Question:DoescriminaldisenfranchisementviolatetheU.SConstitution?

ALECC.EWALD
IntheUnitedStates,onlyonemajorrestrictionofthevotingrightsofadultcitizens
survivesthedisenfranchisementofcriminaloffenders.Many Americans remain
unaware of thepolicysextensiveeffectsontheelectorate.AboutfourmillionU.S.
adultsarenowbarredfromvotingbecauseofacriminalconviction,themajorityof
whomarenotincarcerated,andmorethanonemillionofwhomhavecompletedtheir
sentences.Inthirteenstates,manycriminaloffendersaredeniedtherighttovoteeven
aftertheyhavecompletedtheirtermsofincarceration,probation,andparole.TheUnited
Statesistheonlydemocracythatindefinitelybarssomanyoffendersfromvoting,andit
maybetheonlycountrywithsuchsweepingdisenfranchisementpolicies.

Whileliberalandrepublicanideasaboutselfgovernmenthavelongprovidedsolid
foundationsforcriminaldisenfranchisementinAmericanpoliticalthought,thegoalsand
principlesofbothideologiesalsoundergirdpowerfulchallengestothepractice.
Indefinitedisenfranchisementalsocalledexoffender,exfelon,orpermanent
disenfranchisementtobethemostegregiousformofthepractice,asitimposeson
criminaloffenderssomethingakintothemedievalconditionofcivildeath.

Thetermliberalismreferstoanindividualisticandrightsorientedviewofpolitics,in
whichthecentralpurposeofthestateistopreserveasmuchlatitudeaspossiblefor
individualstochoosetheirownends.Whilethereisgreatvariationwithintheliberal
tradition,liberalideologytendstodepicttherulesofsocietyasaneutralcontractto
whichrationalindividualsagree;politicalactivityisregardedasinstrumental,awayof
pursuingonesprivateinterests.

Bycontrast,republicanstendtoviewdemocraticcitizensasabodyheldtogetherby
commoninterest.Politicalactivity,fromthisperspective,isunderstoodaspublicconduct
aimedatthegoodofthewhole.Forliberals,seriouscrimesareviolationsofthesocial
contract,infractionswhichmerittheforcedremovalofoffendersfromparticipationin
selfgovernment.

Someliberalcommentatorstodaycontendthatcriminals,likeothers,willact
instrumentallyinthevotingbooth,andmayusetheballottoadvancetheinterestsof
lawbreakers.Fortheirpart,republicanthinkersviewconvictsaslackingthepolitical
virtuerequiredtoparticipateinlawmaking.Offendersflawedcharacterconstitutesareal
threat,intherepublicanview,tothehealthofthebodypolitic;barringthemfromthe
franchisewillprotectthepublicgoodandexpressourreverenceforpolitics.

Liberalsshouldonlychoosetodeprivecitizensofafundamentalrightwhenapractical,
essentialgovernmentpurposecompelsthemtodoso,andtheirbeliefinneutralityin
politicsandproportionalityinpunishmentshouldalsospurliberalstoreject
disenfranchisement.Todaythepenaltyofdisenfranchisementisfallingmostheavilyon
theAfricanAmericanpopulation:nationwide,approximatelythirteenpercentoftheblack
malepopulationisdisenfranchisedbecauseofacriminalconviction.Adherentsofboth
ideologiesshouldbetroubledbytheraciallydiscriminatorydimensionsofsuchlaws,
embodiedinboththeirhistoryandtheirongoingeffects.Criminaldisenfranchisement
policyintheUnitedStatesislocatedsquarelyattheintersectionofvotingrightsand
criminaljusticeanditistaintedbytheracialhistoryofbothpolicyareasintheUnited
States.

InJohnLockesfamousanalysisoftheoriginsandpurposeofgovernment,wefinda
straightforwardandfamiliarjustificationforthedisenfranchisementofcriminals.The
coreofthelawofnaturewhichgovernedthatcondition,inLockesaccount,wasthat
nooneoughttoharmanotherinhislife,health,liberty,orpossessions.Thatlawwould
besufficient,wereitnotforthecorruptionandvitiousnessofdegeneratemen,who
transgresstheboundsofright,invadingothersrightsand...doinghurttoone
another.Active,rationalviolationofthecontract,however,isgroundsfor
disqualification.

Whendefendersofcriminaldisenfranchisementofferpolicyorientedexplanationsforthe
policy,theysometimesallegethatconvictswillvoteinconcerttoweakenthecriminal
law.Whatifinmatesandexoffendersdidplantovoteinwhatsomemightconsidera
subversivemanner?Couldliberalslegitimatelypreventindividualsfromvotingbecause
ofthechoicestheymightmake?

Thisisnotonlyafundamentalliberalprinciple,butalsoanessentialconstitutionalone.
Instrikingdownrestrictionsonvotingbymembersofthemilitary,theSupremeCourt
ruledthatfencingoutfromthefranchiseasectorofthepopulationbecauseoftheway
theymayvoteisconstitutionallyimpermissible.TheCourtheldthattheexerciseof
rightssovitaltothemaintenanceofdemocraticinstitutions...cannotconstitutionallybe
obliteratedbecauseofafearofthepoliticalviewsofaparticulargroup.Obviously,if
oneemphasizedrehabilitativegoals,indefinitedisenfranchisementwouldclearlybe
counterproductive,andtemporarydisenfranchisementwouldlikelyberejectedaswell.

Inthecurrentpoliticalclimate,however,manyAmericansperceiveanypolicywhich
furtherrestricts,burdens,orstigmatizesoffendersassimplyanotherformofjust
retribution.Societypunishesprisonersbydeprivingthemofvariousrightsandprivileges:
toassemble,enjoyprivacy,andreadwhatevertheywish,amongothers.Butforthemost
part,suchrestrictionsarenecessarytoincarceration,anddisenfranchisingthemisnot.
Finally,itislikelythattakingawaythevoteinanautomatic,invisiblewayasall
currentdisenfranchisementlawdoeswillhavenoretributiveeffectatallonthemany
membersoftheoffenderpopulationalreadyestrangedfrompoliticallife.Voting,writes
Winkler,isameaningfulparticipatoryactthroughwhichindividualscreateandaffirm
theirmembershipinthecommunityandtherebytransformtheiridentitiesbothas
individualsandaspartofagreatercollectivity.
Today,meanwhile,thepenaltyofdisenfranchisementisfallingmostheavilyonthe
AfricanAmericanpopulation:nationwide,approximatelythirteenpercentoftheblack
malepopulationisdisenfranchisedbecauseofacriminalconviction.TheFifteenth
Amendment,meanwhile,declaresthattherighttovoteshallnotbedeniedorabridged
bytheUnitedStatesorbyanyStateonaccountofrace,color,orpreviousconditionof
servitude.IfincarcerationisequivalenttotheservitudedescribedintheThirteenth
Amendmentanunconventionalbutnotimplausiblereading,sincetheAmendment
clearlymakesthisexceptionsothatconvictscouldbeforcedtoworkcanstates
continuetodenythevotetothosewhohaveleftthatpreviouscondition?