An Editorial on Felony Disenfranchisement
This article was originally published in The Echo out of Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution. It won second place for Best Opinion in the 2025 American Penal Press Contest.
On May 30, 2022 then Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan visited my eastern Oregon prison as part of a statewide tour of correctional facilities. Residents of the prison had the option to meet with Fagan in a town-hall style event. Out of the approximately 1700 residents only 30 attended, myself included. It was the first and only time a politician came to my prison with the intention of meeting with incarcerated people.
When Fagan took the podium, she spoke about the value of rehabilitation, the impact of education, developing job skills that lead to gainful employment, and ways to become an engaged member of the community — areas that would statistically reduce recidivism rates. More specifically, Fagan spoke about voting rights.
Gaining attention in 2022 was House Bill 4147, which would restore the right to vote to all incarcerated Oregonians. According to The Sentencing Project, Oregon is one of 21 states that restore the vote immediately upon release from prison, but HB 4147 would make Oregon the third state to allow an incarcerated person to vote — Maine and Vermont are the other two.
I’ll admit I was enthralled. After the town hall I started watching the news again: CNN, MSNBC, local news, and I even tortured myself with FOX News every so often. I was determined to be an informed voter. But I would be disappointed.
The bill ultimately failed. Later, Fagan resigned amid an unrelated controversy. No politician has visited the prison since and I was not enfranchised in the 2024 presidential election, despite my efforts to educate myself.
I turned my attention from political candidates to disenfranchisement laws and I was shocked to learn that some states disenfranchise people for life — even after they are released from prison.
In permanent disenfranchisement states, an 18-year-old may plea bargain to a lesser felony in order to avoid jail time and will unwittingly sacrifice the right to vote for the remainder of his life.
According to The Sentencing Project, in the 2020 presidential election 5.2 million Americans were unable to vote due to felony disenfranchisement — more than 75% of whom are not incarcerated.
Supporters of felony disenfranchisement argue that an incarcerated person’s vote is a danger to democracy, leading down the slippery slope of anarchy and corruption. They argue an incarcerated person would vote in self interest and somehow dismantle the government.
This is a very flawed argument. Simply by voting, a person has indicated their willingness to participate in a structured form of government, which is the opposite of anarchy.
Michael Cholbi, a professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College in New York, aptly stated, “Denying a class of citizen the right to vote based on its likely voting patterns quashes the very dissent and change that voting is intended to register and enable.”
Yes. An incarcerated person would vote in self-interest. As do all Americans. As they should.
Another argument for felony disenfranchisement is that it serves as a deterrent. This argument centers on the idea that a person is less likely to commit a crime if there are more negative outcomes associated with that crime.
But the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and is one of the only democracies that disenfranchises people with felony records, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.
If loss of voting rights were a deterrent, then the United States would have one of the lowest rates of incarceration in the world. The strongest argument for disenfranchisement is not the integrity of democracy or deterrents to criminal behavior.
The strongest argument is that a person who breaks the law should not be allowed to make the law.
Americans vote for politicians and representatives that enact laws. An incarcerated person has broken the laws of society and forfeits their right to help make the laws. It is a simple but clear line of thinking.
As a counterpoint, I compare voting rights to other inherent rights. An incarcerated person retains their freedom of religion; right to free speech; the freedom of press and to access the media; right to legal representation; right to marry; right to adequate food and medical care; right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment; and many other rights.
In most situations, rights are retained as long as those rights do not violate another’s rights. Prison, I argue, is about a loss of liberty and not a loss of humanity or citizenship.
There are many pro-vote arguments for incarcerated people, but there is only one that truly matters. Studies show people who vote are less likely to return to prison.
Jean Chung and Kevin Muhitch from The Sentencing Project, said, “In one study, among individuals who had been arrested previously, 27% of non-voters were rearrested, compared to 12% of voters.”
If voting rights are viewed as a part of rehabilitation, then restoring voting rights for incarcerated people is a foregone conclusion. No sooner would society deny an incarcerated person the opportunity to pursue an education, job training, or maintain connections with their family, than they would deny them the right to engage with their community by voting — especially if by doing so it would statistically reduce their risk of recidivism.
Perhaps if incarcerated people could vote, the Oregon Secretary of State holding a town hall at a correctional facility would become the norm. Perhaps the attendees would not just be incarcerated people, but an untapped voting pool — constituents. Perhaps more than 30 people would sign up for an event with Fagan. Perhaps the Department of Corrections would view the low turnout as a risk that required mitigation through funding, education and outreach to better engage the incarcerated community.
I may never vote while I am incarcerated, but, luckily for me, I am not one of the millions of Americans that remains disenfranchised after they have paid their debt to society. My right to vote will be restored upon my release and my statistical chance of returning to prison will decrease as a result. More importantly, if ending felony disenfranchisement is ever up for consideration again, such as it was with House Bill 4147, I know which way I’ll cast my vote.
