Exclusion by Confusion
October 29, 2024
By: Molly Sweigart
People with felony conviction histories can’t vote. Or, can they? Some states say “yes”, some say “no”, and others give more nuanced answers like “yes, if,” or “no, unless.” Inconsistency of state-level felony disenfranchisement policy does not present a prima facie Constitutional issue, and it is legal in many states to rescind the right to vote from individuals with a felony conviction. However, lack of consistency among felony disenfranchisement policies at the state level is not without harm. In Pennsylvania alone, thousands of eligible voters will be “denied” the right to vote in this upcoming election. How can voters with felony convictions be excluded from casting a vote in a state where they are not disenfranchised under state law? The answer is as simple as it is vexing: confusion.
With state policy ranging from complete voter disenfranchisement for certain felonies in states like Delaware to permitting individuals to vote while incarcerated in states like Vermont, it comes as no surprise that affected individuals across the country are misinformed or misguided about whether they can vote upon release from prison. Pennsylvania takes a more middle ground approach compared to some other states: the right to vote is automatically restored upon release from prison, regardless of whether an individual with a felony conviction is still completing their sentence via probation or payment of restitution. In the United States, Pennsylvania’s approach is the most popular, with twenty-three other states currently taking this approach.
To add to confusion around voting rights of people with felony convictions, state policy on the issue is not homogenous by region. Some New England states do not disenfranchise voters with felony convictions, but not all. Some Midwestern states allow for voter reinstatement upon completion of a sentence, but not all. For states like Pennsylvania, bordering states broadly diverge on disenfranchisement policy, leaving voters confused about their rights. If a state like Pennsylvania has reinstated the right to vote to individuals with a felony conviction upon completion of their sentence, but these individuals are not aware or informed of their voting eligibility, how effective is the reinstatement policy?
In March 2023, several Pennsylvania representatives primarily from districts comprising the City of Philadelphia and surrounding counties introduced HR 47 to combat felony disenfranchisement misinformation. The resolution’s purpose was to “[d]irect[] the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study on voting patterns and knowledge about voting rights among formerly incarcerated qualified electors in Pennsylvania and submit a report of its findings and recommendations.” Some focal data points in the study included the relationship between length of incarceration and rates of voter participation as well as self-reported experiences of individuals with felony convictions who received incorrect information regarding disenfranchisement by local officials. In conducting and subsequently presenting the study, these state representatives hoped to address barriers that formerly incarcerated Pennsylvanians face in regaining the right to vote upon release from prison. The resolution passed in June 2023.
A few months after the approval of 2023 HR 47, the City of Philadelphia began implementing voter disenfranchisement language in standardized guilty plea colloquies as a way to tackle disenfranchisement misinformation early on. This proactive approach was intended to provide up to date information about voting laws in Pennsylvania for individuals as early as possible following a criminal charge.
While Pennsylvania is not the only state with a confusing history of felony disenfranchisement policy, current legislators at its state level appear focused on reinstating valuable voting rights for thousands of Pennsylvanians and reducing confusion around Pennsylvania’s state laws on felony disenfranchisement.