's estimate of persons currently disenfranchised in the state. 64

64

Other estimates on the number of ex-felons disenfranchised in the state vary. For example, as previously reported
supra notes 19 and 20 other estimates range from 94,000 to 247,000 as to the number of persons disenfranchised in
the state.

Appendices

21

APPENDIX 1: RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING RIGHTS FOR EX-FELONS
IN STATES WITHOUT LIFETIME BANS
No Prohibitions on Voting65
Maine

ME. REV.STAT ANN tit 21(A) § 112(14) Persons incarcerated in correctional
facilities. Maine's statute restricting voter eligibility of convicted felons was
repealed by the legislature in 1975. See ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 247
(2011).

Vermont

17 V.S.A. § 2121. Eligibility ofvoters.
VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 28, § 807 (2012).

Incarcerated Individuals Can Not Vote 66
Hawaii

Haw. Const. art. 2, § 2.

Illinois

Ill. Const. art. III, § 2; 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3.5 (West 2012); 730 Ill.
Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-5-5(c) (West 2012).

Indiana

Ind. Const. art. 2, § 8; Ind. Code§§ 3-7-13-4 to -6 (2012).

Massachusetts

Mass. Const. art III; MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 51,§ 1 (West 2012).

Michigan

Convicted felony and misdemeanor offenders are disqualified from voting
while confined in jail or prison. MICH. CONST. ART 2, § 2; MICH. COMP. LAWS
§ 168.758b (2012).

Montana

Mont. Const. art. IV, § 2; MONT. CODE ANN. § 13-2-402. Reasons for
cancellation. (voter registration).

New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.§§ 607-A:2(l)(a), 654.5 (2012).
North Dakota

N.D. Const. art II,§ 2; N.D. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 12.1-33-01, -03 (West 2012).

Ohio

Ohio Const. art. 5, § 4; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2961.01(A) (West 2012).

Oregon

Or. Const. art II,§ 3; Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.281 (2012).

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Elections Statute provides that a convicted felony offender
who has been confined in a penal institution for within the last five years is not

65

As reported in Table 1.

66

Ibid.

22

Appendices

eligible to register to vote. 25 PA. CONS. STAT. § 1301(a) (2012). However, in
Mixon v. Com., 759 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000), aff'd, 783 A.2d 763 (Pa.
2001 ), this provision was ruled unconstitutional. The court held that there was
no rational basis for precluding these offenders from registering to vote when
those who were legally registered prior to incarceration could vote upon their
release. !d. at 451. Accordingly, only convicted felony offenders who are
incarcerated on the date of a primary or general election are precluded from
voting. See PENN. DEP'T OF STATE, VOTING RIGHTS OF CONVICTED FELONS,
CONVICTED MISDEMEANANTS AND PRE1RIAL DETAINEES 2, available at
http://www .pOital.state.pa.us/portallserver.pt/gateway/PTARGS 0 160329 77
3092 0 0 IS/Convicted felon brochure.pdf.

Rhode Island

R.I. Const. art 2, § 1; R.I. Gen. Laws Ann.§ 17-9.2-3 (West 2012).

Utah

Utah Const. art IV, § 6; Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-2-101(2)(b), -101.3, -101.5
(West 2012).

Incarcerated Individuals and Persons on Parole Can Not Vote 67
California

Cal. Const. art. II,§ 4; Cal. Elec. Code§§ 2201, 2212 (West 2012).

Colorado

Colo. Const. art. 7, § 10; Col. Rev. Stat. § 1-2-103(4) (2012).

Connecticut

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 9-45 (2012).

New York

N.Y. Const. art. II,§ 3; N.Y. Elec. Law§§ 5-106(2)- (5) (McKinney 2012).

Ex-Felons Prohibited from Voting until Sentence Is Complete 68
Alaska

Alaska Const. art. 5, § 2; Alaska Stat. §§ 12.55.185(18), 15.05.030(a),
33.30.241 (2012).

Arkansas

Ark. Const. art. 51,§ ll(a)(4).

Georgia

Ga. Const. art. II,§ 1 para. (III)(a); Ga. Code§ 21-2-216 (2012).

Idaho

Idaho Const. art. VI,§ 3; Idaho Code Ann.§ 18-310 (West 2012).

Kansas

Kansas Const. art. 5, § 2; Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-6613 (West 2012).

Louisiana

La Const. art. I,§ 10; La Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 18:102 (2012).

67

Ibid.

68

Ibid.

23

Appendices

Maryland

Md. Const. art I,§ 4; Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law§ 3-102(b)(1) (West 2013).

Minnesota

Minn. Const. art. VII,§ 1; Minn. Stat.§§ 609.165(1), 201.014(2) (2013).

Missouri

Convicted felony offenders are disqualified from voting while imprisoned or
on probation or parole. Mo. REv. STAT. § 115.133 (2011). Convicted
misdemeanants are disqualified from voting only while imprisoned. Id. Those
convicted of either felony or misdemeanor offenses "connected with the
exercise of the right of suffrage" are permanently disqualified from voting.
Mo. CONST. art VIII, § 2.

Nebraska

A convicted felon's right to vote is restored automatically two years after
completion of sentence, including period of parole and probation, for all
convictions except treason. NEB. CONST. art. VI, § 2; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29112,32-313 (2012). 69

New Jersey

N.J. Const. art II, § 1(7); N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:51-3(a), 19:4~1(8) (2012). If
disqualification from voting was imposed by the court as part of the
punishment for a criminal violation of election laws, the right to vote can only
be restored by pardon. ld. § 19:4-1(6), (7).

New Mexico

N.M. Const. art. VII,§ 1; N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 31-13-1 (2012).

North Carolina

N.C. Const. art. VI,§ 2(3); N.C. Gen. Stat.§§ 13-1, 165-55(a)(2) (2012).

Oklahoma

Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 4-101(1) (2012).

South Carolina

S.C. Const. art II, § 7; Imprisonment results in disqualification even if
conviction is for a misdemeanor offense. S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 7~5-120(8)(2),
(3)(2011).

South Dakota

On March 19, 2012, South Dakota enacted H.B. 1247, which removes voting
rights from convicted felons until completion of sentence. H.B. 1247, 87th
Leg. Assemb., (S.D. 2012). This legislation amended the state's statutes on
Registration of Voters, which previously precluded from voting only those
felony offenders currently incarcerated or on parole. S.D. CODIFIED LAWS§ 124-18 (2011).

69

Nebraska permanently denies the right to vote for persons convicted of treason. For persons convicted of other
crimes, the right to vote is restored automatically two years after completion of sentence, including period of parole
and probation.

Appendices

24

Texas

Tex. Const. art. 6, § 1(3); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 11.002(4) (West 2013).

Washington

Felony offenders must re-register to vote after completing all requirements of
their sentence including period of probation and parole. WASH. CONST. art. VI,
§ 3. The right to vote is provisionally restored when the offender is discharged
from the authority of the Department of Corrections, but may be revoked if the
sentencing court determines that they have willfully failed to meet any legal
financial obligations resulting from conviction. WASH. REv. CODE ANN. §§
29A.08.520(1), (2) (West 2013).

West Virginia

W.Va. Const. art. IV,§ 1; W.Va. Code§ 3-2-2(b) (2012).

Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. § 6.03(1)(b) (2012).

25

Appendices

APPENDIX 2: RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING RIGHTS FOR EX-FELONS
IN STATES WITH LIFETIME BANS 70
Alabama

A person convicted of a "felony of moral turpitude" is disqualified from voting
until his/her civil and political rights are restored. Ala. Const. art. VIII, § 177.
Upon completion of sentence, a disqualified person may apply to the Board of
Pardons and Paroles for a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote, Ala. Code
§ 17-3-31 (2012), so long as he/she was not convicted of impeachment, murder,
rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, incest, sexual torture, enticing a child to enter a
vehicle for immoral purposes, soliciting a child by computer, production of
obscene matter involving a minor, production of obscene matter, parents or
guardians permitting children to engage in obscene matter, possession of obscene
matter, possession with intent to distribute child pornography, or treason. !d. § 1522-36.1(g).

Arizona

Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2(c); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-904(A)(1), 16-101(5)
(2012). Voting rights for first-time felony offenders are automatically restored
upon completion of sentence, as well as payment of any monetary fines or
restitution. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-912. All other offenders may apply for
restoration of rights with the sentencing or discharging superior court judge. !d. §
13-905. The governor has the authority to grant pardons, except for convictions of
treason or impeachment, but his authority may be restricted by statute. Ariz.
Const. art. V, § 5; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31 -443. Pardons must first be
recommended by the Board of Executive Clemency. !d. § 31-402(A). The
governor is required to publish reasons for each pardon and must report to the
legislature at the beginning of each regular session. !d. §§ 31-445, 31-446.

Delaware

A convicted felon's right to vote may be restored five years after completion of
sentence and period of probation and parole upon application to the County Board
of Elections. Del. Const. art. V, § 2; Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, § 6103-05 (West
2012). This provision does not apply to certain serious offenses including murder,
manslaughter, sex offenses, or offenses against public administration. Del. Const.
art. V, § 2.

Florida

Fla. Const. art. VI, § 4(a); !d. at art. IV, § 8(a); Fla. Stat. §§ 98.075, 944.292(a)
(2012). The power to grant a pardon or restore civil rights following felony
convictions for offenses other than treason or impeachment is vested in the

70

As reported in Table 1.

26

Appendices

Governor, and requires approval of two members of the Cabinet. Fla. Stat. §§
940.01, -05.
Iowa

Iowa Const. art. II,§ 5; !d. at art. IV§ 16; Iowa Code Ann.§§ 48A.6, 914.2 (West
2012). Executive pardon by the Governor restores voting rights of an ex-felon.

Kentucky

Ky. Const. §§ 77, 145(1). Executive pardon by the Governor restores voting rights
of an ex-felon.

Mississippi

Disqualification from voting occurs only upon conviction by a state court of
certain identified felonies including murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining
money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy,
Miss. Const. art. 12, § 241, as well as armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check,
felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny,
unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, and carjacking, see Op. Miss.
Att'y. Gen. No. 2004-0171 (Karrem, Apr. 23, 2004). Voter eligibility may be
regained by executive pardon, Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-41 (West 2012), or by a
two-thirds vote of both houses, Miss. Const. art. 12, § 253. Individuals
disqualified from voting in the state remain eligible to vote in federal elections.
!d. § 241.

Nevada

Nev. Const. art. 2, § 1. The right to vote is automatically restored to first-time
offenders charged with most non-violent felonies following completion of
sentence. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 155, 213.157 (2012). For all other offenders, the
right to vote may only be restored by executive pardon. !d.§ 213.090.

Tennessee

Tenn. Const. art. 1, § 5; Tenn. Code. Ann. §40-20-112 (West 2013). Convicted
felony offenders may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for voting
restoration upon completion of sentence, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-29-202. Persons
convicted of certain felony offenses including murder, rape, treason, sexual
offenses involving a minor victim, voter fraud, bribery, misconduct involving
public officials and employees, or interference with government operations are
permanently ineligible to vote. !d. § 40-29-204.

Virginia

Va. Const. art. II,§ 1; !d. at art. V, § 12; Va. Code Ann.§§ 53.1-229, -231 (West
2013). Persons convicted of most non-violent felonies may apply to the governor
for a pardon or restoration of voting rights two years after completion of sentence
and payment of any monetary fines and restitution. See Sec'y of the
Commonwealth, Non- Violent Offenders Application for Restoration of Civil
Rights, available at https://solutions.virginia.gov!RestorationOfR.ights (last visited
June 22, 2012). Persons convicted of violent offenses, drug manufacturing or
distribution offenses, offenses against minors, or election law offenses must wait
five years to apply for restoration of rights. See Sec'y of the Commonwealth, Five

Year

Application

for

Restoration

of

Civil

Rights,

available

at

Appendices

27

https://cornmonwealth.virginia.gov/media/2598/application-for-restoration-ofrights.pdf (last visited June 22, 20 12).
Also see: Governor McDonnell announced on May 29, 2013 a transition from an
application process to an Automatic Restoration Process for Non-violent Felons
effective on July 15, 2013, at https://commonwealth.virginia.gov/ judicialsystem/restoration-of-rights/.
Wyoming

First-time non-violent felony offenders may apply to the Board of Parole for a
certificate restoring voting rights five years after completion of sentence including
period of probation. All others must apply to the governor for either a pardon or a
restoration of rights. Wyo. Canst. art. 6, § 6; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-105 (2012)

Appendices

28

APPENDIX 3: 2006 TENNESSEE PUBLIC LAW TO RESTORE VOTING
RIGHTS 71
2006 Tennessee Laws Pub. Ch. 860 (S.B. 1678)
TENNESSEE 2006 SESSION LAWS
2006 SESSION OF THE 104th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-CITIZENS AND CITIZENSHIP-RESTORATION
By Cohen, Kilby, Bowers, Harper
Substituted for: H.B. No. 1722
By Larry Turner, Marrero, Ulysses Jones, Cooper, Henri Brooks, Favors, Shaw, Langster, Tidwell, Briley, Brown,
Pruitt, Towns, Miller
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 29, relative to restoration of citizenship.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 29, is amended by adding the following new Part 2:
<<TN ST § 40-29-201 >>
§ 40-29-201.
(a) The provisions and procedures of this part shall apply to and govern restoration of the right of suffrage in this
state to any person who has been disqualified from exercising such right by reason of a conviction in any state or
federal court of an infamous crime.
(b) This part shall apply to any person convicted of an infamous crime after May 18, 1981.
(c) This part shall apply only to restoration of the right of suffrage. For restoration of all other rights of citizenship
forfeited as the result of a conviction for an infamous crime, the provisions ofPart 1 of this chapter shall apply.

« TN ST § 40-29-202 >>
§ 40-29-202.
(a) A person rendered infamous and deprived of the right of suffrage by the judgment of any state or federal court is
eligible to apply for a voter registration card and have the right of suffrage restored upon:
(I) Receiving a pardon, except where such pardon contains special conditions pertaining to the right of suffrage;
(2) The discharge from custody by reason of service or expiration of the maximum sentence imposed by the court
for any such infamous crime; or
(3) Being granted a certificate of fmal discharge from supervision by the board of probation and parole pursuant to §
40-28-105, or any equivalent discharge by another state, the federal government, or county correction authority.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person shall not be eligible to apply for a voter registration
card and have the right of suffrage restored unless such person has paid all restitution to the victim or victims of the
offense ordered by the court as part of the sentence.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person shall not be eligible to apply for a voter registration
card and have the right of suffrage restored unless such person is current in all child support obligations.

71

Pub. Ch. 860, S.B. No. 1678.

Appendices

29

<< TN ST § 40-29-203 »
§ 40-29-203.
(a) A person eligible to apply for a voter registration card and have the right of suffrage restored pursuant to § 4029-202 may request, and then shall be issued, a certificate of voting rights restoration upon a form prescribed by the
coordinator of elections, by:
(I) The pardoning authority;
(2) The warden or an agent or offiyer of the incarcerating authority; or
(3) A parole officer or another agent or officer of the supervising authority.
(b)(l) Any authority issuing a certificate of voting rights restoration pursuant to subsection (a) shall forward a copy
of such certificate to the coordinator of elections.
(2) The issuing authority shall also supply the person being released with a written statement explaining the purpose
and effect of the certificate of voting rights restoration and explaining the procedure by which such person can use
the certificate to apply for and receive a voter registration card and thereby become eligible to vote.
(c) A certificate of voting rights restoration issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall be sufficient proof that the person
named on the certificate is no longer disqualified from voting by reason of having been convicted of an infamous
crime.
(d) Any person issued a certificate of voting rights restoration pursuant to this section shall submit such certificate to
the administrator of elections of the county in which the person is eligible to vote. The administrator of elections
shall send the certificate to the coordinator of elections who shall verify that the certificate was issued in compliance
with this section. Upon determining that the certificate complies with the provisions of this section, the coordinator
shall notify the appropriate administrator of elections and, after determining that such person is qualified to vote in
that county by using the same verification procedure used for any applicant, the administrator shall grant the
application for a voter registration card. The administrator shall issue a voter registration card and such card shall be
mailed to the applicant in the same manner as provided for any newly issued card.
<<TN ST § 40-29-204 >>
§ 40-29-204.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this part, the following persons shall never be eligible to register and vote in this
state:
(1) Those convicted after July 1, 1986, of the offenses of voter fraud, treason, murder in the first degree, or
aggravated rape.
(2) Those convicted after July 1, 1996, but before July 1, 2006 of any of the offenses set out in subdivision (1) or
any other degree of murder or rape.
(3) Those convicted on or after July 1, 2006 of:
(A) Any of the offenses set out in subdivision (1) or (2);
(B) Any other violation ofTitle 39, Chapter 16, Parts 1, 4 or 5 designated as a felony; or
(C) Any sexual offense set out in § 40-39-202(17) or violent sexual offense set out in § 40-39-202(25) that is
designated as a felony and where the victim of such offense was a minor.
<< TN ST § 40--29-205 >>
§ 40-29-205.
The coordinator of elections shall prepare a certificate of voting rights restoration form and the written statement
explaining such form and the procedure by which a person can apply for a voter registration card and become
eligible to vote as required by this part. The coordinator shall be responsible for printing and distributing a sufficient
number of such forms to the Department of Correction, the board of probation and parole and any other authority
that may discharge a person to whom the provisions of this part apply.

Appendices

30

SECTION 2. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application, and to that end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable.
SECTION 3. For the purpose of the coordinator of elections preparing, printing and distributing the documents
required by this act, it shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. 72

72

!d.

Tennessee Advisory Committee to the
United States Commission on Civil Rights

U.S. Commission Contact
USCCR Contact

Peter Minarik, Ph.D.
Regional Director, Southern Regional Office
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 16T126
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-7000

This report is the work of the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report,
which may rely on studies and data generated by third parties, is not subject to an independent review by
Commission staff. State Advisory Committee reports to the Commission are wholly independent and reviewed by
Commission staff only for legal and procedural compliance with Commission policies and procedures. State
Advisory Committee reports are not subject to Commission approval, fact-checking, or policy changes. The views
expressed in this report and the findings and recommendations contained herein are those of a majority of the State
Advisory Committee members and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or its individual
members, nor do they represent the policies of the U.S. Government. The report can be obtained in print form or on
disk in Word format from the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, by contacting the named
Commission contact person. It is also posted on the web-site of the Commission at www.usccr.gov.