La privación del derecho al voto por delito grave en los Estados Unidos es la suspensión o retirada de los derechos de voto debido a la condena por un delito. La clase real de delitos que resulta en la privación del derecho al voto varía entre jurisdicciones, pero la mayoría de las veces se clasifican como delitos graves o pueden basarse en un cierto período de encarcelamiento u otra pena. En algunas jurisdicciones, la privación del derecho al voto es permanente, mientras que en otras se restablece el sufragio después de que una persona ha cumplido una sentencia o ha completado la libertad condicional o la libertad condicional . [1] La privación del derecho al voto por delitos graves es una de las consecuencias colaterales de una condena penal y lapérdida de derechos por condena por delito . [2] En 2016, 6,1 millones de personas fueron privadas de sus derechos a causa de una condena, el 2,47% de los ciudadanos en edad de votar. En octubre de 2020, se estimó que 5,1 millones de ciudadanos estadounidenses en edad de votar fueron privados de sus derechos para las elecciones presidenciales de 2020 debido a una condena por delito grave, 1 de cada 44 ciudadanos. [3] Como los derechos de sufragio generalmente son otorgados por la ley estatal, las leyes estatales de privación de derechos por delitos graves también se aplican a las elecciones para cargos federales.
Los defensores han argumentado que las personas que cometen delitos graves han roto el contrato social y, por lo tanto, han renunciado a su derecho a participar en una sociedad civil. Algunos argumentan que los delincuentes han mostrado poco juicio y que, por lo tanto, no deberían tener voz en el proceso de toma de decisiones políticas. [4] Los opositores han argumentado que tal privación del derecho al voto restringe y entra en conflicto con los principios del sufragio universal . [5] Puede afectar la participación cívica y comunitaria en general. [1] Los opositores argumentan que la privación del derecho al voto por delitos graves puede crear incentivos políticos para sesgar el derecho penal a favor de atacar de manera desproporcionada a grupos que son opositores políticos de quienes detentan el poder.
Muchos estados adoptaron prohibiciones al voto de los delincuentes en las décadas de 1860 y 1870, al mismo tiempo que se estaban considerando y cuestionando los derechos de voto de los ciudadanos negros. Los académicos han vinculado los orígenes y las intenciones de muchas prohibiciones estatales de voto por delincuentes con la discriminación racial. [6] [7] [8] En algunos estados, los legisladores han sido acusados de adaptar específicamente las prohibiciones de voto de los delincuentes para apuntar deliberada y desproporcionadamente a los afroamericanos, por ejemplo, al atacar delitos menores más comunes entre estos ciudadanos y permitir a los delincuentes que cometieron más delitos (como asesinato) para votar. [9] [10]
Fondo
Las primeras leyes de privación de derechos por delitos graves en Estados Unidos se introdujeron en 1792 en Kentucky, [11] y para 1840 cuatro estados tenían políticas de privación de derechos por delitos graves. Para la Guerra Civil estadounidense , alrededor de veinticuatro estados tenían alguna forma de política de privación del derecho al voto por delitos graves o una disposición similar en la constitución estatal. [12] La Decimocuarta Enmienda fue adoptada en 1868, y en 1870 el número había aumentado a veintiocho (de treinta y ocho estados). [12]
El aumento de las leyes de privación de derechos por delitos graves después de la Guerra Civil llevó a muchos a concluir que las leyes se implementaron como parte de una estrategia para privar de derechos a los negros, especialmente a medida que la política se expandió junto con los Códigos Negros , que establecían penas severas para delitos menores y especialmente apuntó a los estadounidenses negros. [13]
A partir de 2018, la mayoría de los estados de EE. UU. Tenían políticas para restaurar los derechos de voto al completar una sentencia. Solo 3 estados - Iowa, Kentucky y Virginia - privaron permanentemente de sus derechos a un convicto por delito grave y otros 6 estados limitaron la restauración basada en delitos de "vileza moral". [14]
La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Richardson v. Ramírez (1974), [15] interpretó la sección 2 de la Decimocuarta Enmienda en el sentido de que permitía a los estados privar del derecho al voto a los criminales condenados, dejándolos a ellos decidir qué delitos serían motivo de privación del derecho al voto, que no se limitan a delitos graves, aunque en la mayoría de los casos lo hacen. [ cita requerida ] Los delincuentes que han completado sus sentencias pueden votar en la mayoría de los estados. Entre 1996 y 2008, veintiocho estados cambiaron sus leyes sobre los derechos de voto de los delincuentes, principalmente para restaurar los derechos o simplificar el proceso de restauración. [16] Desde 2008, las leyes estatales han seguido cambiando, restringiendo y restaurando los derechos de los votantes, a veces durante cortos períodos de tiempo dentro del mismo estado. [dieciséis]
Estadísticas recientes
A partir de 2008, a más de 5,3 millones de personas en los Estados Unidos se les negó el derecho al voto debido a la privación del derecho al voto por delitos graves. [17] En las elecciones nacionales de 2012, las diversas leyes estatales de privación de derechos por delitos graves impidieron que votaran aproximadamente 5,85 millones de delincuentes, frente a 1,2 millones en 1976. Esto comprendía el 2,5% de los votantes potenciales en general. El estado con el mayor número de votantes privados de sus derechos fue Florida, con 1,5 millones de personas privadas de sus derechos [18] debido a una condena por delito grave actual o anterior, más del 10% de los ciudadanos en edad de votar, incluidos los 774.000 privados de sus derechos sólo debido a obligaciones financieras pendientes. En octubre de 2020, se estimó que 5,1 millones de ciudadanos quedaron privados de sus derechos para las elecciones presidenciales de 2020 debido a una condena por delito grave, 1 de cada 44 ciudadanos. [3]
Expresar | En prisión | En libertad condicional | En libertad condicional por delito grave | En la cárcel | En Post-frase | Total | Población en edad de votar | Por ciento |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 30.585 | 6.580 | 15,626 | 1,578 | 231,896 | 286,266 | 3.755.483 | 7,62% |
Alaska | 5.497 | 2.035 | 6,900 | 7 | - | 14,439 | 552,166 | 2,61% |
Arizona | 44,509 | 7.241 | 51,362 | 1,341 | 116,717 | 221,170 | 5,205,215 | 4,25% |
Arkansas | 19,224 | 21,811 | 24,695 | 975 | - | 66,705 | 2,272,904 | 2,93% |
California | 136.302 | 86,254 | - | - | - | 222,557 | 30,023,902 | 0,74% |
Colorado | 21,207 | 8.673 | - | 1.066 | - | 30,946 | 4.199.509 | 0,74% |
Connecticut | 14,926 | 2,419 | - | - | - | 17.345 | 2.826.827 | 0,61% |
Delaware | 6.858 | 716 | 4.074 | - | 4.067 | 15,716 | 741,548 | 2,12% |
Florida | 102,555 | 4.208 | 86,886 | 4.822 | 1,487,847 | 1,686,318 | 16,166,143 | 10,43% |
Georgia | 50,900 | 23,545 | 170.194 | 4.112 | - | 248,751 | 7.710.688 | 3,23% |
Hawai | 6.364 | - | - | - | - | 6.364 | 1,120,770 | 0,57% |
Idaho | 7.873 | 5.057 | 9,863 | 314 | - | 23,206 | 1,222,093 | 1,89% |
Illinois | 47.537 | - | - | 2.089 | - | 49,625 | 9,901,322 | 0,50% |
Iowa | 9.127 | 6.133 | 12,365 | 410 | 23,976 | 52,012 | 2,395,103 | 2,17% |
Indiana | 28.028 | - | - | 1,630 | - | 29.658 | 5,040,224 | 0,59% |
Kansas | 9.466 | 4.023 | 3.426 | 679 | - | 17,594 | 2,192,084 | 0,80% |
Kentucky | 22,968 | 16.729 | 27,323 | 2.039 | 242,987 | 312,046 | 3.413.425 | 9,14% |
Luisiana | 35,614 | 31.450 | 37,761 | 3211 | - | 108,035 | 3,555,911 | 3,04% |
Maine | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.072.948 | 0,00% |
Maryland | 20,378 | - | - | 1.087 | , | 21,465 | 4.658.175 | 0,46% |
Massachusetts | 10,254 | - | - | 921 | - | 11,176 | 5.407.335 | 0,21% |
Michigan | 42,661 | - | - | 1,560 | - | 44,221 | 7.715.272 | 0,57% |
Minnesota | 11,369 | 8.148 | 43.215 | 608 | - | 63,340 | 4.205.207 | 1,51% |
Misisipí | 13,752 | 8.051 | 28,463 | 1.422 | 166,494 | 218.181 | 2,265,485 | 9,63% |
Misuri | 32,768 | 16.808 | 38,870 | 1.219 | - | 89.665 | 4.692.196 | 1,91% |
Montana | 3.816 | - | - | 330 | - | 4.146 | 806,529 | 0,51% |
Carolina del Norte | 37,446 | 10,977 | 40,867, | 1,888 | - | 91,179 | 7.752.234 | 1,18% |
Dakota del Norte | 2.042 | - | - | 136 | - | 2,178 | 583,001 | 0,37% |
Nebraska | 6.377 | 782 | 2,952 | 384 | 7.069 | 17,564 | 1,425,853 | 1,23% |
Nevada | 11,560 | 6.828 | 8.097 | 701 | 62.080 | 89,267 | 2,221,681 | 4,02% |
New Hampshire | 2.856 | - | - | 175 | - | 3,031 | 1.066.610 | 0,28% |
New Jersey | 19,964 | 14,831 | 58,123 | 1.396 | - | 94,315 | 6,959,192 | 1,36% |
Nuevo Mexico | 7,205 | 2.838 | 13,352 | 891 | - | 24.286 | 1,588,201 | 1,53% |
Nueva York | 50,513 | 44.590 | - | 2,477 | - | 97.581 | 15.584.974 | 0,63% |
Ohio | 51,102 | - | - | 1,736 | - | 52,837 | 8,984,946 | 0,59% |
Oklahoma | 27,857 | 2.572 | 26 475 | 1,398 | - | 58.302 | 2,950,017 | 1,98% |
Oregón | 14,228 | - | - | 519 | - | 14,748 | 3,166,121 | 0,47% |
Pensilvania | 49,269 | - | - | 3.705 | - | 52,974 | 10.112.229 | 0,52% |
Rhode Island | 3.355 | - | - | - | - | 3.355 | 845,254 | 0,40% |
Carolina del Sur | 20,141 | 4.621 | 21,464 | 1.011 | - | 47.238 | 3.804.558 | 1,24% |
Dakota del Sur | 3.464 | 2.643 | 4.114 | 170 | - | 10,392 | 647,145 | 1,61% |
Tennesse | 29.271 | 13.186 | 52.654 | 2,763 | 323,354 | 421,224 | 5.102.688 | 8,26% |
Texas | 161.658 | 111.632 | 216,033 | 6.605 | - | 495,928 | 20,257,343 | 2,45% |
Utah | 6,925 | - | - | 744 | - | 7.669 | 2,083,423 | 0,37% |
Vermont | - | - | - | - | - | - | 506,119 | 0,00% |
Virginia | 38,694 | 1,604 | 56,908 | 2.905 | 408,570 | 508,680 | 6.512.571 | 7,81% |
Washington | 18,395 | 3.811 | 25,164 | 1,182 | - | 48,552 | 5.558.509 | 0,87% |
Virginia del Oeste | 7.042 | 3,187 | 4.109 | 389 | - | 14,727 | 1,464,532 | 1,01% |
Wisconsin | 22,851 | 19,537 | 22,101 | 1,118 | - | 65,606 | 4.476.711 | 1,47% |
Wyoming | 2.536 | 607 | 3,148 | 141 | 17.414 | 23,847 | 447,212 | 5,33% |
Total | 1,329,288 | 504,127 | 1,116,585 | 63,855 | 3,092,471 | 6,106,327 | 247,219,588 | 2,47% |
Esfuerzos de reforma
Los desafíos a las leyes de privación de derechos por delitos graves comenzaron en la década de 1950 como parte del esfuerzo de abogar por un cambio de la retribución a la rehabilitación en el sistema penal estadounidense. [20] Después de la última parte de la década de 1950, la proporción de estados que privan del derecho al voto a los condenados por delitos disminuyó; En el siglo XX, se privó de derechos a algunas categorías de delincuentes mientras que a otras no, y se revisaron varias leyes estatales para brindar una cobertura criminal más amplia. [21] Las leyes de privación del derecho al voto han sido enmendadas, desde 1997, por 23 estados. Estas reformas adoptan tres formas: derogación de las leyes de privación de derechos de por vida; ampliación de los derechos de voto; y simplificación del proceso de restablecimiento de los derechos de voto después del encarcelamiento. [22]
En 2002, la Representante Maxine Waters (D, CA) presentó al Congreso HR2830, la Ley de Restauración del Voto. [23]
De 1997 a 2008, hubo una tendencia a levantar las restricciones de privación del derecho al voto o simplificar los procedimientos para solicitar el restablecimiento de los derechos civiles para las personas que habían cumplido con sus penas por delitos graves. Como resultado, en 2008, más de medio millón de personas tenían derecho a voto y habrían sido privadas de sus derechos bajo restricciones anteriores. [24]
La privación del derecho al voto por delitos graves fue un tema de debate durante las primarias presidenciales republicanas de 2012 . El candidato de las primarias Rick Santorum de Pensilvania abogó por la restauración de los derechos de voto para los delincuentes convictos que habían cumplido condenas y libertad condicional. [25] La posición de Santorum fue atacada y distorsionada por Mitt Romney , quien alegó que Santorum apoyaba los derechos de voto de los delincuentes mientras estaban encarcelados . [25] [26] El ex presidente Barack Obama apoya el derecho al voto de los ex delincuentes. [27]
En un informe presentado al Comité de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas en 2013, una coalición de organizaciones de derechos civiles y justicia penal sin fines de lucro argumentó que las leyes estadounidenses de privación del derecho al voto por delitos graves violan los artículos 25 y 26 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos ( ICCPR), ratificado por Estados Unidos en 1992. [28]
En 2017, el senador Benjamin L. Cardin (D, MD) presentó S. 1588, la Ley de Restauración de la Democracia de 2017 al Congreso. [29]
Las reformas de privación de derechos por delitos graves entre 1997 y 2018 han dado lugar a que 1,4 millones de estadounidenses recuperen el derecho al voto. [30]
Durante las primarias presidenciales demócratas de 2020 , el candidato Bernie Sanders argumentó que todos los delincuentes deberían poder votar desde la cárcel. [31] Su estado natal de Vermont es uno de los dos únicos estados (con Maine) que no privan de derechos a los delincuentes mientras están en prisión.
Florida
El 6 de noviembre de 2018, los votantes de Florida aprobaron la Enmienda 4 , una enmienda a la constitución estatal para restaurar automáticamente los derechos de voto a los delincuentes condenados que han cumplido sus condenas. [32] Aún se aplican prohibiciones de por vida para los condenados por asesinato o delitos sexuales. [32] En julio de 2019, los republicanos en la legislatura estatal de Florida promulgaron el proyecto de ley 7066 del Senado, que estipula que los delincuentes deben pagar todas las multas, tarifas y restituciones pendientes antes de que se considere que han "cumplido su condena" y, por lo tanto, recuperan su derecho al voto. [33] El 19 de febrero de 2020, un panel de tres jueces de la corte federal de apelaciones del undécimo circuito dictaminó que era inconstitucional obligar a los delincuentes de Florida a pagar primero sus obligaciones financieras antes de registrarse para votar. Sin embargo, el 11 de septiembre de 2020, la Corte de Apelaciones del Undécimo Circuito de los Estados Unidos anuló la decisión del tribunal inferior de que no es necesario pagar todas las multas antes de que los delincuentes puedan volver a obtener el derecho al voto. El fallo de la corte de apelaciones tuvo el efecto de privar nuevamente del derecho a voto a unas 774.000 personas, aproximadamente un mes antes de las elecciones presidenciales estadounidenses de 2020 . [33] A fines de septiembre de 2020, el ex alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, reunió un fondo de más de $ 16 millones para ayudar a los delincuentes condenados a votar en Florida mediante el pago de sus multas y tarifas pendientes. El fondo de Bloomberg, así como los $ 5 millones recaudados por la Coalición de Restauración de Derechos de Florida, pagaron las multas pendientes de alrededor de 32,000 delincuentes. [34]
Nevada
En Nevada en 2019, la legislatura introdujo la AB 431 que fue aprobada y promulgada como ley, que entró en vigencia el 1 de julio de 2019 y restauró el derecho al voto para los delincuentes que ya no cumplían una sentencia de prisión en el estado de Nevada. [35]
Iowa
La constitución de Iowa prevé la privación permanente del derecho a voto por delitos graves. Sin embargo, en julio de 2005, el gobernador demócrata de Iowa, Tom Vilsack, emitió una orden ejecutiva que restablecía los derechos de voto de todas las personas que habían completado la supervisión, [24] que fue confirmada por la Corte Suprema de Iowa el 31 de octubre de 2005. Sin embargo, el día de su toma de posesión, enero El 14 de noviembre de 2011, el gobernador republicano Terry Branstad revocó la orden ejecutiva de Vilsack, privando nuevamente de sus derechos a miles de personas. [36] En enero de 2020, Iowa fue el único estado que impuso una prohibición de votar por delitos graves de por vida, independientemente del delito cometido. [37] El 5 de agosto de 2020, el gobernador republicano de Iowa, Kim Reynolds, firmó una orden ejecutiva que restauraba los derechos de voto de unas 24.000 personas que habían cumplido sus sentencias, excepto las condenadas por asesinato. [38] Reynolds también instó a los legisladores de Iowa a enmendar la constitución de Iowa para poner fin a la privación permanente del derecho al voto por delitos graves. [38]
Virginia
La legislatura de Virginia en 2017 debatió la relajación de la política estatal de que la restauración de los derechos de voto requiere un acto individual del gobernador. [39]
Kentucky
En diciembre de 2019, el gobernador demócrata recién elegido de Kentucky, Andy Beshear, firmó una orden ejecutiva para restaurar los derechos de voto y el derecho a ocupar cargos públicos a más de 140.000 residentes que han cumplido sentencias por delitos graves no violentos . [40] [37]
Tennesse
El Campaign Legal Center (CLC), como parte de su campaña nacional "Restore Your Vote", participa activamente en la restauración de los derechos de voto de los delincuentes privados de sus derechos en el estado de Tennessee, y presentó una demanda (Falls v. Goins) en nombre de dos ciudadanos de Tennessee contra el estado. [41]
Como parte de las discusiones en la Asamblea General de Tennessee en 2019-2020 sobre un proyecto de ley destinado a reformar el proceso de restauración de Tennessee, un informe político conjunto compilado por el grupo de defensa política libertaria Americans for Prosperity , el grupo de expertos en políticas públicas de Tennessee Think Tennessee y Nashville La organización de reintegración Project Return, se presentó al Subcomité de Protecciones Constitucionales y Sentencias, pero no se aprobó. El informe analiza los numerosos beneficios de la restauración de los derechos de voto para los delincuentes, incluido el ahorro de dinero de los impuestos y la reducción de la reincidencia, así como las posibles estrategias de emancipación. [42]
Más recientemente, el 20 de agosto de 2020, el gobernador de Tennessee, Bill Lee, firmó HB 8005 y SB 8005, aumentando la pena por acampar en propiedad estatal no aprobada de un delito menor a un delito mayor de Clase E, punible con hasta seis años de prisión y pérdida automática de derechos de voto, según la ley de Tennessee. [43] [44] Esta medida fue el resultado de una protesta de dos meses contra el racismo institucional y la brutalidad policial que involucró un campamento las 24 horas del día en los terrenos del capitolio. [45]
Otros estados
Otros nueve estados privan de derechos a los delincuentes durante varios períodos de tiempo después de su condena. A excepción de Maine y Vermont, todos los estados prohíben que los delincuentes voten mientras están en prisión. [24]
Constitucionalidad
Unlike most laws that burden the right of citizens to vote based on some form of social status, felony disenfranchisement laws have been held to be constitutional. In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes, finding that the practice did not deny equal protection to disenfranchised voters. The Court looked to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proclaims that States in which adult male citizens are denied the right to vote for any reason other than "participation in rebellion, or other crime" will suffer a reduction in the basis of their representation in Congress. Based on this language, the Court found that this amounted to an "affirmative sanction" of the practice of felon disenfranchisement, and the 14th Amendment could not prohibit in one section that which is expressly authorized in another.[citation needed]
But, critics[who?] of the practice argue that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows, but does not represent an endorsement of, felony disenfranchisement statutes as constitutional in light of the equal protection clause and is limited only to the issue of reduced representation. The Court ruled in Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, 232 (1985) that a state's crime disenfranchisement provision will violate Equal Protection if it can be demonstrated that the provision, as enacted, had "both [an] impermissible racial motivation and racially discriminatory impact." (The law in question also disenfranchised people convicted of vagrancy, adultery, and any misdemeanor "involving moral turpitude"; the test case involved two individuals who faced disenfranchisement for presenting invalid checks, which the state authorities had found to be morally turpid behavior.) A felony disenfranchisement law, which on its face is indiscriminate in nature, cannot be invalidated by the Supreme Court unless its enforcement is proven to racially discriminate and to have been enacted with racially discriminatory animus.[citation needed]
Clasificaciones
Restoration of voting rights for people who are ex-offenders varies across the United States. Primary classification of voting rights include:
No disenfranchisement
Two states, Maine[46] and Vermont,[47] as well as the District of Columbia,[48] have unrestricted voting rights for people who are felons. They allow the person to vote during incarceration, via absentee ballot and via in-person voting after completion of sentence.
Ends after release
In 20 states, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration is complete: California,[49] Colorado,[50] Hawaii,[51] Illinois,[52] Indiana,[53] Maryland,[54] Massachusetts,[55] Michigan,[56] Montana,[57] Nevada,[35] New Hampshire,[58] New Jersey,[59] New York,[60] North Dakota,[61] Ohio,[62] Oregon,[63] Pennsylvania,[64] Rhode Island,[65] Utah,[66] and Washington.[67]
In February 2016 the Maryland General Assembly restored the right to vote for more than 40,000 released felons, overriding a veto by Governor Larry Hogan. Maryland's Senate approved the bill on a 29–18 vote, while the state House of Delegates voted 85–56 in favor of it on January 20. Convicted felons under parole or probation had their right to vote restored. The law went into effect in late March, one month before the state's April 26 primaries.[54]
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has also signed a new law restoring voting rights to anyone under parole or probation starting on March 17, 2020, just in time for the 2020 Primary elections which were held in July.[59]
Voters in California approved 2020 California Proposition 17 on November 3, 2020, which amended a Sections 2 and 4 of Article II of the California Constitution which provides that:
SEC. 2. (a) A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.
(b) An elector disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term, as described in Section 4, shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.
SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.
Ends after parole
In one state, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration and parole (if any) is complete: Connecticut[68]
Ends after probation
Sixteen states require not only that incarceration/parole if any be complete but also that any probation sentence (which is often an alternative to incarceration) be complete: Alaska,[69] Arkansas,[70] Georgia,[71]Idaho,[72] Kansas,[73] Louisiana,[74] Minnesota,[75]Missouri,[76] New Mexico,[77] North Carolina,[78] Oklahoma,[79] South Carolina,[80] South Dakota,[81] Texas,[82] West Virginia (the prosecutor can request the court to revoke voting rights if financial obligations are unmet), and Wisconsin.[83]
Circumstantial
Nine states have laws that relate disenfranchisement to the detail of the crime. These laws restore voting rights to some offenders on the completion of incarceration, parole, and probation. Other offenders must make an individual petition that could be denied.
- Alabama – A person convicted of a felony loses the ability to vote if the felony involves moral turpitude. Prior to 2017, the state Attorney General and courts have decided this for individual crimes; however, in 2017, moral turpitude was defined by House Bill 282 of 2017, signed into law by Kay Ivey on May 24, to constitute 47 specific offenses.[84] If a convicted person loses the ability to vote based on having committed a defined act of moral turpitude, he can petition to have it restored by a pardon or by a certificate of eligibility; if the loss of elective franchise was based on a crime not under moral turpitude, eligibility to vote is automatically restored once all sentence conditions have been satisfied.[85][86][87][88] Prior to 2017, a person convicted of a number of crimes having to do with sexual assault or abuse, including sodomy, was ineligible to receive a certificate of eligibility; today, only impeachment and treason remain ineligible for a certificate of eligibility.[89]
- Arizona – Rights are restored to first-time felony offenders. Others must petition.[90][91]
- Delaware – The following crimes require a pardon: murder or manslaughter (except vehicular homicide), an offense against public administration involving bribery or improper influence or abuse of office anywhere in the US, or a felony sexual offense (anywhere in the USA). All other convicted felons regain the right to vote after completion of the full sentence.[92][93]
- Florida – A convicted person permanently loses suffrage if their crime was murder or any sexual offense.[32][37] In January 2019, the lifetime voting ban was lifted for those convicted of lesser crimes upon completion of sentence, including prison, parole, and probation.[37] A law in June 2019 provides that a sentence is not completed until all fines, fees and restitution have been paid.
- Iowa – A person convicted of any "infamous crime" shall not be eligible to vote again in their lifetime under Article II, Section 5 of Iowa's state constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this mean any felony conviction, but the governor also has the authority under Article IV, Section 16 to restore any citizenship rights lost upon conviction, including right to vote. On August 5, 2020, Governor Kim Reynolds signed an executive order to restore the right to vote to convicts upon release from their sentence.[94]
- Mississippi – A convicted person loses suffrage for numerous crimes identified in the state constitution, Section 241 (see note). The list is given below. Suffrage can be restored to an individual by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. The crimes that disqualify a person from voting are given in Section 241 of the state constitution as: murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy.[95]
- Nebraska – A convicted person permanently loses suffrage if they are convicted of treason; voting rights for all other offenders are restored two years after completion of incarceration, parole, or probation.[96]
- Tennessee – A person who is convicted of certain felonies may not regain voting rights except through pardon. These include: murder, rape, treason, and voting fraud. For a person convicted of a lesser felony, disenfranchisement ends after terms of incarceration, completion of parole, and completion of probation. In addition, the person must pay "Any court order restitution paid; current in the payment of any child support obligations; and/or Any court ordered court costs paid". The ex-offender must either obtain a court order restoring their right to vote or complete the certificate of restoration of voting rights.[97]
- Wyoming – Since July 1, 2017, non-violent felons have had their suffrage restored upon completion of their sentence including parole and probation. Non-violent felons who completed their sentence before January 1, 2010 or those convicted out of state must submit a written request to the department of corrections who will determine if their sentence was completed before restoring their voting rights.[98][99]
Individual petitions required
Two states require felons to petition to the court for restoration of voting after all offenses.
- Kentucky – Although, in December 2019, Kentucky's Democratic governor signed an executive order restoring the vote and the right to hold public office to more than 140,000 residents who have completed sentences for nonviolent felonies, the governor stated his order did not extend to those who committed violent felonies because some offenses, such as rape and murder, were too heinous to forgive. This executive order excludes those convicted under federal law or the laws of other states, although such individuals would be able to apply individually for restoration of their rights.[37]
- Virginia – Only the governor can reinstate civil rights. In 2016, Governor Terry McAuliffe restored rights to "individuals who have been convicted of a felony and are no longer incarcerated or under active supervision ... In addition to confirming completion of incarceration and supervised release, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia considers factors such as active warrants, pre-trial hold, and other concerns that may be flagged by law enforcement. The Governor will review SOC's analysis of each individual's record and will make the final decision on proposed candidates for restoration of rights."[100]
Disparidades raciales
Felony disenfranchisement policies in the United States impact people of color disproportionally. Compared to the rest of the voting age population, African Americans are four times more likely to lose their voting rights.[101] More than 7.4 percent of African American adults are banned from voting due to felony convictions. Meanwhile, 1.8 percent of those who are not African American are banned from voting.[19]
Factores económicos
While some states automatically restore voting rights after incarceration, about thirty states condition the restoration of voting rights to the individual's ability to pay legal debts.[102] Those who are unable to pay these debts are automatically disenfranchised.
Impacto
Political
According to a 2002 study in the American Sociological Review, multiple Senate races and even presidential elections would likely have had different outcomes if felons had not been disenfranchised.[103] A 2021 study in the Journal of Politics found that fewer than one in ten incarcerated eligible voters in Maine and Vermont voted in the 2018 elections, leading the authors to suggest that extending voting rights for those currently imprisoned in other states would likely not have a meaningful impact on those states' elections.[104]
Health
A 2013 study found that felony disenfranchisement contributes to adverse health outcomes: lack of ability to influence health policy through the electoral process reduces distribution of resources to that group, and contributes to allostatic load, by way of complicating the reintegration process.[105]
Recidivism
A 2012 study argues that felony disenfranchisement "further isolates and segregates ex-felons re-entering into society by denying them the ability to participate in the political process."[106]
Ver también
- Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States
Notas
- ^ In American Samoa one has to be on "good behavior" for 2 years before their enfranchisement, regardless if they are on probation or parole.
Referencias
- ^ a b Bowers, Melanie M; Preuhs, Robert R (September 2009). "Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons". Social Science Quarterly. 90 (3): 722–743. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00640.x.
- ^ Siegel, Jonah A. (January 1, 2011). "Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage". Social Work. 56 (1): 89–91. doi:10.1093/sw/56.1.89. PMID 21314075.
- ^ a b CNN, More than 5 million people with felony convictions can't vote in this year's election, advocacy group finds, October 15, 2020.
- ^ Eli L. Levine, "Does the Social Contract Justify Felony Disenfranchisement?", 1 Wash. U. Jur. Rev. 193 (2009).
- ^ "LOSING THE VOTE: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (PDF). Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project. October 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-10.
- ^ Manza, Jeff Uggen, Christopher (2008). Locked out: felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534194-2. OCLC 475496614.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ Behrens, Angela; Uggen, Christopher; Manza, Jeff (2003). "Ballot Manipulation and the "Menace of Negro Domination": Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002". American Journal of Sociology. 109 (3): 559–605. doi:10.1086/378647. ISSN 0002-9602. JSTOR 10.1086/378647. S2CID 39843590.
- ^ "The Racist Roots of Denying Incarcerated People Their Right to Vote". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2020-08-15.
- ^ "The race-infused history of why felons aren't allowed to vote in a dozen states". The Washington Post. 2016.
- ^ "Racism & Felony Disenfranchisement: An Intertwined History | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2020-08-15.
- ^ Ghosh; Rockey, Arpita; James (2019). "On the Political Economy of Felon Disenfranchisement". SSRN: 1.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^ a b Grady, Sarah C. (2012). "Civil Death Is Different: An Examination of a PostGraham Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement Under the Eighth Amendment". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 102: 447 – via Criminal Law Commons.
- ^ "Will Florida's Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?". Retrieved 2018-10-02.
- ^ "Felony Disenfranchisement Laws (Map)". American Civil Liberties Union. 2019-12-12. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
- ^ Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974)
- ^ a b "Felon Voting Rights". National Conference of State Legislatures. January 4, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
- ^ Holding, Reynolds (November 1, 2008). "Tomes Magazine". Reason.
- ^ Pilkington, Ed (July 13, 2012). "Felon voting laws to disenfranchise historic number of Americans in 2012". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-08-07.
- ^ a b Uggen, Christopher; Larson, Ryan; Shannon, Sarah (October 6, 2016). "6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016" (PDF). The Sentencing Project. Retrieved February 11, 2020.
- ^ Grady, Sarah C. (2013). "Civil Death Is Different: An Examination of a PostGraham Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement Under the Eighth Amendment". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 102: 447–448 – via Criminal Law Commons.
- ^ Manza, Uggen, Jeff, Christopher (2004). "Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 2 (3): 493. doi:10.1017/S1537592704040290 – via Cambridge Core.
- ^ McLeod, Morgan (2018). "Expanding the Vote: Two Decades of Felony Disenfranchisement Reforms". The Sentencing Project. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
- ^ Waters, Maxine (2001-08-02). "H.R.2830 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Voting Restoration Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
- ^ a b c "Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (PDF). The Sentencing Project. March 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-19.
- ^ a b Tim Murphy. "Rick Santorum, Voting Rights Activist". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "PolitiFact Florida | Super PAC attacks Rick Santorum for supporting felon voting rights". Politifact.com. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "The NAACP 2008 Presidential Candidate Civil Rights Questionnaire" (PDF). 2012election.procon.org. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
I support restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders. I am a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act, and would sign that legislation into law as president.
- ^ "Democracy Imprisoned: The Prevalence and Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States". The Sentencing Project. September 30, 2013. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ Cardin, Benjamin L. (July 19, 2017). "S.1588 - 115th Congress (2017-2018):Democracy Restoration Act of 2017". www.congress.gov. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ McLeod, Morgan (October 17, 2018). "Expanding the Vote: Two Decades of Felony Disenfranchisement Reforms". The Sentencing Project. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
- ^ Haltiwanger, John. "Bernie Sanders says even 'terrible people' in prison for crimes like the Boston Marathon bombing should be allowed to vote". Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-10-07.
- ^ a b c Lopez, German (November 6, 2018). "Florida votes to restore ex-felon voting rights with Amendment 4". Vox.
- ^ a b Mazzei, Patricia (2020-09-11). "Ex-Felons in Florida Must Pay Fines Before Voting, Appeals Court Rules". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
- ^ Bloomberg raises millions to help restore Florida felon voting rights
- ^ a b "AB431 Overview". July 1, 2019.
- ^ Foley, Ryan J. (2012-06-24). "Iowa Felons' Voting Rights: Terry Brandstad Executive Order Disenfranchises Thousands". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ a b c d e Wines, Michael (December 12, 2019). "Kentucky Gives Voting Rights to Some 140,000 Former Felons". The New York Times.
- ^ a b "Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Iowa". Brennan Centre for Justice. August 5, 2020.
- ^ Ford, Matt (October 24, 2017). "The Strangest Political Attack Ad of 2017". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 January 2018.
- ^ "Voting rights restoration gives felons a voice in more states". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2020-01-29.
- ^ Lyon, Georgia (July 21, 2020). "CLC Sues Tennessee for Restricting Citizens' Ability to Vote". Campaign Legal Center. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ "State of our State: Rights Restoration" (PDF). Think Tennessee. June 2019. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ Lamberth, William (August 10, 2020). "HB 8005-111th General Assembly (2019-2020)" (PDF). capitol.tn.gov. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Jack (August 10, 2020). "S 8005-111th General Assembly (2019-2020)" (PDF). capitol.tn.gov. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ Allison, Natalie (August 12, 2020). "Tennessee legislature cracks down on protesters, making it a felony to camp overnight outside Capitol". The Tennessean. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
- ^ "Title 21-A, §112: Residence for voting purposes". Mainelegislature.org. 2012-10-16. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "The Vermont Statutes Online". legislature.vermont.gov. 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
- ^ https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/washington-dc-makes-important-stand-for-voting-rights-temporarily-abolishes-felony-disenfranchisement
- ^ "State Ballot Measures - Statewide Results". California Secretary of State. 10 November 2020. Retrieved 10 November 2020.
- ^ Daniel, Stephanie. "Parolees Vote For The First Time, Thanks To New Colorado Law". www.kunc.org. Retrieved 2019-10-30.
- ^ "Hawai'i State Constitution - Article 2". Hawaii.gov. Archived from the original on 2012-10-14. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Illinois Constitution - Article III". Ilga.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-05-31. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Indiana Code 3-7-13". In.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ a b Matt Ford, "Restoring Voting Rights for Felons in Maryland", The Atlantic, 9 February 2016, accessed 23 March 2016
- ^ "General Laws: Chapter 51, Section 1". Malegislature.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Michigan Legislature - Section 168.758b". Legislature.mi.gov. 1975-07-25. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "13-2-402. Reasons for cancellation". data.opi.mt.gov. Archived from the original on October 7, 2012.
- ^ "Section 654:2-a Voters Confined in Penal Institutions". Gencourt.state.nh.us. 2003-09-01. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ a b "New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy Signs Bill to Restore Voting Rights to People on Probation and Parole". Brennan Center for Justice. December 18, 2019.
- ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuomo-new-york-voting-rights-parole
- ^ "Chapter 12.1-33 : Rights of Convicts" (PDF). Legis.nd.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Lawriter - ORC". Codes.ohio.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Chapter 137 — Judgment and Execution; Parole and Probation by the Court". oregonlegislature.gov.
- ^ "Residents with Unique Voting Needs". Votespa.com. 2000-12-26. Archived from the original on 2014-08-15. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Rules and Regulations Adopted by the Office of the Secretary of State : Rhode Island" (PDF). Sos.ri.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Utah State Legislature". Le.utah.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslee-signs-bill-restoring-voting-rights-to-washingtonians-with-felonies-upon-release-from-prison
- ^ "An Act Restoring Voting Rights Of Convicted Felons Who Are On Probation". Cga.ct.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "State of Alaska : Department of Corrections" (PDF). Correct.state.ak.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Arkansas Secretary of State: Voter Registration Information". Sos.arkansas.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-11-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ [1] Archived December 7, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Idaho Constitution". Legislature.idaho.gov. 2004-07-29. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Article Five: Suffrage - Kansas Information, State Library of Kansas". Kslib.info. 2012-01-20. Archived from the original on 2013-03-26. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "RS 18:102". Legis.state.la.us. Archived from the original on 2012-10-22. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "201.014, 2013 Minnesota Statutes". Revisor.leg.state.mn.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Section 115-133 Qualifications of voters". Moga.mo.gov. 2013-08-28. Archived from the original on 2013-05-20. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "New Mexico One Source of Law®". Public.nmcompcomm.us. Archived from the original on 2013-09-27. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "GS_163-55". Ncleg.net. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "OSCN Found Document:Persons Entitled to Become Registered Voters". Oscn.net. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "South Carolina Legislature Mobile". Scstatehouse.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "State narrative: South Dakota" (PDF). NACDL. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
- ^ "Election Code Chapter 11. Qualifications and Requirements for Voting". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Wisconsin Legislature: 304.078(3)". Docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Bill Text: AL HB282, 2017, Regular Session, Engrossed". Retrieved January 25, 2018.
- ^ "Section 17-3-31". Alisondb.legislature.state.al.us. Archived from the original on 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Alabama Pardons Unit". Pardons.state.al.us. Archived from the original on 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "State narrative: Alabama" (PDF). NACDL Jurisdiction Profiles. NACDL. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
- ^ "Alabama ex-felon voting brochure 2010" (PDF). ACLU of Alabama. 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2014.
- ^ "Pardons Unit". Pardons.state.al.us. Archived from the original on 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Format Document". Azleg.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "13-912 - Restoration of civil rights for first offenders; exception". Azleg.state.az.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "The Delaware Constitution". Delcode.delaware.gov. 2010-07-07. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "State narrative: Delaware" (PDF). NACDL. Retrieved January 6, 2014.Note: The following crimes require a pardon: Murder or manslaughter (except vehicular homicide), An offense against public administration involving bribery or improper influence or abuse of office, or any like offense under the laws of another US jurisdiction, Any felony constituting a sexual offense, or any like offense under the laws of another US jurisdiction
- ^ https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/08/iowa-becomes-last-state-to-end-lifetime-felony-disenfranchisement
- ^ "Constitution Of The State Of Mississippi". Sos.state.ms.us. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "Nebraska Legislature". Nebraskalegislature.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
- ^ "State of Tennessee Felony Conviction After May 18, 1981" (PDF). Tn.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 12, 2013. Retrieved November 8, 2013.
- ^ "As of this month former Wyoming felons will have the right to vote". Retrieved June 2, 2019.
- ^ "HB0075 - Automatic restoration of the right to vote". wyoleg.gov. Retrieved June 2, 2019.
- ^ Governor McAuliffe’s Restoration of Rights policy August 22, 2016.
- ^ Chung, Jean (27 June 2019). "Felony Disenfranchisements: A Primer". The Sentencing Project. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
- ^ Civil Rights Clinic Georgetown (2019). "Can't Pay, Can't Vote: A National Survery on the Modern Poll Tax" (PDF). Retrieved March 20, 2020.
- ^ Uggen, Christopher; Manza, Jeff (2002). "Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States". American Sociological Review. 67 (6): 777–803. doi:10.2307/3088970. ISSN 0003-1224. JSTOR 3088970.
- ^ White, Ariel R.; Nguyen, Avery (2021). "How often do people vote while incarcerated? Evidence from Maine and Vermont". The Journal of Politics. doi:10.1086/714927. ISSN 0022-3816.
- ^ Purtle, Jonathan (2013). "Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States: A Health Equity Perspective". American Public Health Association. 103 (4): 632–637. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300933. PMC 3673242. PMID 23153146.
- ^ Hamilton-Smith, Guy Padraic; Vogle, Matt (2012). "The Violence of Voicelessness: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement on Recidivism". Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. 22 (407). Retrieved November 22, 2020.
Otras lecturas
- Bowers M, Preuhs R. Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) [serial online]. September 2009;90(3):722–743.
- Goldman, D. S. (2004). The Modern-Day Literacy Test?: Felon Disenfranchisement and Race Discrimination. Stanford Law Review, (2), 611.
- Hinchcliff, A. M. (2011). The "Other" Side of Richardson v. Ramirez: A Textual Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement. Yale Law Journal, 121(1), 194–236.
- Manza, J., Brooks, C., & Uggen, C. (2004). Public Attitudes toward Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. The Public Opinion Quarterly, (2), 275.
- Miles, T. J. (2004). Felon Disenfranchisement and Voter Turnout. The Journal of Legal Studies, (1), 85.
- Miller, B., & Spillane, J. (n.d). Civil death: An examination of ex-felon disenfranchisement and reintegration. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 14(4), 402–428.
- Siegel, J. A. (2011). Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage. Social Work, 56(1), 89–91.
enlaces externos
- State-by-state overview for the United States by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- Felony Disenfranchisement page from The Sentencing Project
- Gabriel J. Chin, Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth?, 92 Georgetown Law Journal 259 (2004)
- Wood, Erika (2008). "Restoring the Right to Vote" (PDF). The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-09-10.
- Historical Timeline US History of Felon Voting/Disenfranchisement at ProCon.org