The Prisoner Reentry Challenge

Three-quarters of over 600,000 individuals that are annually released from prison and back into society are rearrested within five years of their release (Li, 2018). The women and men that are released from correctional institutions do not receive preparation, resources, or assistance, which acts as a barrier to the entry of these individuals into society. The conviction of a criminal limits employment opportunities, social services as well as public housing assistance and prevents them from accessing numerous opportunities. Even the concept of having a minor record creates collateral consequences and substantial barriers. It is, therefore, of significant importance to transform the current criminal justice system in shifting the focus from reincarnation to reentry into the communities successfully. One of the many reentry challenges that are faced by ex-convicts is disenfranchisement. This is the revocation of the right to vote of a person or group of people. Disenfranchisement is a practice that has the effect of preventing a person from exercising their right to vote. Some states ban inmates from voting for life. In the United States, felony disenfranchisement refers to suspending and withdrawing the right to vote due to a criminal offense conviction. Disenfranchisement is permanent in some jurisdictions, while suffrage (right to vote) for others is restored after completion of parole, probation, or after serving a sentence. The historical and widespread practice in the United States that pertains to denying of votes to convicted citizens while they are incarcerated, while on probation or parole has conventionally received little scrutiny (Disenfranchisement Laws Cannot Be Justified, 2020). To many individuals, the practice might appear as an unavoidable associate of incarceration or a genuinely added reprimand for a crime. The laws of disenfranchisement and its policies have resulted in numerous restrictions on civic engagement. Also, depending on the type of defense on a particular state or federal law, an ex-convict cannot have access to students’ loans, acquire a driver’s license, receive the welfare benefits of the government, hold a public office and numerous barred privileges. The disenfranchisement of felons has had a negative impact on voting and representation in America (Rivers, 2020).  The number of people that have been disenfranchised of felony conviction has seen an increment more than five-fold in four decades. It is approximated that 1.17 million individuals have been disenfranchised due to convictions in 1976. Those figures tripled to 3.34 million in 1996 and doubled again to approximately 6.1 million in 2016 over the twenty years. A total of over 2.6 million people generally have been disenfranchised until they have concluded their sentences, which includes parole and probation. Such individuals make up about 45 percent of the entire disenfranchised population in those states. Additionally, in 2020 it is estimated that 5.7 million individuals have been disenfranchised due to convictions of felony ( Uggen et al., 2020) as opposed to the 1.17 million individuals that were ultimately disenfranchised in 1976, the 3.34 million in 1996, 5.85 million in 2010, and 6.11 million in 2016. The figures in 2020 declined by almost 16% as of 2016 as new policies were enacted to restrict the practice by the states. The disenfranchising practice of those that are convicted in the United States has profound heritages that encompass the primitive principle of “civil death.” This principle states that; the offenders that commit a serious crime against society forfeit their civic personhood, which includes their right to vote, either permanently or for a period of time. The right to vote is a fundamental act of democracy and should never be taken away (Webb,2020) . Every citizen should, therefore, be guaranteed to vote as it is vital in contributing to the country. The Prevention of ex-convicts from voting contributes to the racial differentiation in the country. Most African-Americans in the region of two million (approximately 8 percent of black adults) that are previously convicted are barred from voting, in contrast to just beneath 2 percent of non-African-American citizens. The right to vote is associated with other significant rights and philosophies such as that of justice and equality; consequently, it must not be deprived to eligible individuals, including persons that have infringed on other’s rights. In addition, the restoration process of voting rights to the ex-convicts fluctuates from one State to another, thus causing distrust and frustration of the system. The reprimands need to fit the offense, and disenfranchisement for life is merely out of proportion, except for crimes that are serious even though the judges have terminated the challenges of re-enfranchisement based on the U.S 8th Amendment. The constitutions that, however, prohibit extreme punishment to individuals still contend that a valid argument can be made that disenfranchisement for life is deemed unconstitutional. Allowing ex-convicts to vote is a significant step toward the reintegration of people who have paid their debt back to society. Therefore, exercising voting rights should be an imperative part of the rehabilitation of an ex-prisoner. This simple act can express wholeness to a person following years of losing these rights as part of reprimand for crimes they have committed. If voting enables individuals to become involved in the political process, they have a much-improved chance of completely integrating back into society. Granting of the right to vote makes sense for the country in terms of policy and also politics ( Brettschneider , 2016 ). The prisons that have struggled with explosive populations in the past 20 years surrounded by allegations of maltreatment of inmates, as well as the criminal justice reform, is the political forefront debate. It is highly imperative to consider that one of the best ways to solve these expensive and intractable problems would be to listen to individuals who are currently incarcerated while also allowing them the opportunity to simply represent themselves in the political dialogue of the nation. Denying the ex-convicts the right to right of engaging in civic activities such as voting also hinders their reintegration into society as well as providing additional psychological impediments to recidivism prevention. Disenfranchising laws restricting people with felony convictions from voting varies from one State to another and is widely spread in the United States. Prior to an amendment of the constitution in Florida, the constitution policy of Florida had imposed a lifetime ban on voting for persons convicted of a felony unless the governor and the cabinet choose to restore the voting rights of the individuals (Voting rights restoration efforts in Florida, 2019). Nearly 65 percent of voters in Florida approved the Amendment 4 act in 2018 that restored the voting rights automatically to as many as 1.4 million individuals in Florida, with the exception of those who were convicted of murder or sexual offenses after completion of their sentences. However, in July 2019, Senate Bill 7066 was enacted by the republicans of the Florida state legislature. This required ex-felons to pay off all outstanding fees, fines, and restitution before they regained their voting right. The law led to the disenfranchisement of around 774,000 people because of outstanding financial obligations. Senate Bill 7066 was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on June 28, 2019, which prohibited returning citizens from voting unless they paid off all legal, financial obligations (LFOs). This was imposed on a felony conviction by a court pursuant and included LFOs converted to civil obligations, even if it was not affordable to them. In May 2020, Senate Bill 7066 was found to be unconstitutional by a federal district court, and the ruling was overturned in September 2020 on appeal for those unable to pay or unable to find out how much they were owed. Many of these disenfranchised felons were presumed to be Democratic African Americans voters. Currently, the approaches of the State towards felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In the U.S, most states have enacted laws that disenfranchise individuals previously or currently having been convicted of a felon. U.S. states, as of 2018, have policies that restore the right to vote upon completion of a sentence. Only three states, including Kentucky, Iowa, and Virginia, permanently disenfranchise a felony convict while the other six states limit restoration. Section two of the Fourteenth Amendment had been interpreted by the United States Supreme court by its ruling of the case of  Richardson v. Ramirez in 1974, which permitted the states to disenfranchise convicted criminals. It was for the states to decide which crimes could be grounds for disenfranchisement, and thus restricting the felony bounds. Felons who have completed their sentences are allowed to vote in most  U.S. states . Consequently, twenty-eight states changed their laws on felon voting rights between 1996 and 2008, mostly to restore rights or to simplify the process of restoration. Since 2008, state laws have continued to shift, both curtailing and restoring voter rights, sometimes over short periods of time within the same State. In the past 25 years, half the states have transformed their practices and laws to expand voting access to individuals convicted of a felony. Despite making these significant reforms, 5.2 million Americans still remain disenfranchised, which is 2.3 percent of the voting-age population. It is estimated that in spite of the 2018 ballot referendum, which promised the restoration of voting rights, nearly 900,000 individuals in Florida alone who have completed their sentences remain still remain disenfranchised. The process of restoring voting rights to ex-felons also differs from one State to another, thereby causing frustration and distrust of the system.  Florida consequently remains the nation’s leader in disenfranchisement in numbers that are absolute (Kiefer, 2019). In addition, states like Florida demand the payment of fees, fines, and restitution before felons are allowed to regain their voting right. Over 1.1 million individuals in Florida are currently banned from voting, either for the reason that the State is not obligated to tell them the amount of their sanction or they cannot manage to pay for the court-ordered monetary sanctions. Moreover, the State does not also provide reliability or constituency in tracking the data on what individuals owe, so it is often impossible to make eligibility determinations. It is necessary to provide an alternative policy as the country’s felony disenfranchisement practices have significant racial implications. Adopting a policy that promotes reforms in sentencing policy, addresses unjust racial disparities and practices, as well as advocates for alternatives while addressing inequalities is vital towards the end of disenfranchisement. The policies that are currently in place are presumptively a policy of white supremacy and still does not fill the void created by the electoral process. Adopting new policies that will enable individuals to actively participate in the electoral process while also restoring voting rights to a substantial number of people will act as an essential step towards ending racial discrimination and empowering individuals in society. Given the main impact of the laws on felony disenfranchisement in the voting inhabitants, and particularly their outstandingly unequal implications it has on African Americans, alternative policies should be considered by policymakers that will provide protection of voting rights short of injury to the legitimate interests of the state criminal justice. In this context, we believe the best course of action would be to eliminate restrictions that are conviction-based on the right to vote. The Congress should enact legislation at the federal level in restoring voting rights in federal elections to residents that are condemned of a felony so that the voting ability in federal elections is not subject to state laws that are inconstant. State legislatures should also eradicate laws of a state that restrict the franchise for persons convicted of a felony within their states. Eliminating these restrictions will enable the convicted felons to take part in the electoral process by restoring their individual voting rights. This will result in equality within the nation as well as contributing to policy reforms through the adoption and implementation of new policies. Implementing this policy will also create a sense of importance to an ex-convict who will thus ensure active participation in society. 

Conclusions 

In the United States, being convicted of a felony conveys collateral consequences aside from penal sanctions such as imprisonment or fines. Offenders might find themselves losing their voting rights, serving on a jury, or even holding a public office, among additional “civil disabilities” that continue even long after serving a criminal sentence. The disenfranchisement extent that is in place in the United States is as upsetting as the fact that relatively minor offenses can deter the right to vote for a person. Restrictions on the voting franchise in the United States appear to be exceptionally unreasonable as well as racially discriminating, in democratic principles violations and international law of human rights. Numerous states also vary in policies, with the State of Florida restricting voting rights to individuals even after completing their paroles unless a fine is paid. A cumbersome number in the region of millions of Americans  are omitted from the democratic process on the basis of disenfranchisement criminal laws. Navigating these state laws can prove to be extremely difficult, particularly for the reason that  election officials often misunderstand  their own states’ laws. It is, therefore, imperative that adopting a policy that will eliminate the conviction-based restriction that will hence aid towards allowing individuals previously convicted of felons to take part in the voting exercise of a nation. 

References 

Brettschneider, C. (2016).  Why Prisoners Deserve the Right to Vote . POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/prisoners-convicts-felons-inmates-right-to-vote-enfranchise-criminal-justice-voting-rights-213979 . 

Disenfranchisement Laws Cannot Be Justified - Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States . (2020). Hrw.org. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o-03.htm . 

Kiefer, P. (2019). Ncsc.org. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.ncsc.org/trends/monthly-trends-articles/2019/the-future-of-restoring-voting-rights-for-exfelons . 

Li, M. (2018).  From prisons to communities: Confronting reentry challenges and social inequality . https://www.apa.org. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2018/03/prisons-to-communities . 

Rivers, C. (2020).  A Brief History of Felon Disenfranchisement and Prison Gerrymanders | The American Historian . Oah.org. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2017/november/a-brief-history-of-felon-disenfranchisement-and-prison-gerrymanders/ . 

Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Nava, A. (2020).  Locked Out 2020: Estimates of People Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction | The Sentencing Project . The Sentencing Project. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/. 

Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Florida . (2019). Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida .