Restoring the Right to Vote

A deep dive into felon disenfranchisement laws, their history, and the movements to restore voting rights to millions of Americans.

Introduction: A Second Sentence at the Ballot Box

The fluorescent lights of the county elections office hummed with a sterile indifference. He stood at the counter, the voter registration form crisp in his hand, a simple piece of paper that felt impossibly heavy. His daughter, who was eight at the time, tugged at my sleeve, her eyes wide with the quiet importance of the moment. For her, this was a civics lesson in action. For him, it was a tightrope walk over a chasm of his own past.

He handed the form to the clerk. She scanned it, her eyes pausing on the box he had been compelled to check. Her expression shifted, not with malice, but with a flicker of uncertainty that felt just as sharp. “I’m not sure you can vote,” she said, her voice just loud enough for the person behind me to hear. A small line began to form. His daughter squeezed his hand a little tighter. In that moment, under the bland gaze of bureaucracy, he wasn’t a father, a business owner, or a taxpayer. He was an “ex-felon,” a label that was being publicly re-stamped onto his identity, years after he had walked out of prison.

That moment of doubt, of public scrutiny, landed like a second sentence. It’s a sentence that isn’t handed down by a judge but is enforced every day in the quiet indignities and closed doors that define life after incarceration—a reality I spoke about in the very first episode of my podcast.¹ If democracy is a promise of inclusion, why is its most basic proof—my ballot—so conditional?

His experience is not unique. It is the reality for millions of Americans who have paid their debt to society, only to find they are permanently locked out of its most fundamental civic act. This is not a peripheral issue; it is a fundamental challenge to the integrity of American democracy. Felony disenfranchisement is not a flaw in a well-meaning system; it is a feature of a system meticulously designed to exclude.² And just as it was designed by people, it can, and must, be redesigned by us.

The Scale of the Silence: Four Million Voices Lost

To grasp the magnitude of this issue, we have to start with the numbers. According to the latest data from The Sentencing Project, an estimated 4.0 million Americans were barred from voting in the 2024 elections due to a felony conviction.³ Four million citizens, silenced.

But here is the most crucial, and perhaps most misunderstood, fact of all: 75 percent of those disenfranchised individuals are not in prison. They are living in our communities.³ They are our neighbors, our colleagues, and our family members. They are on probation or parole, working to rebuild their lives, or they have fully completed their sentences and are, by every legal definition, free. This statistic shatters the common misconception that felon disenfranchisement is a policy that only affects those behind bars. It is not a prison issue; it is a community issue. Its primary function is not to isolate the incarcerated from civic life, but to impose a permanent state of civic marginalization on people who are trying to reintegrate into society.

The impact of this exclusion is not felt equally. As we explored in a previous post on the intersection of race, poverty, and incarceration, the justice system’s burdens fall most heavily on communities of color.⁵ Felony disenfranchisement is no exception; it is a powerful engine of racial inequality. Nationally, one in every 22 Black adults is disenfranchised—a rate more than three times that of non-Black Americans.³ In some states, the disparity is staggering. In places like Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee, more than one in ten Black adults is barred from voting.³ In total,1.3 million Black citizens are banned from the ballot box.³

These are not just statistics. They are the sound of a democracy with a hollowed-out core. They represent a deliberate and targeted silencing of voices, a civic death that echoes the darkest chapters of our nation’s history.

An Architecture of Exclusion: How This System Was Designed

To understand why these laws have such a devastatingly racist impact, we have to understand their origin. Modern disenfranchisement is not an accidental byproduct of a colorblind justice system; it is a direct and intentional descendant of post-Civil War strategies designed to re-establish and maintain white supremacy.

The architecture for this system was laid in the very amendment that was supposed to guarantee equal rights. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including the formerly enslaved.⁸ But buried in Section 2 is a catastrophic loophole, a phrase that would be weaponized for the next 150 years. It states that a state’s representation in Congress could be reduced if it denied the vote to any of its male citizens, “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime”.⁹

That final phrase—”or other crime”—was the key. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, as Black men began to vote and hold office in unprecedented numbers, Southern states moved with brutal efficiency to exploit this loophole. As I detailed in my essay on the design of the prison system, they enacted a wave of laws known as the “Black Codes,” which criminalized everyday life for Black Americans.² Offenses like vagrancy, breaking curfew, or even changing employers without permission were redefined as felonies. This created a new class of Black “criminals,” who could then be legally stripped of their newly won right to vote under the “other crime” provision of the 14th Amendment.⁵

This was not a subtle process. The intent was explicit. At Alabama’s 1901 constitutional convention, which created a host of disenfranchising provisions, convention president John B. Knox declared the framers’ goal was, “within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this state”.⁹

This history makes one thing painfully clear. Felony disenfranchisement was never about public safety or preserving the “purity” of the ballot. It was, from its inception, a tool of racial and social control. The staggering racial disparities we see today are not an unforeseen consequence; they are the direct, predictable, and intended outcome of the policy’s original design. It is one of the most enduring features of a system built not for justice, but for subjugation.

The Law of the Land: From Richardson to Hunter

For a century, this system of racially motivated disenfranchisement operated with little federal interference. Then, in the 1970s and 80s, two landmark Supreme Court cases defined the modern legal battleground over the right to vote.

First, in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the Supreme Court gave its constitutional blessing to the practice. The case involved three Californians who had completed their felony sentences and paroles but were still barred from voting. The Court ruled against them, holding that felon disenfranchisement laws do not, on their face, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority’s reasoning rested almost entirely on that historical loophole in Section 2, arguing that the framers of the amendment clearly intended to allow states to disenfranchise citizens for criminal convictions.¹¹

Richardson effectively constitutionalized the practice, shielding these laws from broad legal challenges.

A decade later, however, the Court carved out a crucial exception. In Hunter v. Underwood (1985), the Court unanimously struck down a provision of the Alabama Constitution that disenfranchised individuals for crimes of “moral turpitude.” While the law appeared racially neutral, the Court found overwhelming historical evidence—including the explicit statements from the 1901 convention—that it had been enacted with the specific intent to discriminate against Black voters.¹³

Together, these two rulings created a legal paradox that protects the status quo. Richardson established that disenfranchisement is generally permissible. Hunter offered a path to challenge these laws, but only by meeting the incredibly high bar of proving that the original lawmakers, often a century ago, acted with racist intent. This means that a law with a clear, devastating, and racially disparate effect today can remain perfectly legal as long as its original racist motivations cannot be proven to a court’s satisfaction. This legal framework effectively grandfathers in a tool of Jim Crow oppression, allowing the consequences of a racist past to persist under a veil of constitutional legitimacy.

A Nation Divided: The 50-State Patchwork of Confusion

The Supreme Court’s deference to states has resulted in a chaotic and bewildering patchwork of laws that vary dramatically across the country. There is no national standard. Your right to vote after a conviction depends entirely on your zip code. This inconsistency is, in itself, a formidable barrier to voting. The complexity creates a “chilling effect,” where citizens who are legally eligible to vote are often too confused about the rules or too fearful of prosecution to even attempt to register. In this way, the system achieves disenfranchisement not through explicit prohibition, but through bureaucratic obfuscation.¹⁶

Broadly, states fall into one of four categories ¹⁶:

Category	Description	States & Jurisdictions
Never Lose Right to Vote	Individuals can vote while incarcerated, on parole, on probation, and after completing their sentence.	Maine, Vermont, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico
Rights Lost Only While Incarcerated	Voting rights are automatically restored upon release from prison. People on parole or probation can vote.	23 states, including Illinois, Ohio, and recently, Minnesota
Rights Lost Until Sentence Completion	Voting rights are lost during incarceration and for the entire period of community supervision (parole and/or probation).	15 states, including Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
Additional Hurdles or Lifetime Bans	Restoration requires additional action after sentence completion (e.g., waiting period, governor’s pardon) or is permanently denied for certain offenses.	10 states, including Florida, Virginia, Kentucky, and Arizona

Source: Based on data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 2025.¹⁶

This landscape is constantly shifting, which only adds to the confusion. In recent years, we’ve seen positive momentum in some states. In 2023, Minnesota passed HF 28, a landmark bill that restored voting rights to more than 55,000 people upon their release from incarceration.¹⁷ In 2024, Oklahoma enacted HB 1629, clarifying and expanding rights restoration for those who receive pardons or commutations, a law that takes effect in January 2025.²⁰

However, progress is not guaranteed. In Virginia, the right to vote for anyone with a felony conviction rests entirely on the governor’s discretion. After previous administrations had moved toward automatic restoration, the current governor reversed that policy, making Virginia the only state in the nation that permanently disenfranchises all people with felony convictions unless the government approves restoration on an individual basis.²² This back-and-forth demonstrates how fragile these rights can be when tied to the political whims of an individual officeholder.

The Poll Tax of the 21st Century: Florida’s Pay-to-Vote Trap

Nowhere is the adaptive resistance to enfranchisement clearer than in Florida. The state’s recent history serves as a masterclass in how a clear democratic mandate can be systematically dismantled by political and legal maneuvering.

In 2018, nearly 65 percent of Florida voters—a resounding, bipartisan majority—passed Amendment 4. This constitutional amendment was designed to automatically restore voting rights to an estimated 1.4 million Floridians who had completed their sentences.²⁴ It was hailed as the largest expansion of the franchise in the United States since the Voting Rights Act.

The victory was short-lived. The following year, the Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 7066, a law that gutted the amendment. It redefined the phrase “completion of all terms of sentence” to include the full payment of all court-ordered fines, fees, costs, and restitution—what are known as legal financial obligations (LFOs).²⁵ Instantly, this created a modern-day poll tax, conditioning the right to vote on a person’s ability to pay.

The cruelty of this law was compounded by its impossibility. The state of Florida has no centralized database to track LFOs. The records are scattered across 67 different county clerks, often in outdated and inconsistent formats.²⁶ As a result, it is often impossible for a returning citizen—or even the state itself—to determine how much is owed. During the subsequent legal battle, a state official admitted on the stand, “There is no stakeholder in the state of Florida that can serve as a source of truth that somebody completed all terms of their sentence”.²⁶

Despite this, in the case of Jones v. Governor of Florida, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld SB 7066, cementing this “pay-to-vote” system into law.²⁸ The Florida saga reveals a chilling truth: when one barrier to the ballot box is torn down, the political system can and will erect new ones. Disenfranchisement is not just a static law; it is an adaptive political goal, pursued through whatever facially neutral mechanisms it can find.

Locked Out by Logistics: The Unseen Disenfranchisement in Our Jails

While the debate over felony convictions dominates the conversation, another, more hidden form of disenfranchisement unfolds every day in our nation’s local jails. On any given day, nearly half a million people are held in jails across the country who have not been convicted of a crime and are legally eligible to vote.³⁰ They are awaiting trial—and are therefore presumed innocent—or are serving sentences for misdemeanors, which do not strip voting rights in most states.

Yet, these citizens are almost entirely locked out of the democratic process. This is de facto disenfranchisement, achieved not by law, but by logistics. The barriers are immense: there are no voter registration drives inside jails, no clear procedures for requesting an absentee ballot, no access to stamps or mail, and a pervasive culture of misinformation from jail staff who are often unaware of the law themselves.³⁰

This systemic failure reveals a deeply ingrained societal bias. We have perfected the complex logistics of arresting, processing, and confining human beings, but we completely neglect the logistics of upholding their most fundamental right of citizenship. The problem is not that jail-based voting is impossible; it is that we have chosen not to prioritize it.

The proof is in Cook County, Illinois. In 2019, thanks to the advocacy of groups like Chicago Votes, Illinois passed a law that made the Cook County Jail an official polling place—the first of its kind in the nation.³² The program provides in-person voter registration, civic education classes, and access to voting machines inside the jail. The results have been extraordinary. In some elections, voter turnout inside the jail has been higher than in several surrounding city wards.³⁴

The success in Cook County proves that the barriers to jail-based voting are not logistical; they are ideological. It is a societal choice to value the mechanics of punishment over the rights of citizenship for a population that, in the eyes of the law, remains innocent.

Smart on Safety: Why Restoring the Vote Reduces Recidivism

For too long, the debate over restoring voting rights has been framed as a philosophical argument about punishment and forgiveness. But a growing body of research is recasting it as a pragmatic, evidence-based discussion about public safety.

Foundational work by sociologists Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza has established a powerful correlation between civic engagement and a successful return to society.³⁵ One of their studies found that Minnesotans with a criminal history who voted in the 1996 presidential election were significantly less likely to be re-arrested in the following years than their non-voting peers.³⁷ Another analysis, comparing states with different laws, found that individuals released in states that automatically restore voting rights were approximately 10 percent less likely to recidivate than those released in states with permanent disenfranchisement.³⁷

The mechanism behind this is what researchers call civic reintegration. Voting is more than just marking a box; it is a powerful ritual of inclusion. It signals to an individual that they are once again a trusted member of the community, a stakeholder with a voice in its future. This helps foster a “prosocial identity,” reinforcing their connection to law-abiding society and strengthening their commitment to staying on the right path.³⁷ Conversely, denying the vote reinforces an “outsider status,” deepening feelings of alienation and undermining the very goals of rehabilitation.

This reframes the entire debate. Restoring voting rights is not a reward for good behavior; it is an evidence-based strategy for encouraging good behavior. It is not about being “soft on crime”; it is about being smart on safety. Policies that promote enfranchisement are directly aligned with the goal of creating safer communities by reducing the likelihood that people will re-offend.

Answering the Critics: Common Objections and Clear Replies

Despite the evidence, opposition to restoring voting rights remains potent, often rooted in a few recurring arguments. It’s crucial that we meet these objections with clear, principled replies.

Objection 1: “Voting is a privilege, not a right. If you break the social contract, you forfeit that privilege.”

This argument rests on an archaic view of citizenship. In a modern democracy, the right to vote is fundamental. As Human Rights Watch has argued, depriving a citizen of this right should require a compelling state interest, which simply does not exist for those who have completed their sentences.³⁸ We do not demand that citizens “earn” their other fundamental rights, and the vote should be no different. Citizenship is an inherent status, not a conditional privilege.

Objection 2: “If you can’t follow the law, you shouldn’t get to make the law.”

This is a thinly veiled argument for a competency or morality test for voting, a dangerous idea with a dark history in this country. We do not—and should not—bar any other group of citizens from voting based on assumptions about their judgment or how they might vote.³⁸ Furthermore, the millions of disenfranchised Americans living in our communities pay taxes on their income, their homes, and their purchases. The principle of “no taxation without representation” is as fundamental to this nation as any other.

Objection 3: “Restoring voting rights disrespects the victims of crime.”

This argument creates a false and harmful dichotomy. As the research shows, the surest way to honor victims is to prevent future victimization.³⁷ Policies that successfully reintegrate people into society and reduce recidivism are pro-victim policies. The goals of supporting victims of crime and ensuring that formerly incarcerated people have a stake in their communities are complementary, not contradictory. Creating a permanent underclass of disenfranchised citizens does nothing to heal the wounds of past crimes and may, in fact, contribute to future ones.

These objections are not truly about public safety or democratic principles. They are rooted in a punitive philosophy of “civic death”—the belief that a criminal conviction should permanently sever a person’s connection to the community. It is a philosophy of perpetual punishment, not one of redemption, reintegration, or restoration.

A Blueprint for a Broader Democracy

The path to restoring the right to vote to millions of Americans requires a dual strategy: a determined push for reform in every state capital, coupled with a demand for a federal standard that guarantees a baseline of fairness for all.

At the state level, the blueprint for reform is clear:

Automatic Restoration: The most just and effective policy is to automatically restore voting rights upon release from incarceration. States like Minnesota have shown this is achievable.¹⁹ This should be paired with the creation of clean, efficient data pipelines between departments of corrections, courts, and election officials to ensure voter rolls are updated accurately and promptly.
Decouple Debt from the Ballot: States must end the practice of conditioning voting rights on the payment of LFOs. The right to vote must never be contingent on one’s ability to pay.
Build Jail Voting Infrastructure: Every state should mandate that local jails establish clear, nonpartisan procedures for voter registration and ballot access for their eligible populations, following the successful model pioneered in Cook County.³⁴

At the federal level, the key is the Democracy Restoration Act (DRA). This vital piece of legislation would create a uniform standard for federal elections, restoring the right to vote to all American citizens as soon as they are released from prison.⁴⁰ It would ensure that a person’s ability to vote for president, senator, or their congressional representative does not depend on the state they live in.

While a federal law like the DRA is a crucial step, it cannot be the only step. Because of our federalist system, states retain control over state and local elections. This means that even if the DRA passes, a person could be able to vote for president but still be barred from voting for the very district attorney, sheriff, or judge whose decisions most directly impact the justice system in their own community. Therefore, federal advocacy and state-by-state reform are both indispensable. They are two parallel tracks leading to the same destination: a more inclusive and legitimate democracy.

Conclusion and Call to Action

I eventually did get my right to vote back. I remember the day the confirmation letter arrived in the mail. It was a simple, bureaucratic notice, but holding it felt like a final, quiet absolution. It was the period at the end of a long and painful sentence. It was the moment I could finally look my daughter in the eye and tell her, without reservation, that her father was a full citizen again.

That feeling—of restoration, of belonging—should not be the end of a confusing, arbitrary, and often humiliating fight. It should be the automatic and guaranteed promise of a justice system that believes in second chances.

This is not a fight for the few. It is a fight for the integrity of our democracy. And it is a fight we can win. Here is how you can help:

Check Eligibility: The first step is knowledge. If you or someone you know has a past conviction, the laws are intentionally confusing. Use the incredible, free resource created by the Campaign Legal Center: RestoreYourVote.org. This tool provides step-by-step guidance for every state.⁴² The very fact that such a tool is necessary is a powerful indictment of a system designed for confusion. A just system would not require a third-party legal aid website for citizens to understand their fundamental rights. Our goal should be to make this tool obsolete.
Advocate Locally: Push your state and local officials to adopt the reforms outlined here. Demand that your county jail create a voting program. Urge your state legislators to pass laws that automatically restore voting rights and decouple them from financial obligations.
Advocate Nationally: Call your representatives and senators and tell them to support and pass the Democracy Restoration Act.⁴⁰ A national standard is essential to ending the patchwork of injustice.
Shift the Narrative: When you hear the old, tired arguments against enfranchisement, push back. Frame this issue not as a reward, but as a right. Frame it not as being soft on crime, but as being smart on safety. Remind people that our democracy is, and always will be, strongest when it is broadest.

The system that silences millions was designed, piece by piece, over decades. It can be undesigned. It is time to restore the vote. It is time to restore the promise of our democracy. It is time to bring our fellow citizens home.

Works cited

[JusticeUnshackled]_[Epiosde_1].pdf
[Justice Unshackled]_[Episode_6].pdf
Voting Rights in the Era of Mass Incarceration: A Primer – The …, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/voting-rights-in-the-era-of-mass-incarceration-a-primer/
Voting Rights for All – The Sentencing Project, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/voting-rights-for-all/
[JusticeUnshackled]_[Episode_4]_[Cycles of Injustice- Examining Race, Poverty, and Incarceration in the United States]_[Final]_[20241028]_[v2.0].pdf
Voting Rights – End Felony Disenfranchisement – The Sentencing Project, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/voting-rights/
State Voting Rights Briefs – The Sentencing Project, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/state-voting-rights-briefs/
Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment – Senate.gov, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm
Race, Voting, and a Gaping Loophole: A Critical Look at the 14th Amendment, accessed September 18, 2025, https://eji.org/news/race-voting-and-a-gaping-loophole-a-critical-look-at-the-14th-amendment/
Felon Disenfranchisement as a Legitimate State Regulation – Touro Law Center, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.tourolaw.edu/journalrge/uploads/issues/vol4issue1/kang-final.pdf
Richardson v. Ramirez – Wikipedia, accessed September 18, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez
Richardson v. Ramirez | 418 U.S. 24 (1974) | Justia U.S. Supreme …, accessed September 18, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/24/
Hunter v. Underwood – Wikipedia, accessed September 18, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v._Underwood
Hunter v. Underwood – (Civil Rights and Civil Liberties) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed September 18, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/civil-rights-civil-liberties/hunter-v-underwood
Underwood v. Hunter | Practical Law – Thomson Reuters, accessed September 18, 2025, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4f2ee1a5944f11d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?ppcid=574dae543acc486fb8208bc4ee562445&transitionType=Document&contextData=%28sc.Document%29
Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights
Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Minnesota | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-minnesota
HF 28 Status in the House for the 93rd Legislature (2023 – 2024) – MN Revisor’s Office, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=HF28&y=2023&ssn=0
Voting Rights Restored to Formerly Incarcerated Minnesotans – Minnesota Secretary Of State, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sos.mn.gov/about-the-office/news-room/voting-rights-restored-to-formerly-incarcerated-minnesotans/
New Oklahoma Law Restores Voting Rights To Convicted Felons Who Complete Sentences, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.news9.com/story/677dead63601aaed0f2ae27a/new-oklahoma-law-restores-voting-rights-to-convicted-felons-who-complete-sentences
Oklahoma adopts legislation restoring voting rights to felons after a pardon or commutation of a sentence – Ballotpedia News, accessed September 18, 2025, https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/05/15/oklahoma-adopts-legislation-restoring-voting-rights-to-felons-after-a-pardon-or-commutation-of-a-sentence/
Virginia Voting Rights Restoration Amendment – Fair Elections Center, accessed September 18, 2025, https://fairelectionscenter.org/advocacy/virginia-voting-rights-restoration/
Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Virginia | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-virginia
Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Florida | Brennan Center for …, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida
Amendment 4 and SB 7066 Implementation and Litigation Timeline – Brennan Center for Justice, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Am%204%20%20SB7066%20Timeline%20Document_11.04.2022%20FINAL.pdf
Florida Law Throws Voter Rights Restoration into Chaos | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/florida-law-throws-voter-rights-restoration-chaos
The Fight for Felon Re-Enfranchisement: Rethinking the Eleventh Circuit’s Approach to Senate Bill 7066 – UF Law Scholarship Repository – University of Florida, accessed September 18, 2025, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1554&context=jlpp
Jones v. Governor of Florida, No. 20-12003 (11th Cir. 2020) – Justia Law, accessed September 18, 2025, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/20-12003/20-12003-2020-09-11.html
Jones v. DeSantis – Campaign Legal Center, accessed September 18, 2025, https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/jones-v-desantis
About Half a Million People in Jail Have a Legal Right to Vote, But …, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.vera.org/news/about-half-a-million-people-in-jail-have-a-legal-right-to-vote-but-dont-get-to-cast-ballots
VOTING IN JAILS – The Sentencing Project, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/08/Voting-in-Jails.pdf
CCJ Votes – Chicago Votes, accessed September 18, 2025, https://chicagovotes.com/ccj-votes/
Unlock Civics – Chicago Votes, accessed September 18, 2025, https://chicagovotes.com/unlock-civics/
Democracy Desk: “Unlock Civics” Advocates Expanding Voting Rights and Civic Education for Incarcerated Community Members – The Joyce Foundation, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.joycefdn.org/our-grantees/democracy-desk-unlock-civics-advocates-expanding-voting-rights-and-civic-education-for-incarcerated-community-members
Uggen/Manza Summary – University of Minnesota, accessed September 18, 2025, http://users.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/FD_summary.htm
VOTING AND SUBSEQUENT CRIME AND ARREST: EVIDENCE FROM A COMMUNITY SAMPLE* DRAFT PREVIEW PAPER – University of Minnesota, accessed September 18, 2025, https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Preview.pdf
Increasing Public Safety by Restoring Voting Rights – The Sentencing Project, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/increasing-public-safety-by-restoring-voting-rights/
Disenfranchisement Laws Cannot be Justified – Losing the Vote …, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o-03.htm
Felon Voting | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Voting Rights, Conviction, & Penalty | Britannica, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/procon/felon-voting-debate
Democracy Restoration Act | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/democracy-restoration-act
S.481 – Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 117th Congress (2021-2022), accessed September 18, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/481
Restore Your Vote: I have a felony conviction. Can I vote …, accessed September 18, 2025, https://campaignlegal.org/restoreyourvote