# data[].attributes.headline
Topic: Taking away Felons Right to Vote.

# data[].attributes.subject
Topic: Taking away Felons Right to Vote.

# data[].attributes.body
Though the right to have a say in political decisions is a human right laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, throughout the United States, different states have vastly varying policies on whether or not felons have the right to vote. In some states, once you're charged with a felony and incarcerated, you immediately lose all right to ever vote again while in others, the right to vote is never taken away, even while incarcerated.

# data[].attributes.body
Of all 50 states, only two states and the District of Columbia never take away an individual’s right to vote when charged with a Felony. Individuals in these states are still able to voice their opinions and use their right to vote even while incarcerated. Considering that those charged with Felonies will still feel the effects of those policies and politicians put in office, it seems unfair and violates the rights of these individuals affected. I believe that all states should have the same policy about voting, specifically that all individuals who are charged with felonies should never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated.

# data[].attributes.body
Having a felony already leaves individuals with a lifelong mark on their record which can stop them from getting access to many things. These things include the right to own/purchase guns, access to some public assistance, the right to serve on a jury, and many more. The policies on what is taken from these individuals vary from state to state which I feel shows a lack of fairness and clear reasoning for why certain rights are taken away. Through the links and resources I’ll be sharing, I hope you’ll understand the reasons in which I believe that felons should have the right to vote, throughout their sentences and immediately after being discharged.

# data[].attributes.body
As previously mentioned, the laws on where felon voting is legal varies from state to state. This link shares a great summary and table of the laws in each state. For those who are curious, Michigan is one of the states that grant immediate reacess to voting rights after release.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

# data[].attributes.body
Within the past 25 years, there are many states which have changed their laws regarding the voting regulations for individuals with felons. Since each state is able to make these laws their own, it can be very complicated to keep up with who can and cannnot vote. Individuals who have been released from prison and are unaware of the recent changes may still be wasting their votes. Other are being forced to pay thousands of dollars in fines before being granted the ability to vote. The impacts of these laws are long lasting and continue to keep people down and silencing their voices.

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of stripping those convicted of crimes dates back to the 1865. At the time, it was written up as broad felony disenfranchisement laws. This meant that by throwing people of color into prison, they would be released and stripped of all of their rights, leaving them without a voice and forced to work for others. One in 16 African Americans have been stripped of their voting rights in this way. A striking quote from the article states, "What is the result of this history? Black Americans of voting age are more than four times as likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population. One of every 13 Black adults is disenfranchised. In some states like Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and, until recently, Florida, one in five Blacks have been disenfranchised. In total, 2.2 million Black citizens are banned from voting. Thirty-eight percent of the disenfranchised population in America is Black."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" Do you want the Boston marathon bomber to vote?" is a provocative question that acts as a smokescreen concealing the real issue - why and when did America decide that people convicted of a crime should not vote?

The historical context for this comes from old English common law which justified the concept of "civil death" as punishment for conviction of treason or a felony because a person committing a crime had "corrupt blood," making the person "dead in the law." America did not immediately adopt this position because the Constitution was silent on voting rights - it neither granted nor denied anyone the right to vote.

Before the Civil War, as a Brennan Center report shows, voting rights and the loss of those rights weren't linked to convictions. America did not incarcerate in large numbers, and states that adopted broad felony disenfranchisement did so after establishing full white male suffrage by eliminating property tests. After the Civil War, places like Louisiana granted poor illiterate whites the right to vote while denying poor illiterate Blacks the right to vote by basing the right on whether your grandfather could vote, hence the term "grandfathered in".

In 1787, the Constitution considered Black people as three-fifths of a human being. Blacks voting was not an issue. Then came the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Enslaving people, except as punishment for a crime, was illegal. Birthright U.S. citizenship was established, explicitly including freed enslaved people. Black men got the right to vote. Over 2,000 Black men were elected to government offices, and they began purchasing or homesteading property and voting.

America responded. The exception in the 13th Amendment allowing slavery as punishment for a crime was paired with "Black Codes," which basically criminalized Black life. Blacks convicted under Black Code laws were leased out to do work, providing cheap labor to boost the South's faltering economy. In 1850, 2% of prisoners in Alabama were non-white. By 1870, it was 74%. At least 90% of the "leased" prison laborers were Black.

In the 15 years between 1865 and 1880, at least 13 states - more than a third of the country's 38 states - enacted broad felony disenfranchisement laws. The theory was simple - convict them of crimes, strip away the right to vote, imprison them, and lease them out as convict labor and Blacks would be returned to a condition as close to slavery as possible.

No one tried to hide the intent of these laws.

In 1894, a white South Carolina newspaper argued that amendments to the voting laws were necessary to avoid whites being swept away at the polls by the Black vote. In 1901, Alabama amended its Constitution to expand disenfranchisement to all crimes involving "moral turpitude" - a vague term that was applied to felonies and misdemeanors. The president of that constitutional convention argued that manipulating the ballot to exclude Blacks was justified because of the need to avoid the "menace of Negro domination," especially since Blacks were inferior to whites.

It wasn't just the South. In 1874, New York was the only state that required property ownership for Blacks to vote.Thislaw clearly violated the 15th Amendment prohibition on race-based voting restrictions. A governor-appointed "Constitutional Commission" finally struck down the property law while, simultaneously, quietly amending the New York Constitution to impose felony disenfranchisement. New York could not prevent Blacks from voting because of poverty, so it found a solution in the criminal legal system.

What is the result of this history? Black Americans of voting age are more than four times as likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population. One of every 13 Black adults is disenfranchised. In some states like Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and, until recently, Florida, one in five Blacks have been disenfranchised. In total, 2.2 million Black citizens are banned from voting. Thirty-eight percent of the disenfranchised population in America is Black.

The two states that allow people in prison to vote are Vermont and Maine, the two whitest states in the country. In many other states, incarcerated people are stripped of their vote but remain counted as part of the populations of the (often very white and rural) districts where they are locked up, boosting the electoral advantage of those districts. A 2003 study found that the larger the state's Black population, the more likely the state was to pass the most stringent laws that permanently denied people convicted of crimes the right to vote.

America is isolated on this issue - and not in a good way. South Africa, Canada, Ireland, and Spain allow everyone in prison to vote. Germany disenfranchises for certain offenses like treason, but only for a maximum of five years. Finland and New Zealand disenfranchise only for election offenses and only for a few years beyond completion of a sentence. In France, only election offenses and abuse of public power warrant disenfranchisement. When we compare America to the other heirs of the English legal tradition, one thing becomes clear: The only reason our practice resulted in racial disparity is that we designed it that way.

Why aren't we asking why countries around the world handle this issue so differently? Doesn't revoking voting rights of people in prison unnecessarily strip them of dignity and make rehabilitation that much more difficult? Justifications offered now regarding disenfranchisement ignore the undeniable fact that the practice in America is clearly connected to an attempt to deny Blacks full rights as citizens. We cannot change what happened in the past, but we are better than that now - we can fix it now. Restoration of voting rights to people in prison is a concept we should all support. It is consistent with whom we claim to be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Racist Roots of Denying Incarcerated People Their Right to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
" Do you want the Boston marathon bomber to vote?" is a provocative question that acts as a smokescreen concealing the real issue - why and when did America decide that people convicted of a crime should not vote?

# data[].attributes.body
This article covers information on the issue of having to pay fines after serving sentences to be able to vote again. In some states that have regiven their convicts with the right to vote, there have been circumstances left that are continuing to stop then from using their voices. With limitations on jobs avalible to individuals with a record and the high fines that individuals are facing, this barrier feels like just another way to keep individuals back from expressing thier voices. The sad reality of our country is that even giving people the right to vote comes with additonal barriers that are too large to overcome for many.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2006, the average length served for a felony charge was 3 years served in state prisons or 6 years in federal. Within a 6 year sentence, 6 annual state votes, 3 congressional votes, and one presidental election would have been missed. All of which are elections that would likely impact the life of an individual both while inside and outside of the prison. Individuals in prison systems are greatly affected by the outcomes of election at all levels and considering their lives are being discussed, they should be able to have some voice on who is elected.

# data[].attributes.body
NASW agrees that to limit the right for individuals to vote due to a felon is a voter discrimination that cannot be tolerated. It's a voter depression and is being used the political parties to favor themseleves. With 5.2 million people being affected by this restriction, we've seen in recent elections that this amount of people is enough to change the outcome of an election. Being educated and reading up on changes like these will help yu better advocate for those you serve. We as social workers often deal with very challenging policy changes and by providing those they effect with the power to use their voice is exactly what we aim to do in our profession. No one should be left voiceless when the votes will directly effect them and their lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
NASW - National Associacion of Social Workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASW Statement on Senate Consideration of Voting Rights Amendment Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) strongly supports the Voting Rights Amendment Act (S.1945) and urges quick Senate passage of the legislation.

The association thanks the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the rest of the Committee for holding hearings on the legislation this week.

This bicameral, bipartisan legislation offers a measured and commonsense approach in response to the Supreme Court's June 25, 2013, decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that for decades had ensured protection for voters against discrimination.

NASW has a long history of being in the forefront of social justice, especially when it comes to voters rights. Two of the leaders in the fight to pass the Voters Rights Act of 1965, past NASW President Whitney M. Young, Jr. and Dorothy I. Height, were social workers.

Discrimination in voting is real and it is not a thing of the past-it is still happening and we need tools to redress such injustices. Since the Shelby decision, a number of states and localities have introduced and pushed forward potentially discriminatory changes to their voting procedures, such as changing district boundaries to disadvantage some voters and moving polling locations in areas with high concentrations of minority voters. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 22 states have passed voting restrictions since 2010.

NASW has always taken the position that voting discrimination can pose an existential threat to our democracy. Any violation of the right to vote is troubling and requires a strong, bipartisan response from Congress. The Voting Rights Amendment Act is a modern, flexible, national approach to protecting voters that embodies the spirit and letter of the Court's decision.

We are at a key juncture of a long fight to ensure that no voter suffers discrimination at the ballot box. Every day that Congress fails to act, the fundamental right to vote is in danger. With national elections looming as early as November 2014, there are Americans who will lose their right to vote solely because of their race or English language proficiency. This cannot be tolerated. Failure to advance this legislation gives a free pass to voting discrimination.
The National Association of Social Workers Foundation (NASWF), in Washington, DC, is the largest membership organization of professional social workers with 130,000 members. It promotes, develops, and protects the practice of social work and social workers. NASW also seeks to enhance the well-being of individuals, families, and communities through its advocacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASW Statement on Senate Consideration of Voting Rights Amendment Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASW Statement on Senate Consideration of Voting Rights Amendment Act WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) strongly supports the Voting Rights Amendment Act (S.1945) and urges quick Senate passage of the legislation. The association thanks the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Sen.

# data[].attributes.body
As Social Workers, we need to stay up to date on projects happening in our community and ways in which we can support movements in giving individuals access to their rights again. With only two states having no restrictions to voting rights, there's high odds that your state representatives need to hear from you about making better progress on this issue. By following the link below, the process is simple on how to write to and contact your senators about the issue. They will collect a few pieces of information from you to curate a letter to your senator demanding change on this critual issue. Please use this link to have your voice heard and share it with others to help in the movement of giving people thier rights back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democracy Restoration Act | The Sentencing Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voting is an important responsibility of citizenship and a broadly engaged electorate is a critical component of an effective democracy.... Read More "

# data[].attributes.body
This is a great resource for Social Workers to be able to share with any individual concered about their right to vote. This resource has updated information about each state and by answering just a few questions, you are able to see if you qualify. With all the certain restrictions, it van be difficult to know all the rules. If you can vote, it even gives a link directly to where you can register.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people wonder "can I vote with a felony conviction?" and assume the laws have restricted their rights. But that's not true! While many states have some restriction on felon voting rights, most states restore the right to vote to citizens after they complete their sentences. In fact, up to 18 million Americans with past convictions can vote RIGHT NOW - they just don't know it - because the felony disenfranchisement laws in every state can be confusing.

With the help of this website, you will no longer have to wonder whether you have the right to vote and will no longer have to ask, "can I restore my right to vote?" If you are a United States citizen, you can answer the key questions below about your conviction(s) and determine if you are eligible to vote right now, or eligible to go through the process to restore your right to vote.

Please know that using this website is completely anonymous. We do not capture any information about you.
Utilice esta guía en español.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Restore Your Vote: I have a felony conviction. Can I vote?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people wonder "can I vote with a felony conviction?" and assume the laws have restricted their rights. But that's not true! While many states have some restriction on felon voting rights, most states restore the right to vote to citizens after they complete their sentences.

# data[].attributes.body
The right to vote and participate in political things is a human right. To take away the right to vote from those convicted with a felony is a huge cut to individuals and disproprtionatly affects the African American population. This is one of the many ways that systematic racism lives in our country and continues to make life more difficult to individuals. As social workers we need to work to continue this effort of reinstating the right to vote to those who have lost it and keep individuals up to date about current laws regarding this. People with lived experiences are being the ones held back from voting on what should happen in prison and individuals with felonies are just a likely to be affected by decision of policy makers as any other individuals. Felonies rage from all different types of crimes and have various length of sentences. To strip someone of the right to speak for themselves is wrong and goes directly against the Universal Decleration of Human Rights.