How To Know How Many People Registered Out Of How Many People Are Elgible To Vote

In the past 25 years, one-half the states have changed their laws and practices to expand voting access to people with felony convictions. Despite these of import reforms, 5.2 meg Americans remain disenfranchised, 2.iii percent of the voting historic period population.

Overview

In this presidential election year, the question of voting restrictions, and their disproportionate impact on Blackness and Brown communities, should receive greater public attention.

This report is intended to update and expand our previous work on the telescopic and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States. ⁱ⁾ run across Uggen, Larson, and Shannon 2016; Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012; Uggen and Manza 2002; Manza and Uggen 2006). For the first time, we present estimates of the percentage of the Latinx population disenfranchised due to felony convictions. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best cess of the country of felony disenfranchisement every bit of the November 2020 election.

Our key findings include the following:

As of 2020, an estimated 5.17 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has declined by near 15 percentage since 2016, as states enacted new policies to curtail this practice. There were an estimated 1.17 million people disenfranchised in 1976, iii.34 million in 1996, 5.85 one thousand thousand in 2010, and half dozen.11 million in 2016.
1 out of 44 adults – 2.27 percent of the total U.S. voting eligible population–is disenfranchised due to a electric current or previous felony conviction.
Individuals who have completed their sentences in the eleven states that disenfranchise at least some people postal service-judgement brand up most (43 per centum) of the entire disenfranchised population, totaling 2.23 1000000 people.
Rates of disenfranchisement vary dramatically past land due to broad variations in voting prohibitions. In three states – Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee – more than eight percent of the adult population, one of every thirteen people, is disenfranchised.
We estimate that nearly 900,000 Floridians who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised, despite a 2018 election plebiscite that promised to restore their voting rights. Florida thus remains the nation's disenfranchisement leader in absolute numbers, with over i.i million people currently banned from voting – often considering they cannot afford to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions or because the state is not obligated to tell them the corporeality of their sanction.
One in 16 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over half dozen.2 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to i.7 percentage of the non-African American population.
African American disenfranchisement rates vary significantly past state. In 7 states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming – more than one in 7 African Americans is disenfranchised, twice the national average for African Americans.
Although data on ethnicity in correctional populations are however unevenly reported, we tin conservatively estimate that over 560,000 Latinx Americans or over 2 percent of the voting eligible population are disenfranchised.
Approximately 1.2 million women are disenfranchised, comprising over one-fifth of the full disenfranchised population.

State Disenfranchisement Police force

To compile estimates of disenfranchised populations, we have into account new U.S. Demography data on voting eligible populations and recent changes in land-level disenfranchisement policies, including those reported in Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer (Chung 2019) and Expanding the Vote (Porter 2010; McLeod 2018). Since 2016, five states have re-enfranchised some nonincarcerated populations: Nevada (all non-prison, including post-sentence), Colorado (parole), Louisiana (probation and many on parole), New Jersey (probation and parole), and New York (parole). Other states have revised their waiting periods and streamlined the procedure for regaining ceremonious rights. In November 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4, which immune most people who have completed their sentences to vote (with the exception of people bedevilled of sex offenses and murder). A legal battle has ensued over whether legal fiscal obligations (LFOs) must be paid before voting rights are restored. In June of this twelvemonth, U.S. Commune Estimate Robert Hinkle ruled that it is unconstitutional to require payment of LFOs in order to vote, but on September eleven, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta reversed that ruling.

Equally shown in Table one, Maine and Vermont remain the only states that let persons in prison house to vote (as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). In July 2020, the Washington, D.C. Quango passed an emergency bill that authorized all incarcerated residents with a felony conviction to vote in the November 2020 election. The Quango intends to make the change permanent. Twenty-seven U.S. states deny voting rights to felony probationers, and 30 states disenfranchise people on parole. In the well-nigh extreme cases, eleven states continue to deny voting rights to some or all of the individuals who have successfully fulfilled their prison, parole, or probation sentences.

In addition to Florida, other states partly status reenfranchisement on payment of outstanding fines, fees, court costs, and restitution. With regard to the categories in Table 1, Margaret Dearest and David Schlussel (2020) notation that i state in the "Prison & parole" column (CT), and five states in the "Prison, parole & probation" column (AR, GA, KS, SD, TX), announced to disenfranchise some people mail-sentence, on the basis of unpaid legal financial obligations. Connecticut requires payment of fines for out-of-state and federal convictions; Arkansas requires payment of court costs, fines, and restitution; Georgia requires payment of fines; Kansas requires payment of restitution and fines; South Dakota requires payment of fines, fees, and restitution; and Texas requires payment of fines. Three states in addition to Florida condition eligibility for reenfranchisement on payment of some or all legal financial obligations. Alabama conditions reenfranchisement after a first felony on payment of fines, fees, court costs, and victim restitution; Arizona atmospheric condition restoration after a first felony on payment of restitution; and Tennessee conditions restoration on payment of restitution, courtroom costs (unless a finding of indigency was fabricated), and child support. The telescopic and enforcement of such restrictions varies greatly across these states, such that we cannot provide business firm estimates on the number of people impacted. However, they serve as an additional commuter of disenfranchisement, above and beyond the restrictions reported in Table ane and the numbers reported in Tables 3, 4, and five.

Table 1. Summary of State Felony Disenfranchisement Restrictions in 2020

No restrictions (ii)	Prison only (17)	Prison & Parole (4)	Prison house, parole, & probation (16)	Prison house, parole, probation, & post-judgement (11)
Maine	Colorado	California^a	Alaska	Alabama^d
Vermont	Hawaii	Connecticut	Arkansas	Arizona^e
	Illinois	New York^b	Georgia	Delaware^f
	Indiana		Idaho	Florida^g
	Maryland		Kansas	Iowa^h
	Massachusetts		Louisiana^c	Kentuckyⁱ
	Michigan		Minnesota	Mississippi^j
	Montana		Missouri	Nebraska^k
	Nevada		New Mexico	Tennessee^fifty
	New Hampshire		Due north Carolina	Virginia^g
	New Bailiwick of jersey		Oklahoma	Wyomingⁿ
	North Dakota		South Carolina
	Ohio		Due south Dakota
	Oregon		Texas
	Pennsylvania		Washington
	Rhode Island		Due west Virginia
	Utah		Wisconsin

Notes:
a. California – In 2016, lawmakers restored voting rights to people convicted of a felony offense housed in jail, but not in prison. That
yr, officials authorized persons sentenced to prison to be released to probation rather than parole, affirming voting rights for residents under felony community supervision.
b. New York – In 2018, Governor Cuomo reviewed and restored voting rights to persons currently on parole via executive order. There is currently no assurance that this do volition go on, however, and then New York is listed as a state that continues to disenfranchise people on parole.
c. Louisiana – In 2019, authorized voting for residents under an order of imprisonment for a felony who have not been incarcerated for five years, including those on probation and parole.
d. Alabama – In 2016, legislation eased the rights restoration process subsequently completion of judgement for persons not bedevilled of a crime of "moral turpitude." The land codified the list of felony offenses that are ineligible for re-enfranchisement in 2017.
due east. Arizona – Permanently disenfranchises persons with ii or more felony convictions. In 2019, removed the requirement to pay outstanding fines before rights are automatically restored for first fourth dimension felony offenses only.
f. Delaware – In 2013, removed the five-year waiting period to regain voting eligibility. Apart from some disqualifying offenses, people
bedevilled of a felony are now eligible to vote upon completion of judgement and supervision.
g. Florida – In 2018, voters passed an subpoena to restore voting rights to most people afterwards judgement completion. In 2019, legislation was passed that made restoration provisional on payment of all restitution, fees, and fines. As of October, 2020, only the rights of those who had paid all legal financial obligations (fines and fees) had been restored.
h. Iowa – In 2020, Governor Reynolds signed an executive order restoring voting rights to people who have completed their sentences, except for those convicted of homicide. This follows previous executive orders from Governor Vilsack (restoring voting rights to individuals who had completed their sentences in 2005) and Governor Branstad (reversing this executive order in 2011).
i. Kentucky – In 2019, Governor A. Beshear issued an executive social club restoring voting rights to those who had completed sentences for nonviolent offenses. This follows a similar 2015 executive guild by Governor S. Beshear, which had been rescinded past Governor Bevin after that year.
j. Mississippi – Permanently disenfranchises individuals convicted of certain offenses.
k. Nebraska – In 2005, reduced its indefinite ban on post-sentence voting to a two-year waiting period.
l. Tennessee – Disenfranchises those convicted of certain felonies since 1981, in addition to those convicted of select crimes prior to 1973. Others must apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for restoration.
m. Virginia – In 2019, Governor Northam reported that his administration has restored voting rights to 22,205 Virginians previously
convicted of felonies. Governor McAuliffe had earlier restored rights to 173,166.
due north. Wyoming – In 2017, restored voting rights after v years to people who consummate sentences for start-time, non-violent felony convictions.

Methodology

We estimated the number of people released from prison house and those who accept completed their terms of parole or probation based on demographic life tables for each country, as described in Uggen, Manza, and Thompson (2006) and Shannon et al. (2017). We modeled each state's disenfranchisement rate in accordance with its distinctive felony voting policies, equally listed in Table one. For example, some states impose disenfranchisement for 2 years after release from supervision, some states just disenfranchise those convicted of multiple felonies, and some just disenfranchise those convicted of tearing offenses. ²⁾ In Florida, some tin avert a formal felony conviction by successfully completing a flow of probation. According to the Florida Department of Constabulary Enforcement, as much as 40 percentage of the total probation population holds this "arbitrament withheld" status. According to reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but well-nigh 50 percent of Florida probationers successfully consummate probation. In light of this, nosotros reduce the annual current disenfranchised felony probation numbers by 40 percent and individuals disenfranchised postal service-sentence past xx percent (.4*.5=.twenty) in each year in the life tables.

In brief, we compiled demographic life tables for the years 1948-2020 to determine the number of released individuals lost to recidivism (and therefore already included in our annual head counts) and to mortality each yr. This allows u.s.a. to estimate the number of individuals who have completed their sentences in a given state and year who are no longer under correctional supervision nonetheless remain disenfranchised. Because data on correctional populations are currently available only through twelvemonth-end 2018, nosotros extended state-specific trends from 2015-2018 to obtain estimates for 2020. Our duration-specific recidivism rate estimates are derived from large-scale national studies of backsliding for people released from prison or on probation. Based on these studies, our models assume that most released individuals volition be re-incarcerated (66 percent) and a smaller pct of those on probation or in jail (57 per centum) will cycle dorsum through the criminal justice organisation. We also presume a substantially higher mortality rate for people convicted of felony offenses relative to the rest of the population. Both recidivists and deaths are removed from the mail service-sentence pool to avoid overestimating the number of individuals in the population who have completed their sentences. Each release cohort is thus reduced each successive year – at a level commensurate with the historic period-adjusted hazard rate for mortality and duration-adjusted hazard rate for backsliding – and added to each new cohort of releases. Overall, we produced more than than 200 spreadsheets covering 72
years of data. These provide the figures needed to compile disenfranchisement rate estimates that are keyed to the appropriate correctional populations for each land and year. ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ Our data sources include numerous United states of america Department of Justice (DOJ) publications, including the almanac Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United states of america, equally well as the Prisoners and Jail Inmates at Midyear series. Where bachelor, we used data from land departments of corrections rather than national sources, as in the case of Minnesota. For early on years, we also referenced National Prisoner Statistics, and Race of Prisoners Admitted to State and Federal Institutions, 1926-1986. We determined the median age of released prisoners based on annual information from the National Corrections Reporting Plan. The backsliding charge per unit nosotros use to subtract the releasee population each year is based upon the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989) "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983" study and "Recidivism of Felons on Probation 1986 1989." For those in prison house or on parole, nosotros use a reincarceration charge per unit of eighteen.6 per centum at one year, 32.viii per centum at ii years, 41.iv percent at three years. Although rearrest rates accept increased since 1983, the overall reconviction and reincarceration rates used for this report are much more than stable (Langan and Levin (2002), p. 11). For those on probation or in jail, the corresponding 3-twelvemonth failure rate is 36 percent, significant that individuals are in prison or jail and therefore counted in a dissimilar population.

To extend the analysis to subsequent years, nosotros calculated a trend line using the ratio of increases provided past Hoffman and Stone-Meierhoefer (1980) on federal prisoners. By year ten, nosotros judge a 59.4 percent recidivism rate among released prisoners and parolees, which increases to 65.ix percentage by year 62 (the longest observation menses in this assay). Because these estimates are higher than near long-term backsliding studies, they are likely to yield conservative estimates of the formerly incarcerated population. Nosotros apply the same trend line to the three-twelvemonth probation and jail backsliding rate of 36 percent; by year 62, the recidivism rate is 57.3 percent. 1948 is the earliest year for which detailed information are available on releases from supervision.

Disenfranchisement in 2020

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 5,177,780 disenfranchised individuals across correctional populations. Three-quarters of the disenfranchised population are people living in their communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole, including nearly one-half (43%) who have completed their sentence. People currently in prison and jail now represent about one-quaternary (25 percent) of those disenfranchised. Our intent here is to provide a portrait of disenfranchisement that would exist accurate equally of the 2020 Nov election, though we stress that much of the information we report are based on estimates rather than head counts.

Figure 1. Disenfranchisement Distribution Across Correctional Populations, 2020

Figure ii. Full Felony Disenfranchisement Rates, 2020

Variation Across States

Due to differences in state laws and rates of criminal punishment, states vary widely in the exercise of disenfranchisement. These maps and tables stand for the disenfranchised population every bit a percentage of the adult voting eligible population in each state. As noted, we approximate that 5,177,780 Americans are currently ineligible to vote past state law. As Figure 2 and the statistics in Tabular array 3 show, state-level disenfranchisement rates in 2020 varied from 0.18 percent in Massachusetts (and zero in Maine and Vermont) to more than than 8 per centum in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

These figures reverberate significant but uneven change in contempo decades. Although half of the states have scaled back voting restrictions for people with felony convictions, the others have retained such restrictions and their disenfranchised populations accept increased commensurate with the expansion of the criminal legal system.

The cartogram in Figure 3 provides another way to visualize the touch on of these policies past highlighting the big regional differences in felony disenfranchisement laws. Cartograms misconstrue the state expanse on the map under an alternative statistic, in this case the total felony disenfranchisement charge per unit. Southeastern states appear bloated considering they disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who take completed their sentences. In contrast, the many Northeastern and Midwestern states shrink because they limit disenfranchisement to individuals currently in prison house, or not at all. This distorted map thus provides a clear visual representation of the great range of differences in the scope and impact of felony disenfranchisement beyond the 50 states.

Figure 3. Cartogram of Total Disenfranchisement Rates by State, 2020

Trends Over Time

Figure 4 illustrates the historical trend in U.S. disenfranchisement, showing growth in the disenfranchised population for selected years from 1960 to 2020. The number disenfranchised dropped from approximately ane.8 million to one.2 million between 1960 and 1976, as states expanded voting rights in the civil rights era. Many states accept pared back their disenfranchisement provisions since the 1970s (see Behrens, Uggen, and Manza, 2003; Manza and Uggen, 2006). Nevertheless, the full number banned from voting continued to rise with the significant expansion in U.S. correctional populations since 1970.The total disenfranchised population rose from 3.3 million in 1996 to four.seven million in 2000, to 5.four one thousand thousand in 2004, to 5.9 million in 2010, and 6.1 one thousand thousand in 2016. Today, we estimate that 5.2 meg Americans are disenfranchised by virtue of a felony conviction. Roughly the same number of voters will be disenfranchised in the 2020 presidential election as in 2004.

Figure iv. Number Disenfranchised for Selected Years, 1960-2020

Variations By Race and Ethnicity

Disenfranchisement rates vary widely across racial and indigenous groups; felony disenfranchisement provisions have an outsized bear upon on communities of colour. Ethnicity information in detail accept not been consistently collected or reported in the information sources used to compile our estimates, then our ability to construct these estimates is express. This is specially the case for Latinx populations, who at present institute a significant portion of criminal justice populations. Race information on criminal justice populations is more complete, and we have used the nearly contempo information bachelor from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop a complete set of state specific disenfranchisement estimates for the African American voting eligible population.

Figure 5 shows the corresponding rates for 2020. African American disenfranchisement rates in Tennessee and Wyoming now exceed xx pct of the developed voting age population.

Effigy 5. African American Felony Disenfranchisement Rates, 2020

Information are express regarding ethnicity, just more states are at present consistently reporting Latinx or Hispanic ethnicity for justice-involved populations. Nosotros therefore compiled estimates for these populations simply present them with the caveat that these figures probable undercount the truthful rate of Latinx disenfranchisement in many states. Although data on Latinx ethnicity in correctional populations are however unevenly reported, we tin conservatively estimate that over 560,000 Latinx Americans (over 2 percent of the voting eligible population) are disenfranchised. In Arizona and Tennessee over vii percent of the Latinx voters are disenfranchised due to felony-level convictions. Even with the likely undercounting, 34 states report a higher charge per unit of disenfranchisement in the Latinx population than in the general population. Many of those disenfranchised today were convicted at a time when the Latinx population was significantly smaller than it is today. Because the overall U.Due south. Latinx population has quadrupled since 1980, we anticipate that Latinx disenfranchisement will incorporate an increasing share of those disenfranchised due to felony convictions in coming years.

Figure 6. Latinx Felony Disenfranchisement Rates (Available Data), 2020

Sexual practice and Disenfranchisement

To estimate the percentage of disenfranchised male and female voters, we compiled national prison, probation, parole and jail statistics, and prepared a national life table to obtain the mail service-sentence sex distribution. By this method, we guess that approximately ane.24 million women are disenfranchised in 2020, making up over one-fifth of the total disenfranchised population.

Contempo Changes

The total disenfranchisement charge per unit in 2020 (2.27 percent) shows a small decline relative to the figures our team reported in 2016 (2.47 percentage) and 2006 (2.42 percent), due in part to state changes in disenfranchisement policy and population growth. Our estimates for African American disenfranchisement in 2020 are likewise lower than those for 2016: 6.26 percent, versus 7.44 pct in 2016, 7.66 percentage in 2010, and viii.25 pct in 2004. For the 2020 estimates, we used the American Community Survey to obtain denominators for the African American voting eligible population. For 2020, 2016 and 2010, we used race-specific recidivism rates (resulting in a higher rate for African Americans) that more than accurately reverberate current scholarship on recidivism. This results in a higher rate of compunction in our life tables, merely produces a more conservative and, we believe, more accurate portrait of the number of disenfranchised African Americans. Though lower than in 2004, the 6.26 percent charge per unit of disenfranchisement for African Americans remains three.seven times greater than the non-African American rate of 1.69 percent.

Given the size of Florida's disenfranchised population, nosotros too note our estimation procedure for this land. Based on a state-specific recidivism written report in 1999, our 2004 estimates included much higher recidivism rates for African Americans in Florida (upward to 88 percent lifetime). A 2010 report from the Florida Department of Corrections shows that rates of backsliding for African Americans are now more than closely in line with the national rates we apply to other states. In lite of this more recent evidence, we apply our national rate of recidivism for African Americans (up to 73 percentage lifetime) to Florida'south African American population with prior felony convictions from 2005 onward.

Equally detailed in the notes to Table one, in that location have been numerous significant changes in state disenfranchisement policies since our terminal report in 2016. States have advanced a diversity of reform measures. Peradventure about notably, Florida voters passed Amendment iv in 2018, which should have reenfranchised most people who take completed their sentences (with some offenses exempted). Nosotros approximate that almost 900,000 people who owe outstanding legal financial obligations (fines, fees, and restitution) remain disenfranchised. Wyoming in 2017 restored voting rights after v years to people who complete sentences for commencement-time, non-fierce felony convictions. Governors in Iowa (2020) and Kentucky (2019) issued executive orders restoring civil rights to people who had completed their sentences, and the New York governor (2018) restored voting rights to people on parole. In Virginia (2016), Governor McAuliffe issued an executive order that would have reenfranchised 200,000 people, but was invalidated by the Virginia Supreme Court, which held that such reenfranchisement required private action. After this decision, Governor McAuliffe signed individual restorations for 173,000 people. California restored voting rights to people serving time for felony convictions in jails (though non prisons) in 2016. Colorado and Nevada authorized voting rights for residents on parole in 2019. Maryland (2016), Louisiana (2019), and New Bailiwick of jersey (2019) reenfranchised people serving probation and parole terms.

Voting laws will exclude 5.2 1000000 Americans from participating in the 2020 ballot, simply some reforms are opening upward our democracy to voices long silenced. Complimentary the Vote introduces you to 4 Americans eager to vote and gain their rights of citizenship.

Restoration of Voting Rights

States typically provide some limited mechanism for disenfranchised persons to restore their correct to vote. These vary profoundly in scope, eligibility requirements, and reporting practices. It is thus difficult to obtain consistent information about the rate and number of disenfranchised Americans whose rights are restored through these generally authoritative procedures. Nevertheless, we contacted each of the appropriate state agencies by email and phone and compiled the information they made available to united states in Table 2. These numbers provides some information most the frequency of country restoration of rights – outside of law changes regarding eligibility – in those 11 states that disenfranchise beyond sentence completion.

We subtracted all known restorations of civil rights (including full pardons) from each land's total disenfranchised post-sentence figure. Even bookkeeping for these restorations, it is clear that restoration of voting rights is rare in near states. Us reporting the greatest number of restorations since 2016 — Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia – accept had executive orders that re-enfranchised large categories of people who had completed their sentences. Indeed, some states take significantly concise restoration efforts since 2016, including Florida. Table 2 shows restorations of voting rights from 2016 to the most recent year available (for restorations in previous years, see Uggen, Larson, and Shannon, 2016).

Table 2. Restoration of Voting Rights Since 2016 in States that Disenfranchise Residents Postal service-Sentence

State	Restorations
Alabama	three,493
Arizona	i³
Delaware	1,676
Florida	iii,250
Iowa	45,376
Kentucky	181,361
Mississippi	26
Nebraska	44
Tennessee	3,415^iv
Virginia	195,371
Wyoming	0

3. In Arizona, the ane restoration listed is a pardon past the state'south governor. Nosotros circumspection that our data may be incomplete. Restoration of voting rights may be processed at the court level in Arizona but, to our knowledge, these data have not yet been compiled at the state level.
4. Number of restorations in Tennessee was updated on x/26/20, based on information provided by the Tennessee Secretary of State's Role. We incorporated these figures in revised estimates in Tables 2, 3, four, and 5, updating the overall numbers to accept business relationship of the new restoration figures making a proportionality supposition to distribute these restorations across racial and indigenous groups. In the form of these updates, we as well made a small adjustment in how we care for Tennessee convictions prior to 1973, but these have a very small impact on the 2020 numbers.

Summary

This written report provides new state-level estimates on felony disenfranchisement for 2020 in the Usa to update those provided by Uggen, Larson, and Shannon (2016) for previous years. In Tables 3 and 4, nosotros provide state-specific point estimates of the disenfranchised population and African American disenfranchised population, subject to the caveats described beneath.

Despite significant legal changes in contempo decades, about five.2 million Americans are disenfranchised in 2020. When we pause these figures down past race and ethnicity, it is clear that disparities in the criminal justice organisation are linked to disparities in political representation. The distribution of disenfranchised individuals shown in Effigy i also bears repeating: near 1-fourth of this population is currently incarcerated, and about iv million adults who alive in their communities are banned from voting. Of this total, one.3 million are African Americans.

In addition, the prison, probation, parole, and jail populations we report for 2020 are also estimated, based on year-terminate 2018 information and the recent country-specific trends in each state. In other work, we have presented figures that conform or "bound" these estimates past assuming dissimilar levels of backsliding, inter-land mobility, and state-specific variation.

With these caveats in mind, the results reported hither present our best account of the prevalence of U.Due south. disenfranchisement in 2020. These estimates will be adjusted if and when we observe errors or omissions in the data compiled from individual states, U.S. Census and Bureau of Justice Statistics sources, or in our own spreadsheets and estimation procedures.

Information technology's clear that disparities in the criminal justice organisation are linked to disparities in political representation.

Caveats

We have taken care to produce estimates of current populations and "post-sentence" populations that are reliable and valid past social science standards. Nevertheless, readers should conduct in mind that our country specific figures for the 11 states that bar individuals from voting after they have completed their sentences remain point estimates rather than actual caput counts.

State Estimates of Disenfranchisement

Click hither for state estimates of disenfranchised individuals with felony convictions.

Click hither for land estimates of disenfranchised African Americans with felony convictions.

Click here for state estimates of disenfranchised Latinx Americans with felony convictions.

References

Behrens, Angela, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza. 2003. "Ballot Manipulation and the 'Menace of Negro Domination': Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United states, 1850-2002." American Journal of Sociology 109:559-605.

Chung, Jean. 2019. "Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer." Washington: The Sentencing Projection.

Langan, Patrick and Marking Cunniff. 1992. "Backsliding of Felons on Probation, 1986-89." NCJ 134177. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Dearest, Margaret, and David Schlussel. 2020. Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey. Collateral Consequences Research Eye.

Manza, Jeff and Christopher Uggen. 2006. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Manza, Jeff, Clem Brooks, and Christopher Uggen. 2004. "Public Attitudes toward Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States." Public Opinion Quarterly 68:275-86.

McLeod, Morgan. 2018. "Expanding the Vote: Two Decades of Felony Disenfranchisement Reforms." Washington: The Sentencing Projection.

McNeil, Walter. 2010. "2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study: Releases from 2001 to 2008." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Inquiry and Data Assay.

Porter, Nicole D. 2010. "Expanding the Vote: Land Felony Disenfranchisement Reform, 2010." The Sentencing Project, Washington DC.

Shannon, Sarah, Christopher Uggen, Jason Schnittker, Melissa Thompson, Sara Wakefield, and Michael Massoglia. 2017. "The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People with Felony Records in the United states, 1948-2010." Demography 54:1795-1818

Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza, and Melissa Thompson. 2006. "Citizenship, Commonwealth, and the Borough Reintegration of Criminal Offenders." Annals of the American University of Political and Social Scientific discipline 605:281-310.

Uggen, Christopher and Jeff Manza. 2002. "Democratic Contraction? The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the U.s.." American Sociological Review 67:777-803.

Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, and Sarah Shannon. 2016. "6 Meg Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016." Washington: Sentencing Project.

Uggen, Christopher, Sarah Shannon, and Jeff Manza. 2012. "State-level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United states, 2010." Washington: Sentencing Project.