On May 30, 2024, a jury in the State of New York found former United States President Donald Trump guilty of 34 criminal charges related to falsifying business records in the hush-money trial against him. The conviction makes Trump the first former U.S. president convicted of a crime.
Interestingly, however, the conviction does not preclude Trump from seeking re-election to the presidency. But it may prevent him from voting in future elections, including in the upcoming election for president in which he is currently a candidate.
In light of this news, let’s review the laws in the United States regarding when people convicted of crimes can vote or run for office.
Restrictions on Voting for Convicted Criminals
In the United States, restrictions or prohibitions on the right to vote are imposed only for felonies (not misdemeanors). What constitutes a felony differs from state to state, but it generally constitutes a serious crime. In the United States, restrictions or prohibitions on the right to vote for convicted felons are referred to as “felony disenfranchisement.”
History of Felony Disenfranchisement in the United States
The roots of felony disenfranchisement in the United States date back to English common law, which deemed individuals convicted of “infamous crimes” as unworthy of civic participation. This principle was adopted and expanded in the United States. Today, felony disenfranchisement is a politically divisive issue because in the past it was often intertwined with racially discriminatory practices, particularly after the Civil War where Southern states implemented felony disenfranchisement laws as part of a broader strategy to suppress the African American vote.
Although intentionally discriminatory disenfranchisement laws have been repealed, felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects African American communities due to higher incarceration rates stemming from systemic racial biases within the criminal justice system. According to the Sentencing Project, over 6.1 million Americans were disenfranchised due to felony convictions as of 2020, with African Americans being disenfranchised at a rate four times greater than that of non-African Americans.
These restrictions also have significant socioeconomic implications. Disenfranchisement often overlaps with other forms of social and economic marginalization, exacerbating the challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals as they attempt to reintegrate into society. The inability to vote can hinder their sense of civic engagement and agency, perpetuating cycles of exclusion and disempowerment.
The Ongoing Debate Regarding Felony Disenfranchisement
Proponents of felony disenfranchisement argue that individuals who have committed serious crimes have demonstrated a disregard for the law and, therefore, should not participate in the democratic process. Proponents generally view voting as a civil benefit that may be forfeited through misconduct. They also often contend that disenfranchisement serves as a deterrent to crime and upholds the integrity of the electoral system.
Opponents, however, argue that disenfranchisement undermines democratic principles by excluding individuals from participation in governance, which is inconsistent with the notion of a government by the people. They often assert that once individuals have served their sentences, they should be reintegrated into society fully, including regaining their voting rights. They also argue that restoring voting rights can promote rehabilitation and civic responsibility, fostering a sense of inclusion and investment in the community.
Recent Trends and Reforms
Recent years have seen a shift toward restoring voting rights to individuals with felony convictions. States like Virginia and Kentucky have implemented reforms to streamline the restoration process, and voter initiatives in states like Florida have sought to broaden enfranchisement. These changes reflect a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive democratic participation and the need to address the long-standing inequities associated with felony disenfranchisement.
The Current State of Disenfranchisement in the United States
The United States does not have a uniform policy regarding the voting rights of convicted criminals; instead, each of the fifty states determines its own rules. These rules fall into several broad categories:
- No Restrictions: Two states, Maine and Vermont, allow incarcerated individuals to vote, reflecting a belief in the unalienable nature of voting rights.
- Post-Sentence Restoration: In Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah individuals regain their voting rights upon release from prison, even if they are still on parole or probation.
- Completion of Sentence and Parole: California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and South Dakota restore voting rights only after individuals have completed their periods of incarceration and parole (probationers can vote).
- Completion of Sentence, Parole, and Probation: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia restore voting rights only after individuals have completed their entire sentence, including parole and probation.
- Additional Waiting Periods or Action Required: Some states, like Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, impose additional barriers and require the filing of a petition before voting rights are restored. In Florida, a 2018 amendment restored voting rights to most felons upon completion of their sentences, but subsequent legislation now requires payment of all fines and fees imposed as part of criminal sentencing. Because former President Donald Trump is a resident of Florida, he would be allowed to vote in the upcoming presidential election if his criminal sentence does not include any jail time and if he pays any fines or fees that are imposed in connection to his criminal conviction.
- Permanent Disenfranchisement: A few states, including Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming, permanently disenfranchise individuals convicted of certain felonies, although these individuals may sometimes seek clemency or have their rights restored through specific legal processes.
A full summary of the laws in each state has been compiled by the United States Department of Justice and can be accessed here: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-01/voting_with_a_criminal_conviction_7.6.23.pdf.
Section Conclusion
Whether a person previously convicted of a felony may vote depends on the state in which that person resides. Although the trend across the country is to remove or lessen restrictions on the right to vote for convicted felons, disenfranchisement remains a complex contentious issue that is complicated by historical, discriminatory practices.
Restrictions on Seeking Elected Office for Convicted Criminals
A criminal conviction does not prohibit someone from running for the office of President of the United States. This is because nothing in the United States Constitution bars a convicted criminal from running for the nation’s highest office. The Constitution contains only limited qualifications for running for office, which are that the person must be (1) at least 35 years old, (2) a natural born citizen, and (3) at least 14 years a resident of the United States.
There may be, however, restrictions on the right to run for other public offices. As with the right to vote, the right to run for public office is determined by state law and thus differs from state to state across the country. Also, as with the right to vote, restrictions on the right to run for public office harken back to English common law—where individuals who committed serious offenses were ‘corrupt and unworthy’ of political office—but were then used as a tool for racial discrimination following the Civil War.
The current trend across the country is to lessen restrictions on the right to hold public office. Generally, current restrictions on this right fall into the following categories:
- Lifetime Bans: Some states impose lifetime bans on individuals with certain felony convictions. For instance, Mississippi permanently bars individuals convicted of specific crimes, such as bribery, theft, and perjury, from holding public office.
- Temporary Disqualifications: Many states temporarily disqualify individuals from running for office until they have completed their sentences, including parole and probation. For example, in Florida, individuals with felony convictions are prohibited from holding public office until they have completed their sentence, including the payment of fines, fees, and restitution.
- Conditional Restoration: Some states allow individuals to regain eligibility through specific legal processes. In states like Virginia, the governor has the power to restore the civil rights of individuals with felony convictions, including the right to run for office.
- Office-Specific Restrictions: Certain states have additional restrictions for specific types of offices. For example, some states may prohibit individuals with felony convictions from running for judicial positions or other roles that require a high degree of public trust.
Conclusion
The restrictions on running for elected office for convicted criminals in the United States present a complex intersection of legal, ethical, and political issues. While these restrictions aim to uphold the integrity of public office and maintain public trust, some argue that they perpetuate systemic inequalities and hinder the democratic inclusion of marginalized communities. As the various states across the country continue to debate this complex issue, changes in the state of the law are likely.
コメント