Suffering Without Suffrage

This is the second in what I hope to be a series of opinion posts regarding amendments to the Constitution of the United States (see the first one here). The entire enterprise of the Constitution is to create a more perfect union, and amendments are designed to serve that purpose. While amendments are (rightly) difficult to enact, it is entirely plausible that our fundamental system of law is in need of more perfection and, when that is the case, we are obliged to amend to make a more just and free country.

I want you to think about the idea of paying or fulfilling one’s “debt to society,” particularly as it is used in the criminal justice system. At the time of sentencing (after trial or through a plea), judges will impose some type of punishment ideally meant as redress for the victim or rehabilitation for the defendant. Perhaps this will be restitution paid to the victim, community service, classes, therapy, or even imprisonment. Once the parameters of these punishments are fulfilled, the goal (though often left unrealized) is for the shackles of the justice system to drop free from the wrists of the offender so they may once again rejoin society as a free person. In a perfect world, these punishments are constructed to reform the individual into a community-minded individual who takes responsibility for his or her actions, and uplifts that community through their reentry.

Now, whether or not this is how it plays out in the real world (spoiler: it is not), once the debt to society is paid, no more payment is necessary. This is how every other debt in the world functions. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that committing a felony in the United States is a debt that is continually paid for the rest of one’s life, no matter how reformed a person becomes and no matter how just their sentence. This plays out in bunches of ways - losing opportunities at housing, jobs, and education - but for right now I want to focus on one in particular - voting.

Using data from the National Conference of State Legislatures, I created a map to show how voting is restored, if ever, in each state

In nearly every state (Maine and Vermont excepted), a felon loses his or her right to vote for some duration, ranging from during incarceration only, to during the sentence (including parole, say), to never being restored.

At the very least, a system which espouses the “debt to society” idea should have all forms of that debt end once it is paid, but I’d like to go a step further than that. I don’t believe that one’s right to vote should ever be taken away. This would mean that a newly convicted murderer would still be able to vote for whomever they want. On one level, this is because the right to vote is not even construed to defendants as a part of their debt. See this plea agreement, for example, do you see disenfranchisement listed among the penalties for the felony? No, it isn’t there, and it isn’t presented as a part of conviction. How is it serving any of the purposes of a justice system if it is not even presented to felons? It certainly doesn’t seem to help with rehabilitation and, if it isn’t mentioned in plea agreements or sentencing documents, it can hardly be argued to serve on the level of retribution or deterrence.

On another level, though, the government must continue to serve and work for all of its citizens, even those who are guilty of heinous crimes. By ripping away the vote, states ensure that the government need not work for those incarcerated despite their citizenship status. In fact, if you are a felon who has gone through the criminal justice system, you may have a far better idea of how society needs improving than the average person, and so your right to vote is crucial to building the society we want. By ensuring the right to vote no matter what, we ensure a system that is more equitable and free.

Eugene Debs ran for President of the United States from prison in 1920 (and earned 3.4% of the popular vote). In many places today, he would still have the right to run for President but not to vote for himself.

How is this disenfranchisement even allowed? To many of us, depriving an individual of something so sacred as voting is odd or even unthinkable. Well, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states that the right to vote shall not be “in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The solution is fairly clean and simple, and resembles my tweak of the 13th Amendment; strike “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime” from the Constitution. You might be thinking, “the 14th Amendment is pretty significant to the United States, do we really want to amend it?” but other flaws in the 14th Amendment have already been remedied by further amendments; the 19th Amendment expanded the right to vote to women and the 26th Amendment established 18 as the voting age.

Some might see this as radical. They may believe that when a felony is committed, the crime is too severe for the debt to society to ever be paid. This, I posit, leaves no room for a functional criminal justice model and does not allow for people to become well-adjusted, contributing members of society. It further rips the voice away from the voiceless, and is grounded more on retribution than rehabilitation.