Felon disenfranchisement and the fight for universal suffrage.

Siegel, Jonah A.

During the past 35 years, the prison population of the United States has increased sevenfold. Today, there are over 1.5 million adults currently incarcerated in state or federal facilities, with an additional 700,000 individuals serving time in local jails (Sabol & Couture, 2008). Minorities of color are severely overrepresented within the criminal justice system. (Despite representing 13 percent of the U.S. population, African Americans compose 38 percent of presently incarcerated inmates; similarly, Hispanics total just over 15 percent of the overall population and 20 percent of inmates [Sabol & Couture, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006]).

Criminal convictions carry many consequences beyond immediate sentences or terms of incarceration. These "collateral consequences" include barriers to obtaining employment, housing, higher education, and public benefits. Both pervasive and enduring, many of these forms of punishment have been institutionalized in government policy. Increasingly harsh sentencing policies (for example, three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentences) and the racially disproportionate effects of the so-called "war on drugs" have led to a vast increase in the number of individuals and communities suffering from such collateral consequences (see Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002; Pew Center on the States, 2008).

One of the lesser known implications of justice-system involvement is the practice of temporarily or permanently denying the right to vote to individuals with criminal convictions. Affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), states are permitted to disenfranchise convicted felons on the basis of the court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "when the right to vote ... is denied ... or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced" (italics added). Forty-eight states ban felons from voting while they are incarcerated, and 35 of these states deny former offenders the right to vote while paroled. In 11 states, some former offenders may reapply for suffrage, but others lose the right to vote permanently. It is estimated that more than 5 million Americans are currently denied suffrage under these laws, including 2 million people who have completed their sentences (Manza & Uggen, 2006). (In addition, Ewald [2005] found that at least five states temporarily or permanently disenfranchise misdemeanants and that many legally eligible voters do not vote because of widespread confusion regarding disenfranchisement laws.) Mirroring racial disparities in justice-system involvement, African American men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times greater than the national average; in states with more restrictive laws, up to 25 percent will never vote again (The Sentencing Project, 2007).

Since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-110), convicted felons remain one of the few populations institutionally denied the right to vote. This denial of suffrage undermines the democratic process and impedes rehabilitation, debilitating both communities and individuals. Given the severity of current policy and its effects, it is consistent with the ethical imperatives of the profession that social workers take a more assertive stance against disenfranchisement.

ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Felon disenfranchisement hinders the democratic process by undermining equitable representation of citizens' interests, a critical component of a functioning democracy. In the United States, voting is the most common means through which citizens influence how they are represented; in fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the significance of suffrage, asserting that voting is the "essence of a democratic society" (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964) and that all other rights "are illusory if the right to vote is undermined" (Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964, p. 17). Felon disenfranchisement laws, however, create an impenetrable barrier to the equitable representation of interests. As Pettus (2005) argued, it is impossible that "any group of citizens, no matter how morally 'worthy' their qualifications may be in that they have never been convicted for crime, can discern the 'common interest' if they exclude any portion of the citizenry from their deliberations" (p. 5).

Felon disenfranchisement, she continued, sets up a dynamic in which enfranchised citizens prevail over those who are disenfranchised due to a criminal conviction, further threatening the farter's already disadvantaged place in society.

In addition, harsh disenfranchisement policies may endanger electoral outcomes. An analysis of recent election data revealed that at least seven senatorial elections and one presidential election would have been decided differently if convicted felons had retained suffrage (Uggen & Manza, 2002). This significant impact on election outcomes calls into question the validity of the democratic process.

BENEFITS OF REENFRANCHISEMENT

Research suggests that the process of disenfranchisement may impede offender rehabilitation by increasing feelings of alienation, stigmatization, and humiliation (Dhami, 2005; Fellner & Mauer, 1998). Conversely, scholars have also theorized that reenfranchisement can facilitate the reintegration process of offenders. Voting fosters the creation of social ties (Dhami, 2005) and is part of identity formation, "signal[ing] formal membership within the political community" and granting "status" to its participants (Guinier & Torres, 2003, p. 207). Similarly, reenfranchisement may help increase respect for social and political institutions. As Uggen, Manza, and Thompson (2006) argued, it is difficult to "perfor[m] the duties of citizenship [while being denied the] full rights of citizenship" (p. 283). In a study of the 1996 presidential election, these authors found a strong negative association between likelihood of voting and recidivism. Further exploration of the benefits of reenfranchisement would be a useful tool for advocates.

ROLE OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Contemporary sentencing laws have resulted in a disquieting number of disenfranchised citizens. Without a reduction in rates of incarceration or reform of disenfranchisement laws, a decline in the percentage of enfranchised citizens in the United States has the potential to threaten individual well-being and undermine the foundations of U.S. democracy. It is critical, therefore, that greater numbers of social workers join the fight against disenfranchisement.

The assertion that social workers have turned a blind eye to disenfranchisement does a disservice to the many individuals participating in voter registration efforts, research, and advocacy. It is surprising, however, that the organized social work profession has not broadly engaged with these issues in ways that are sufficient or proportionate to their implications. A brief examination of recent scholarship on social work values and ethics underscores the profession's commitment to individual and community well-being and its subsequent need to give greater attention to the effects of felon disenfranchisement policies.

The social work profession has been steadfast in its historical commitment to advancing both the common good and the public interest (Reamer, 1993). (Differentiated by their loci of change, the "common good" holds that individual well-being relies on the good of the community, whereas the "public interest" assumes that individual change advances collective agendas [Reamer, 1993]). In an electoral democracy, the advancement of these concepts, particularly that of the common good, depends on universal suffrage. Limiting the voting rights of specific populations, particularly those that are already oppressed or vulnerable, results in an incomplete and biased notion of the common good. Social work's "philosophical anchor in the concepts of the common good and the public interest" (Reamer, 1993, p. 34) requires that the profession address the obstacles to individual and community well-being and self-actualization that result from disenfranchisement.

Although the Code of Ethics (NASW, 2008) does not speak directly to the issue of suffrage, the goals and values it articulates imply social workers' ethical obligation to promote the repeal of disenfranchisement laws. For example, under Ethical Standards, section 6.02, the Code of Ethics references public participation: "Social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions" (NASW, 2008, p. 27). Similarly, section 6.04 mandates social workers to engage in "social and political action ... to ensure that all people have equal access to ... resources, employment, services, and opportunities" as well as to "expand choice and opportunity for all people" (NASW, 2008, p. 27). Disenfranchisement laws severely weaken the voting power of offenders and former offenders, creating impenetrable obstacles to such access and opportunities. Although universal suffrage is certainly not a panacea for social problems, it is a well-established and relatively accessible way for citizens to voice their concerns.

Social workers, therefore, have a professionally mandated responsibility to advocate for the reenfranchisement of offenders, particularly those who have completed their sentences. To achieve this end, there are avenues for participation at all levels of social work practice. Research on the benefits of enfranchisement and political advocacy at the local and state levels, for example, are two endeavors that will significantly advance the likelihood of overturning disenfranchisement laws. In an effort to facilitate the registration of eligible voters, social workers can educate local communities on cryptic state voting laws and restoration processes that confuse politicians and consumers alike (Ewald, 2005). Concurrently, direct service practitioners, including parole and probation officers, can engage their clients in the voting process by encouraging voting restoration and registration. In sum, social workers' access to clients, communities, and academic and political forums presents an unparalleled opportunity for the profession to effectively champion the dismantling of disenfranchisement laws.

Original manuscript received September 10, 2008

Accepted January 23, 2009

REFERENCES

Dhami, M. (2005). Prisoner disenfranchisement policy: A threat to democracy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 235-247.

Ewald, A. (2005). A "crazy-quilt" of tiny pieces: State and local administration and American criminal disenfranchisement law. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

Fellner, J., & Mauer, M. (1998). Losing the vote: The impact of felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project.

Guinier, L., & Torres, G. (2003). The miner's canary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (Eds.). (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author.

Pettus, K. I. (2005). Felony disenfranchisement in America: Historical origins, institutional racism, and modern consequences. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: Author.

Reamer, F. (1993). The philosophical foundations of social work. New York: Columbia University Press.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974).

Sabol, W., & Couture, H. (2008). Prison inmates at midyear 2007 (No. NCJ 221944). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

The Sentencing Project. (2007). Felony disenfranchisement laws by state. Washington, DC: Author.

Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? The political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 67, 777-803.

Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 281-310.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). American community survey demographic and housing estimates: 2006. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US &-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-%20-geo _id=01000US&-ds_name=&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=

Voting Rights Act of 1965, P.L. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (1965).

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 1964.

Jonah A. Siegel, MSW, is a student, Joint Doctoral Program in social work and sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Address correspondence to the author at University of Michigan, Weill Hall, Room 5115, 735 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; e-mail: siegelja@umich.edu.