Restoring the Ex-Offender's Right to Vote: Background and Developments
![handle is hein.journals/amcrimlr11 and id is 729 raw text is: NOTE
RESTORING THE EX-OFFENDER'S
RIGHT TO VOTE:
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENTS
INTRODUCTION
When an offender is sent to prison for the commission of a crime, his
punishment does not end with his release. In most states, the ex-convict
who has completed his prison term is subject to a variety of civil dis-
abilities that remain in force for the rest of his life.1
One such disability is loss of the right to vote. Yet, according to the
Supreme Court, no right is more precious than suffrage because other
rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is under-
mined.2 Nonetheless, participation in the electoral process is denied to
those citizens who have broken the law, even though they may have been
incarcerated for years to repay society for their wrongs.
The purpose of this article is to examine the history of civil disabilities
and the original justifications for their imposition, to evaluate the sanc-
tions of disenfranchisement in light of contemporary rationales for
punishment, and to review recent judicial and legislative activity in this
area. Following such analysis, it must be concluded that disenfranchise-
ment as a consequence of criminal conviction should be abandoned in a
society committed to individual rights and a just, rehabilitative penal
system.
HISTORY OF DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND
OTHER CIVIL DISABILITIES
The first recorded instances of disenfranchisement as a consequence
of crime can be found in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome.8
In Greece, a criminal who had committed a heinous crime was denied
such fundamental rights of Greek citizenship as the right to vote and to
appear in court.4 In Rome, a citizen could be deprived of such valued
rights as suffrage and service in the Roman legions if the label of in-
I For a detailed discussion of the offender's loss of political, professional, property,
judicial and domestic rights, see Note, The Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Con-
viction, 23 VAND. L. REV. 939 (1970).
2 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964).
SFor a discussion of the history of civil disabilities, see Note, The Collateral Conse-
quences of a Criminal Conviction, 23 VAND. L. REv. 939, 941-50 (1970).
4Damaska, Adverse Legal Consequences of Conviction and Their Removal: A Com-
parative Study, 59 J. CRiM. L.C. & P.S. 347, 351 (1968).
[721]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr11&div=34&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Restoring the Ex-Offender's Right to Vote: Background and Developments
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most