Felony disenfranchisement Information
Felony disenfranchisement is the exclusion from voting of people otherwise eligible to vote (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offense, usually restricted to the more serious class of crimes: felonies (generally crimes of incarceration for a duration of more than a year and/or a fine exceeding $1000). Jurisdictions vary as to whether they make such disfranchisement permanent, or restore suffrage after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation.  Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. 
Proponents have argued that persons who commit felonies have 'broken' the social contract, and have thereby given up their right to participate in a civil society. Some argue that felons have shown poor judgment, and that they should therefore not have a voice in the political decision-making process.  Opponents have argued that such disfranchisement restricts and conflicts with principles of universal suffrage.  It can affect civic and communal participation in general.  Opponents argue that felony disenfranchisement can create political incentives to skew criminal law in favor of disproportionately targeting groups who are political opponents of those who hold power.
- 1 History
- 2 In the United States
- 3 In Europe
- 4 In Australia
- 5 In other countries
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 Further reading
- 9 External links
In Western countries, felony disenfranchisement can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman traditions: disenfranchisement was commonly imposed as part of the punishment on those convicted of "infamous" crimes, as part of their " civil death", whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property. Most medieval common law jurisdictions developed punishments that provided for some form of exclusion from the community for felons, ranging from execution on sight to exclusion from community processes. 
In the U.S., the Supreme Court, by its ruling in the 1974 case of Richardson v. Ramirez,  has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment section 2 as permitting the states to disenfranchise convicted criminals. It is up to the states to decide which crimes could be grounds for disenfranchisement, and they are not formally bound to restrict this to felonies; however, in most cases, they do.[ citation needed] Felons who have completed their sentences are allowed to vote in most U.S. states. Between 1996 and 2008 twenty-eight states changed their laws on felon voting rights, 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 several Southern states, felony disenfranchisement was implemented as part of a strategy to bar blacks from voting.[ citation needed] Conjoint with felony disenfranchisement, these Southern states implemented Black Codes which established severe penalties for petty crimes and were used to target black Americans. 
As of 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement.  In the national elections in 2012, the various state felony disenfranchisement laws together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general. The state with the highest number of disenfranchised voters was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised. 
In 2002, Representative Maxine Waters (D, CA) introduced H.R.2830, the Voting Restoration Act, to congress. 
Felony disenfranchisement was a topic of debate during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Primary candidate Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania argued for the restoration of voting rights for convicted felons who had completed sentences and parole/probation.  Santorum's position was attacked and distorted by Mitt Romney, who alleged that Santorum supported voting rights for felons while incarcerated.   Former President Barack Obama supports voting rights for ex-offenders. 
In the years 1997 to 2008, there was a trend to lift the disenfranchisement restrictions, or simplify the procedures for applying for the restoration of civil rights for persons who had fulfilled their punishments for felonies. As a result, in 2008 more than a half million people had the right to vote who would have been disenfranchised under the older rules.  Since then, more severe disenfranchisement rules have been passed in several states.
In 2007, Florida's Republican Governor Charlie Crist pushed to make it easier for most convicted felons to regain their voting rights reasonably quickly after serving their sentences and probation terms.  In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms. Felons were not able to apply to the court for restoration of voting rights until seven years after completion of sentence, probation and parole.  On November 6, 2018, Florida voters approved Amendment 4, an amendment to the state constitution to automatically restore voting rights to convicted felons who have served their sentences.  Lifetime bans still apply for those convicted of either murder or sexual offenses.  
In Iowa in July 2005, Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who had completed supervision.  On October 31, 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld mass re-enfranchisement of convicted felons. But, on his inauguration day, January 14, 2011, Republican Governor Terry Branstad reversed Vilsack's executive order, disenfranchising thousands of people. 
Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following their conviction. Except for Maine and Vermont every state prohibits felons from voting while in prison. 
Unlike most laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States in which adult male citizens are denied the right to vote for any reason other than "participation in rebellion, or other crime" will suffer a reduction in the basis of their representation in Congress. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.
No felon convicted of Drug, Sex, theft, or fraud charges may ever vote in a federal election.
But, critics[ who?] of the practice argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court ruled in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state's crime disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact." (The law in question also disenfranchised people convicted of vagrancy, adultery, and any misdemeanor "involving moral turpitude"; the test case involved two individuals who faced disenfranchisement for presenting invalid checks, which the state authorities had found to be morally turpid behavior.) A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.[ citation needed]
Restoration of voting rights for people who are ex-offenders varies across the United States. Primary classification of voting rights include:
Maine  and Vermont  are the only states with unrestricted voting rights for people who are felons. Both states allow the person to vote during incarceration, via absentee ballot and after terms of conviction end.
In 14 states and the District of Columbia, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration is complete: District of Columbia,  Hawaii,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Montana,  New Hampshire,  North Dakota,  Ohio,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode Island,  and Utah. 
In February 2016 the Maryland General Assembly restored the right to vote for more than 40,000 released felons, overriding a veto by Governor Larry Hogan. Maryland's Senate approved the bill on a narrow 29-18 vote, while the state House of Delegates voted 85-56 in favor of it on January 20. Convicted felons under parole or probation had their right to vote restored. The law went into effect in late March, one month before the state's April 26 primaries. 
Twenty states require not only that incarceration/parole if any be complete but also that any probation sentence (which is often an alternative to incarceration) be complete: Alaska,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia,  Idaho,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska (Completion of probation + 2 years; treason convicts permanently lose the right to vote),  New Jersey,  New Mexico,  North Carolina,  Oklahoma,  South Carolina,  South Dakota,  Texas,  Washington,  West Virginia (the prosecutor can request the court to revoke voting rights if financial obligations are unmet), and Wisconsin. 
Six states have laws that relate disenfranchisement to the detail of the crime. These laws restore voting rights to some offenders on the completion of incarceration, parole, and probation. Other offenders must make an individual petition that could be denied.
- Alabama – A person convicted of a felony loses the ability to vote if the felony involves moral turpitude. Prior to 2017, the state Attorney General and courts have decided this for individual crimes; however, in 2017, moral turpitude was defined by House Bill 282 of 2017, signed into law by Kay Ivey on May 24, to constitute 47 specific offenses.  If a convicted person loses the ability to vote based on having committed a defined act of moral turpitude, he can petition to have it restored by a pardon or by a certificate of eligibility; if the loss of elective franchise was based on a crime not under moral turpitude, eligibility to vote is automatically restored once all sentence conditions have been satisfied.     Prior to 2017, a person convicted of a number of crimes having to do with sexual assault or abuse, including sodomy, was ineligible to receive a certificate of eligibility; today, only impeachment and treason remain ineligible for a certificate of eligibility. 
- Arizona – Rights are restored to first-time felony offenders. Others must petition.  
- Delaware – The following crimes require a pardon: murder or manslaughter (except vehicular homicide), an offense against public administration involving bribery or improper influence or abuse of office anywhere in the US, or a felony sexual offense (anywhere in the USA). All other convicted felons regain the right to vote after completion of the full sentence.  
- Florida. A convicted person loses suffrages if their crime was murder or any sexual offense.   In November 2018, the lifetime voting ban was lifted for those convicted of lesser crimes upon completion of sentence, including prison, parole, and probation. 
- Mississippi – A convicted person loses suffrage for numerous crimes identified in the state constitution, Section 241 (see note). The list is given below. Suffrage can be restored to an individual by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. The crimes that disqualify a person from voting are given in Section 241 of the state constitution as: murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy. 
- Nevada – Rights are restored to first time and non-violent offenders. All others may, "petition a court of competent jurisdiction for an order granting the restoration of his or her civil rights". 
- Tennessee – A person who is convicted of certain felonies may not regain voting rights except through pardon. These include: murder, rape, treason, and voting fraud. For a person convicted of a lesser felony, disenfranchisement ends after terms of incarceration, completion of parole, and completion of probation. In addition, the person must pay "Any court order restitution paid; current in the payment of any child support obligations; and/or Any court ordered court costs paid". The ex-offender must either obtain a court order restoring their right to vote or complete the certificate of restoration of voting rights. 
Four states require individual petition to the court for restoration of voting after all offenses.
- Iowa  
- Kentucky – Only the governor can reinstate Civil Rights. The ex-offender must complete "Application for Restoration of Civil Rights". The governor has discretion to restore voting rights.   Every year since 2007, the Kentucky House of Representatives has passed a bill that would amend the state constitution to restore voting rights to some non-violent offenders, but as of 2016 [update], the bill has not passed the state Senate.  
- Virginia – Only the governor can reinstate civil rights. In 2016, Governor Terry McAuliffe restored rights to "individuals who have been convicted of a felony and are no longer incarcerated or under active supervision . . . In addition to confirming completion of incarceration and supervised release, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia considers factors such as active warrants, pre-trial hold, and other concerns that may be flagged by law enforcement. . . . The Governor will review SOC's analysis of each individual's record and will make the final decision on proposed candidates for restoration of rights." 
- Wyoming – A person convicted of a felony can, after serving the full sentence including any probation and parole, apply to the state governor to have suffrage restored. Since July 1, 2003, first-time, non-violent offenders have to wait 5 years before applying to the state parole board for restoration of suffrage. The parole board has the discretion to decide whether to reinstate rights on an individual basis.  
In general, during the recent centuries, the European countries have increasingly made suffrage more accessible. This has included retaining disenfranchisement in fewer and fewer cases, including for criminal offenses. Moreover, most European states, including most of those outside the European Union, have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, and thereby agreed to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.  In the case Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) the Court in 2005 found that general rules for automatic disenfranchisements resulting from convictions to be against human rights. This ruling applied equally for prisoners and for ex-convicts. The ruling did not exclude the possibility of disenfranchisement as a consequence of deliberation in individual cases (such as that of Mohammed Bouyeri). The United Kingdom has not respected this Court opinion, although it is a signatory to the Convention (see below).
In the United Kingdom, prohibitions from voting are codified in section 3 and 3A of the Representation of the People Act 1983.  Excluded are incarcerated criminals  (including those sentenced by courts-martial, those unlawfully at large from such sentences, and those committed to psychiatric institutions as a result of a criminal court sentencing process). Civil prisoners sentenced (for non-payment of fines, or contempt of court, for example), and those on remand unsentenced retain the right to vote.
The UK is subject to Europe-wide rules due to various treaties and agreements associated with its membership of the European Community. The Act does not apply to elections to the European Parliament. Following Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005),  in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled such a ban to be disproportionate, the policy was reviewed by the UK government. In 2005 the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, stated that the review may result in the UK allowing some prisoners to vote.  In 2010 the UK was still reviewing the policy, following an "unprecedented warning" from the Council of Europe.  The UK government position was then that
It remains the government's view that the right to vote goes to the essence of the offender's relationship with democratic society, and the removal of the right to vote in the case of some convicted prisoners can be a proportionate and proper response following conviction and imprisonment. The issue of voting rights for prisoners is one that the government takes very seriously and that remains under careful consideration. 
Parliament voted in favor of maintaining disenfranchisement of prisoners in 2011 in response to Government plans to introduce legislation. Since then the Government has repeatedly stated that prisoners will not be given the right to vote in spite of the ECHR ruling. 
In response to the ECHR ruling, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling produced a draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill for discussion by a Joint Committee, incorporating two clear options for reform and one which would retain the blanket ban.
For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address.  Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so.   In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.  However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.   Following the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners.   
In Italy, the most serious offenses involve the loss of voting rights, while for less serious offenses disqualification the judge can choose if there will be some disenfranchisement. Recently, however, the 'decree Severino' added a loss of only the right to stand for an election, against some offenders above a certain threshold of imprisonment:  it operates administratively, with fixed duration and without intervention of the court. Many court actions have been presented, but the electoral disputes follows antiquated rules and the danger of causes seamless in terms of eligibility  and incompatibility  is very high, also at local level. 
Several European countries permit disenfranchisement by special court order, including France, Germany (reinstated after 2–5 years) and the Netherlands.  In several others, no disenfranchisements due to criminal convictions exist. Moreover, many European countries encourage people to vote, such as by making pre-voting in other places than the respective election locales easily accessible. This often includes possibilities for prisoners to pre-vote from the prison itself. This is the case for example in Finland. 
In Germany the law calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the "democratic order", such as treason, are barred from voting while in prison. 
At Federation in Australia the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 denied the franchise to vote to anyone 'attainted of treason, or who had been convicted and is under sentence or subject to be sentenced for any offence ... punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer'. 
In 1983 this disqualification was relaxed and prisoners serving a sentence for a crime punishable under the law for less than a maximum five years were allowed to vote.  A further softening occurred in 1995 when the disenfranchisement was limited to those serving a sentence of five years or longer,   although earlier that year the Keating Government had been planning legislation to extend voting rights to all prisoners.  Disenfranchisement does not continue after release from jail/prison. 
The Howard Government legislated in 2006 to ban all prisoners from voting. In 2007, the High Court of Australia in Roach v Electoral Commissioner found that the Australian constitution enshrined a limited right to vote,  which meant that citizens serving relatively short prison sentences (generally less than three years) cannot be barred from voting.   The threshold of three years or more sentence will only result in removal of a prisoner's right to vote in federal elections. Depending on the threshold of exclusion which is distinct in each state, a prisoner may be able to vote in either state elections or federal elections. For example, prisoners in New South Wales serving a sentence of longer than one year are not entitled to vote in state elections. 
Most democracies give convicted criminals the same voting rights as other citizens.
In Taiwan the abrogation of political rights is a form of punishment used in sentencing, available only for some crimes or along with a sentence of death or imprisonment for life. Rights that are suspended in such a sentence include the right to vote and to take public office, as well as the rights to political expression, assembly, association, and protest. In China, there is a similar punishment of Deprivation of Political Rights.
In New Zealand, people who are in prison are not entitled to enroll while they are in prison. Persons who are convicted of electoral offenses in the past 3 years cannot vote or stand for office. In November 2018, the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions are inconsistent with the nation's Bill of Rights. 
Many countries allow inmates to vote, including Canada,   Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, and Zimbabwe.[ citation needed]
On 8 December 2008, Leung Kwok Hung (Long Hair), member of Hong Kong's popularly elected Legislative Council (LegCo), and two prison inmates, successfully challenged disenfranchisement provisions in the LegCo electoral laws. The court found blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners to be in violation of Article 26 of the Basic Law and Article 21 of the Bill of Rights and the denial to persons in custody of access to polling stations as against the law. The government introduced a bill to repeal the provisions of the law disenfranchising persons convicted of crimes (even those against the electoral system) as well as similar ones found in other electoral laws, and it made arrangements for polling stations to be set up at detention centers and prisons. LegCo passed the bill, and it took effect from 31 October 2009, even though no major elections were held until the middle of 2011.
- Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2)
- Loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense
- Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States
- Universal suffrage
- Bowers, Melanie M; Preuhs, Robert R (September 2009). "Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons". Social Science Quarterly. 90 (3): 722–743. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00640.x.
- Siegel, Jonah A. (January 1, 2011). "Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage". Social Work. 56 (1): 89–91. doi: 10.1093/sw/56.1.89.
- Eli L. Levine, "Does the Social Contract Justify Felony Disenfranchisement?", 1 Wash. U. Jur. Rev. 193 (2009).
- "LOSING THE VOTE: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (PDF). Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project. October 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-10.
- "pages-schall.blj.doc – Powered by Google Docs". docs.google.com. Retrieved 2010-10-31.
- Pilkington, Ed (July 13, 2012). "Felon voting laws to disenfranchise historic number of Americans in 2012". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-08-07.
- Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974)
- "Felon Voting Rights". National Conference of State Legislatures. January 4, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
- "Will Florida's Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?". Retrieved 2018-10-02.
- Holding, Reynolds (November 1, 2008). "Tomes Magazine". Reason.
- Waters, Maxine (2001-08-02). "H.R.2830 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Voting Restoration Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- Tim Murphy. "Rick Santorum, Voting Rights Activist". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "PolitiFact Florida | Super PAC attacks Rick Santorum for supporting felon voting rights". Politifact.com. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
"The NAACP 2008 Presidential Candidate Civil Rights Questionnaire" (PDF). 2012election.procon.org. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
I support restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders. I am a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act, and would sign that legislation into law as president.
- "Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (PDF). The Sentencing Project. March 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-19.
- Goodnough, Abby (6 April 2007).
"In a Break From the Past, Florida Will Let Felons Vote".
The New York Times. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
Gov. Charlie Crist persuaded Florida's clemency board Thursday to let most felons easily regain their voting rights after prison, saying it was time to leave the "offensive minority" of states that uniformly deny ex-offenders such rights.
- Steve Bousquet (2011-08-07). "State toughens policy of restoring rights to freed felons | Tampa Bay Times". Tampabay.com. Archived from the original on 2013-10-20. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- Foley, Ryan J. (2012-06-24). "Iowa Felons' Voting Rights: Terry Brandstad Executive Order Disenfranchises Thousands". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- Ford, Matt (October 24, 2017). "The Strangest Political Attack Ad of 2017". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 January 2018.
- "Title 21-A, §112: Residence for voting purposes". Mainelegislature.org. 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "The Vermont Statutes Online". Leg.state.vt.us. 2011-06-01. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Rule 3-500: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS, DC Regulations". Dcregs.org. Archived from the original on 2014-12-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Hawai`i State Constitution - Article 2". Hawaii.gov. Archived from the original on 2012-10-14. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Illinois Constitution - Article III". Ilga.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-05-31. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Indiana Code 3-7-13". In.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- Matt Ford, "Restoring Voting Rights for Felons in Maryland", The Atlantic, 9 February 2016, accessed 23 March 2016
- "General Laws: CHAPTER 51, Section 1". Malegislature.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Michigan Legislature - Section 168.758b". Legislature.mi.gov. 1975-07-25. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
-  Archived October 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- "Section 654:2-a Voters Confined in Penal Institutions". Gencourt.state.nh.us. 2003-09-01. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Chapter 12.1-33 : Rights of Convicts" (PDF). Legis.nd.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Lawriter - ORC". Codes.ohio.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Residents with Unique Voting Needs". Votespa.com. 2000-12-26. Archived from the original on 2014-08-15. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Rules and Regulations Adopted by the Office of the Secretary of State : Rhode Island" (PDF). Sos.ri.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Utah State Legislature". Le.utah.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Codes Display Text". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 2018-07-26. Retrieved 2018-07-26.
- "An Act Restoring Voting Rights Of Convicted Felons Who Are On Probation". Cga.ct.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Laws of New York". Public.leginfo.state.ny.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "State of Alaska : Department of Corrections" (PDF). Correct.state.ak.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Arkansas Secretary of State: Voter Registration Information". Sos.arkansas.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-11-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Florida Division of Elections: Voting Restoration Amendment". dos.elections.myflorida.com. Retrieved 2018-11-07.
-  Archived December 7, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
- "Idaho Constitution". Legislature.idaho.gov. 2004-07-29. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Article Five: Suffrage - Kansas Information, State Library of Kansas". Kslib.info. 2012-01-20. Archived from the original on 2013-03-26. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "RS 18:102". Legis.state.la.us. Archived from the original on 2012-10-22. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "201.014, 2013 Minnesota Statutes". Revisor.leg.state.mn.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Section 115-133 Qualifications of voters". Moga.mo.gov. 2013-08-28. Archived from the original on 2013-05-20. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Nebraska Legislature". Nebraskalegislature.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "A596". Njleg.state.nj.us. 2007-11-06. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "New Mexico One Source of Law®". Public.nmcompcomm.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "GS_163-55". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "OSCN Found Document:Persons Entitled to Become Registered Voters". Oscn.net. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "South Carolina Legislature Mobile". Scstatehouse.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "State narrative: South Dakota" (PDF). NACDL. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
- "ELECTION CODE CHAPTER 11. QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "RCW 29A.08.520: Felony conviction — Provisional and permanent restoration of voting rights". Apps.leg.wa.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Wisconsin Legislature: 304.078(3)". Docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Bill Text: AL HB282, 2017, Regular Session, Engrossed". Retrieved January 25, 2018.
- "Section 17-3-31". Alisondb.legislature.state.al.us. Archived from the original on 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Alabama Pardons Unit". Pardons.state.al.us. Archived from the original on 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "State narrative: Alabama" (PDF). NACDL Jurisdiction Profiles. NACDL. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
- "Alabama ex-felon voting brochure 2010" (PDF). ACLU of Alabama. 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
- "Pardons Unit". Pardons.state.al.us. Archived from the original on 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Format Document". Azleg.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "13-912 - Restoration of civil rights for first offenders; exception". Azleg.state.az.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "The Delaware Constitution". Delcode.delaware.gov. 2010-07-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
"State narrative: Delaware" (PDF). NACDL. Retrieved January 6, 2014.Note: The following crimes require a pardon:
- Murder or manslaughter (except vehicular homicide)
- An offense against public administration involving bribery or improper influence or abuse of office, or any like offense under the laws of another US jurisdiction
- Any felony constituting a sexual offense, or any like offense under the laws of another US jurisdiction
- "Constitution Of The State Of Mississippi". Sos.state.ms.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "NRS: CHAPTER 213 - PARDONS AND PAROLES; REMISSIONS OF FINES AND COMMUTATIONS OF PUNISHMENTS". Leg.state.nv.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "State of Tennessee Felony Conviction After May 18, 1981" (PDF). Tn.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 12, 2013. Retrieved November 8, 2013.
- "Executive Order Number Seventy" (PDF). Governor.iowa.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-21. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Office of the Governor : Streamlined Application for Restoration of Citizenship Rights" (PDF). Governor.iowa.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-30. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Section_145". Lrc.state.ky.us. 1955-11-08. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Division of Probate and Parole : Application for Restoration of Civil Rights" (PDF). Corrections.ky.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-25. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "Kentucky: Senate and House disagree on path to restore voting rights". The Sentencing Project. April 14, 2016. Retrieved 6 November 2018.
- Bowman, Brad (March 16, 2016). "House, Senate disagree on felon voting rights". The State Journal (Kentucky). Retrieved April 23, 2016.
- Governor McAuliffe’s Restoration of Rights policy August 22, 2016.
- "Wyoming Statutes". Legisweb.state.wy.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- "State narrative: Wyoming" (PDF). NACDL. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
- In the neutral field in Strasbourg is still wide open the play on rule of law in electoral matters: Buonomo, Giampiero (2015). "Decreto Severino: c'è un giudice a Strasburgo". Mondoperaio edizione online. – via Questia (subscription required)
- "Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) – Statute Law Database". www.statutelaw.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-31.
- although not specifically felons; the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967
- 42 EHHR 41
- "Convicts 'will not all get vote'". BBC News. October 6, 2005. Retrieved December 9, 2005.
- Travis, Alan (March 9, 2010). "Prisoners must be allowed to vote, Council of Europe warns Britain". London: guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-30.
- BBC News , 24 October 2012
- "Prisoners' Rights". Ireland: Citizens Information Board. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
- "Dáil Eireann - 05/Oct/2006 Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage". Debates.oireachtas.ie. 2006-10-05. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- Quinn, Ben; Conor Sweeney (7 October 2005). "Europe court rules prisoners should be let vote in elections". Irish Independent. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
- Brady, Tom (15 December 2005). "Go-ahead for prisoners to cast vote at next election". Irish Independent. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
- Breathnach -v- Ireland & anor;  IESC 59: Judgments of Keane C.J. and Denham J.
- "Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006". Irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- (in Italian) Severino: c'è un giudice a Strasburgo Mondoperaio, 21 ottobre 2015
- (in Italian) Giampiero Buonomo, Il condannato? Siede in Parlamento. Storia di un corto circuito normativo Diritto e giustizia, 22 aprile 2006; (in Italian) Giampiero Buonomo, La Consulta striglia la Regione Abruzzo. Giurisdizione domestica nel mirino condannato? Diritto e giustizia, 25 marzo 2006.
- (in Italian) Giampiero Buonomo, Candidature, norme ormai anacronistiche. L’incompatibilità è uno status da rivedere Diritto e giustizia, 16 aprile 2005.
- (in Italian) Giampiero Buonomo, Enti locali: le incompatibilità di Sicilia. Comune o Regione, così scatta l’aut aut Diritto e giustizia, 28 gennaio 2006.
- Kiesraad. "Uitsluiting kiesrecht". www.kiesraad.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2018-11-06.
- "Election Act 714/1998" (pdf). Finlex. Translations of Finnish acts and decrees. Ministry of Justice, Finland. 1998. pp. 1, 24. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
- "Losing the Vote," p. 17.
- Hill, Lisa (November 2009), Prisoner voting rights, Australian Review of Public Affairs, archived from the original on 18 March 2013
- Davidson, Jerome (24 May 2004), Inside outcasts: prisoners and the right to vote in Australia, Parliament of Australia, archived from the original on 1 March 2014
- Keating, Paul (10 July 1995). "For Media: Prisoner voting" (Press release). Archived from the original on 24 August 2014.
- "Prisoners". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 2015-06-23.
- Pearlman, Jonathan (31 August 2007). "Court gives vote back to some inmates". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 24 August 2008.
- The right to vote is not enjoyed equally by all Australians: 4. Recent changes to the Electoral Laws in Australia, Australian Human Rights Commission, archived from the original on 14 August 2014
- Vicki Lee Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Commonwealth of Australia, 30 August 2007, High Court of Australia.
- Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (NSW) s 25(b)
- Hurley, Sam (9 November 2018). "Supreme Court upholds decision saying ban on prisoner voting inconsistent with Bill of Rights". The New Zealand Herald. New Zealand Media and Entertainment. Archived from the original on 9 November 2018.
- Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer),  3 SCR 519, 2002 SCC 68.
- Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c 9, s 245.
- Bowers M, Preuhs R. Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) [serial online]. September 2009;90(3):722–743.
- Goldman, D. S. (2004). The Modern-Day Literacy Test?: Felon Disenfranchisement and Race Discrimination. Stanford Law Review, (2), 611.
- Hinchcliff, A. M. (2011). The "Other" Side of Richardson v. Ramirez: A Textual Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement. Yale Law Journal, 121(1), 194–236.
- Manza, J., Brooks, C., & Uggen, C. (2004). Public Attitudes toward Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. The Public Opinion Quarterly, (2), 275.
- Miles, T. J. (2004). Felon Disenfranchisement and Voter Turnout. The Journal of Legal Studies, (1), 85.
- Miller, B., & Spillane, J. (n.d). Civil death: An examination of ex-felon disenfranchisement and reintegration. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 14(4), 402–428.
- Siegel, J. A. (2011). Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage. Social Work, 56(1), 89–91.
- State-by-state overview for the United States by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- Felony Disenfranchisement page from The Sentencing Project
- Gabriel J. Chin, Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth?, 92 Georgetown Law Journal 259 (2004)
- Wood, Erika (2008). "Restoring the Right to Vote" (PDF). The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-09-10.
- Historical Timeline US History of Felon Voting/Disenfranchisement at ProCon.org