Cornelius Range V | Felons shouldn’t lose the freedom to vote

The Pennsylvania General Assembly is currently considering two bills that could significantly impact the next presidential election.

The first is a proposal that would restructure the way in which Pennsylvania awards its electoral votes by moving away from the winner-take-all approach. Each county would be worth a number of electoral votes, ensuring a split of Pennsylvania’s votes because of noncompetitive counties created by gerrymandering.

The second proposal would require voters in the state to have some form of I.D. issued by Pennsylvania or the federal government (like a passport) and would directly affect out-of-state college students. Some fear that these proposals will inevitably cause some voters to be disenfranchised, with their votes either being not counted or made irrelevant (a long-standing critique of the Electoral College).

However, such fears are belated. As a country, we already disenfranchise millions of people every year.

Felony disenfranchisement, or the restriction of a felon’s right to vote, is practiced in every state with the exceptions of Maine and Vermont. As a result, nearly five million citizens are effectively denied the political influence that a ballot carries.

While there are certainly partisan implications of such disenfranchisement (with scholars noting that excluding felons has provided an advantage to Republicans in every presidential and senatorial election from 1972 to 2000), the larger issue is the systematic silencing of communities that disenfranchisement promotes.

Proponents of disenfranchisement practices argue that, because felons practiced poor judgment and caused harm to another, they should naturally forfeit some rights of their own.

The problem with this argument is multifaceted.

If one could be excluded from voting just for practicing poor judgment in the past, then none of us would be allowed to vote. We have all exercised poor judgment. Indeed, to impose such a litmus test on voters contradicts the ideals that we, as a country, claim to promote. Even as we acknowledge the fact there will always be some differences in wealth or education or knowledge, we are expected to have faith in the electorate. If nothing else, we expect that our votes will all be counted equally.

There are approximately 2 million people incarcerated in United States federal, state and county prisons. Now, as you might guess, this population doesn’t have the same privileges that you or I possess. They can’t start a business. If they are paid for work, they are paid wages that bring to mind serfdom or slavery. In the most fundamental of ways, they have had their freedom removed. That’s more than enough of a penalty to pay for any crime, especially for the nonviolent offenders who make up more than of half of the people imprisoned.

I can understand why some believe that disenfranchisement is more palatable for people convicted of violent crimes. However, when the government strips away their right to vote it is overstepping its bounds. Even a murderer is still the son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father to someone. One vote taken away from one felon might not seem like a big deal but in the aggregate the impact is certainly felt.

“If voting is viewed as an expression of parental and communal duty, then disenfranchisement is infantilizing of people who sorely need the chance to display adult civic responsibility,” Law School professor Regina Austin said.

She added that felons should be able to vote on issues related to education, housing and public health because their families and communities are affected.

Who can or will represent the political interests of the children of a man convicted of aggravated burglary or a drug charge? Politicians like Michael Nutter, Eric Cantor and Barack Obama certainly won’t. If you silence one person you inadvertently silence many more in the process.

In Pennsylvania and in other states, felons are allowed to vote after they serve their time. However, every election counts and every election could impact the people in the communities that they come from. Why should someone be forced to sit out an election that might produce consequences that are politically harmful to those with which they share community? Disenfranchisement should never be seen as the proper execution of justice when it more closely resembles cruel and unusual punishment.

Cornelius Range is a College senior from Memphis, Tenn. His email address is crang@sas.upenn.edu. Plead the Fifth appears every Wednesday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.