Tyler Spradlin
English 1010
Collin Hull
Should felons be allowed to Vote?
To allow the felons the right to vote has been an ongoing debate for years. There are
many who believe that felons should not be allowed to vote and others who say that they should
be allowed to vote. To allow felons the right to vote doesn’t lie with the government but with
each individual state law. The 14th Amendment makes it so it is up to the individual states
whether or not to allow felon voting. However, the 15th Amendment, states that felons right to
vote should not be due to racial background. The reason that felon voting is such a controversial
topic is a lot of reasons. One being that People, such as Reynolds Holdings believe that if a
person violates the rights of other citizens, then his right should be revoked permanently. That
the criminal chose the life of crime and to disobey the law, why should he or she be allowed to
make new laws. Another and more controversial issue is that of racial background. That
forbidding felons to vote is really a way to keep black people away from the voting laws, and
that trying to make it so felons are not allowed to vote because they are felons is just a cover
because coincidently, most felons are of black or Latino descent.
The first perspective is that felons should be allowed to vote. There are numerous reasons
why people feel that felons should be allowed to vote. According to Edward Feser, an author for
City-Journal believes that felons should vote, not just because of moral purposes, but for the
better good of the Democratic Party. Feser states that “Democrats believe it is morally wrong to
deny felons the right to vote.” Democrats want more felons to vote to expand and enlarge their
voting outcome. However, Feser is not the only person to have this perspective on why felons
should vote and the benefits of felon voting. According to an article by Kevin krajick, in the
article, Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated “As frank as I can be, were
opposed to restore voting rights because felons don’t tend to vote republican.” In the article
Krajick states that “people with low income- low education or minority- vote Democrat 65 to 90
percent of the time” so to allow felons voting rights, would be substantial in the running
elections where the decision is a close call between the two party’s. And numbers matter in close
elections.
One study done at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis, former President George
W. Bush would have lost Florida by 80,000 votes in 2000, had ex-felons been allowed to vote.
And the same study found that since the year 1978 there would be seven Republican senates that
would have lost due to close elections and allowing felons to vote. That being said, Democrats
would most likely control the senate.
The benefits of this perspective are that it allows the Democratic Party to possibly be
more involved in the future elections. It allows both party’s an equal change at a shot of office by
not restricting the votes of one party such as the Democrat by not allowing felons to vote.
However, the possible weaknesses of this perspective are that it might give the public an idea
that the political party act only on their benefit and not the peoples benefit. That their wanting to
allow felons to vote is more so they can possibly have the upper hand come election time rather
than the rights of the citizen involved.
The second perspective is why felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote. “They are simply
felons and displayed bad judgment already, by committing a serious crime.” (Holdings)
Reynolds Holdings is an author for Time magazine and states that “if a person can’t follow the
law, then he or she shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the right to make the law.” From this
perspective it is clear that if someone violates the rights of another person then clearly, he or she
should most defiantly get their right to vote stripped away. On the same note some sources such
as ProCon.org give a wide range of perspectives on felon voting. According to the web site such
authors as John Grahm sate that “it keeps consistent with the 14th Amendment and the voting
act.” The 14th Amendment states for the most part that each individual state has the right to bar
felons from voting or not. However, another common dispute about the rights of felon voting is
that it is just to keep certain nonwhite minorities from voting. However such authors believe that
“if mostly the black communities commit the crime, then they lose the right to vote. That they
are not targeted for their race, but for their lack of commitment to the law.”(Monza,Brooks)
The benefits from this perspective are that it has a more logical and common reasoning to
it that if you break or violate the laws and commit a serious crime you shouldn’t be allowed to
vote. Also, the fact that the authors use the 14th Amendment brings a strong credibility to their
argument. Instead of their argument being purely opinion based, the use of the 14th Amendment
law makes it harder for the opposing side to argue against their claim.
On the other hand, the weakness of this perspective is mostly the same as the weakness of
the first perspective. Most of their argument is opinion based and provide little fact or statistics
to back up their claim. Also the weakness from this perspective is that it doesn’t address the issue
of problems with not allowing felons to vote. The main weaknesses from this perspective are that
it leaves to many holes open from their argument to be picked apart.
The third perspective has really no opinion of whether or not felons should have the right
to vote, whether it is morally wrong to the criminals, or whether they served their time so they
should be allowed to vote. This perspective addresses the issue of is denying felons the right to
vote just an excuses to racially profile. Is the meaning behind denying felons the right to vote an
obligation of politicians to keep non-white minorities away from voting? According to the U.S
sentencing commission, 65 percent of crack cocaine users are white, but 90 percent of those
prosecuted for crack crimes in Federal court are black.
Also according to Gale Opposing View Points In Context web page, they state that the
disenfranchisement law affects mostly coloreds, in fact the law as affected 13 percent of black
men. This idea goes against the 15th Amendment which guarantees blacks the right to vote. And
coincidently by not allowing felons to vote, is in turn also keeping more black men from voting
as well. The Opposing View Points In Context also mention that scholars estimate 14 percent of
illegal drug users are black, however, the black community make up 55 percent of convicted
felons and 74 percent of those sentenced for drug possession. Even the public is aware of the
bias. In the article Gale Opposing View Points In Context it explains that even conservatives
such as former President George W. Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Senator Orrin
Hatch describe racial profiling as a serious problem that is plaguing our criminal justice system.
According to Kevin Krajick a journalist from the Washington post, states that “the fact is many
disenfranchised laws trace to mid-1800’s when they were crafted to bar blacks with minor
criminal charges from the voting polls.”
The benefits of this perspective are in fact that it uses mostly statistics to back up its
claim. To make its point valuable and full proof it states the percentage of black men who do
drugs to the percent of them who get convicted of the crime. By giving such obvious statistics it
makes it harder for other parties to retaliate. By providing credible numbers from credible
sources gives this perspective what the others don’t have, which is a full proof argument.
As for the weakness of this perspective, it doesn’t give statistics on other ethnicities and
whether or not they are being affected by the felon voting laws as much as the black community.
If you were to find the stats on other racial groups such as Hispanics or Latinos, and see that they
are just as equal in the black community for having felonies, then maybe this perspective would
not hold as strong as it does.
There are still some who are for no felon voting mainly because they see what is
demanded to be a felon and that regardless of anything else, their rights should be revoked no
matter what. Some such as Reynolds Holding believe that you shouldn’t vote because you are
simply a felon. While on the other hand people believe that felons should be allowed to vote
because simply they paid their debt to society. Some such as Feser believe that it is more than
that, that is has to do with bringing more balance to the political office and who is elected. While
many are not buying either side of the story, and are focused on whether or not the real agenda of
not allowing felons to vote is to simply keep the black community away the voting ballots. That
statistically one in four black men are not allowed to vote in this country, and that they are the
majority in prisons and with felony degrees. According to Opposing View Points In Context and
U.S Sentencing Commission the majority of crack cocaine users are white, however the vast
majority of those prosecuted for crack cocaine crimes are of African American ethnicity.
My main perspective on the issue is that yes I agree that there is some sort of flaw in the
judicial system, and of the unfairly biases of the black community. But on the other hand if you
are a felon then you had to commit such a horrible crime to obtain that title, then I don’t feel that
someone should be allowed to vote. There are number of other circumstances where ones rights
are revoked indefinitely. For example if you violate enough traffic laws, then you can
permanently get your drivers license taken away. Also if one is a felon, then if takes away their
right to not only vote, but hold certain jobs, be on jury duty and even own any sort of hand gun.
So how much harm is really being made to forbid felons their right to vote. At first, everyone is
given a clean slate they are entitled to all their rights as free citizens. It is not society’s fault nor
do we owe anybody anything if they decide, as a functional human being, to forfeit their rights
by committing a felony. This is why my support for no felon voting still stands.
Work Cited:
Hausman, Tate, et al. "Some Felons Should Be Allowed to Vote." Democracy. Ed. Mike Wilson.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Democracy Denied:
The Racial History and Impact of Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States."
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action. 2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context.
Web. 25 July 2012.
Holdings, Reynolds. "Why Can't Felons Vote?" Www.time.com. N.p., Nov.-Dec. 2006. Web. 5
July 2012.
Grahm, John, John Canyer, Rogger Clegg, Jeff Monza, and George Brooks. Should Felons Be
Allowed to Vote? ProsCons.org. N.p., n.d. Web. July-Aug. 2012.
Krajick, Kevin. "Should Felons Be Allowed to Vote?" Washington Post, Aug.-Sept. 2004. Web.
July-Aug. 2012.
Feser, Edward. "Should Felons Vote?" (n.d.): n. pag. City-Journal.org. Mar.-Apr. 2005. Web. 24
July 2012.
Hausman, Tate, et al. "Some Felons Should Be Allowed to Vote." Democracy. Ed. Mike
Wilson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Democracy Denied:
The Racial History and Impact of Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States." Demos: A
Network for Ideas & Action. 2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 July 2012.