Restriction and Loss of Voting Rights for Convicted Offenders

Restriction and Loss of Voting Rights for Convicted Offenders
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
Course Name and Number
Due Date
Restriction and Loss of Voting Rights for Convicted Offenders
Abstract
Voting rights among convicted offenders have attracted extensive research and conflicting debates in the United States. Findings demonstrate that the approach towards this issue varies from state to state, with some maintaining restrictive stances. Others abandon them by restoring voting rights to these individuals after completing their sentences. Despite these changing elements, literature agrees that the alienation of voting rights reflects the discriminative attitudes of the political elites to minimize the political influence of communities of color. However, recent changes stirred by awareness of voting rights have shifted the perspective, leading to more states embracing the move towards lifting these discriminative restrictions.
Introduction
Restriction and or loss of rights to votes for convicted offenders has remained a divisive debate in the criminal justice field and political arena in the United States. According to Chung (2021), this practice denies individuals their constitutional rights by restricting their capacity to participate in the electoral process. The author terms the limitations as disenfranchising the voters. The discourse around this issue is passionate, considering the number of Americans affected by the laws despite completing their sentences. Chung (2021) reports that approximately 2.2 million individuals remain disenfranchised by the discriminative laws that keep changing from one season to another in different states. The origin of these laws dates back to the English colonists’ practices of civil death as a criminal penalty characterized by voting rights revocation in North America (Chung, 2021). This disenfranchisement became gradually codified by states post-American revolution to incorporate provisions that include different felony wrongdoings leading to the presence of such laws in up to 29 regions by 1869. Legislators targeted crimes commonplace among lower social classes and African American populations to shrink their political influence (Klumppa et al., 2019). The trends established at the time persist, making this topic relevant for the current times because of its disproportionate disadvantages that it impacts on people of color. Thus, voting rights limitation among convicted offenders is an invaluable topic of discussion for exposing the discriminative laws even in contemporary times.
Literature Review
Different researchers have explored the issue of voting rights restrictions among convicted offenders and illustrated its magnitude in civil processes. For instance, Uggen et al. (2020) indicate that by 2020, over 5.17 million Americans could not vote due to disenfranchising related to felony convictions. Although this figure represents a 15% reduction compared to the 6.11 million people in 2016, it is still high and robs many people of their democratic rights. Poama and Theuns (2019) argue that voting rights activists have been vocal in advocating for changing perspectives and lifting restrictions in many states across the nation. They argue for democratic expressivism, an approach that moves away from the historical and colonial practices of constricting the political powers of disadvantaged groups in a nation. Shineman (2019) also supports this observation by discussing the increased political efficacy that potentially emerges from reversing the restrictions. Such arguments confirm that many studies object to voting rights suppression in modern times.
One of the conflicting aspects surrounding the voting rights of convicted offenders is that they have become a source of the political showdown between different state regimes (Klumppa et al., 2019). A report by Chung (2021) reveals that many states have been fluctuating between regression and reforms. For instance, Governor Vilsack of Iowa restored voting rights for all individuals who had fully served their sentences in 2005, only for Governor Branstad to rescind the executive order in 2011. Recently, Governor Reynolds restored these rights in 2020. The author indicates that other states like Florida have seen their efforts of Amending their state statutes to allow these individuals to vote complicated by subsequent incorporation of stringent conditions that disadvantage certain groups of convicted persons. Uggen et al. (2020) indicate that this trend dates back to the colonial principles that bore these regulations and the subsequent state adoption to limit the voting rights of people of colo...