Felons Can Vote in Utah
Introduction
Felon disenfranchisement is a reflection of laws and policies dating back to ancient Greek and Rome tradition where criminals condemned to a civil death would lose everything. In some respects, this was worse than death because one would be stripped of any and all property, titles, positions or standing within the society and would lose all protection from even the most fundamental civil laws. This practice carried over into early English Parliament and Colonial America (Sigler 2014). Today there are over 5.8 million people who will not be able to vote due to felony convictions (sentencingproject.org). As policy changes, many people who have been charged with or convicted of felony offenses do not know that they can vote. In Utah, a person charged or convicted of a felony can vote as long as they are not in custody. Raising awareness that felons can vote in Utah is the purpose of my media project.
Literature Review
Felony disenfranchisement is akin to a Civil Death because it further segregates people disconnected from mainstream, privileged society. However, in contrast to the political death of the Grecian and Roman cultures, a disenfranchised felon is not cut off from all civil procedure, only the ability to vote. This evolution took Civil Death from complete dishonor and exemption to just losing the right to vote. Expecting some, but not all public participation in and of itself is an unfair and questionable practice. For example, a felon is still expected to pay taxes and is in many ways still a part of society. Disenfranchisement policies most affect people of color and create a scenario where whole communities are affected by minimizing the voter pool because of socio-economic status, culture and example (Bowers 2009). The term, disenfranchisement is a misleading term because the only part of the popular franchise that the felon is missing out on is the right to vote. For all other intents and purposes, the felon is expected to participate in society. In fact, it is often a term of probation and parole that a felon finds a job, pay taxes, supervision fees, and restitution fines. They are expected to obey all laws, and be upstanding citizens. According to Lippke in the dissertation by Andrew Altman, “…even if a person is denied the franchise, she would still retain rights that enable her to participate in the political process. For example, the person could not be legitimately denied the right to send letters expressing her political views to Congress or the local newspaper” (Altman 2005). It is difficult for a felon to be a successful member of society with so many obstacles. Often the culture that an offender is submerged in while incarcerated is pervasive and substantially influential (Turner 2012).
Incarcerated inmates have a difficult time adjusting to society post release. Disenfranchisement further intensifies the segregation from society. Prisons do not foster good citizenship. It is a place where people learn how to survive through any means possible. There is an "Us against Them" theme. People often incarcerated identify as a criminal; unable to separate past mistakes with current and future selves (Williams 2006). In this culture of jails and prisons, the title of “criminal” is a common term and sometimes the severity of a crime garners further accolade, but it does not transfer into society. The label of “criminal” in society is a derogatory term that is hard to loose. Ironically, most people have committed a felony level crime sometime in their lives but have not been caught or punished for it (Reiman 2005). Very often felons, under the weight of expectation and fear of the unknown will revert to old behaviors that ultimately encourage recidivism. There are thinking errors that lead felons to believe that they are their choices, meaning they are unable to separate their previous actions from their future selves. Despite this attitude, connection to the community can be created by political involvement post release from prison (Turner 2012).
Public participation leads to a healthier democracy, and many felons wish to be civilly involved (Lavoie 2013). Many felons have never voted and are unaware of how to do so. It is unclear if enfranchising felons affect recidivism because of a lack of research. It is clear that disenfranchisement laws were initially used to eliminate black voters in early colonial America. According to Hamilton-Smith et al., "Disenfranchisement became much more widespread following the Civil War as a means of keeping African-Americans from voting. Since the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, felony disenfranchisement became one preferred method utilized by states in suppressing the African-American vote” (Hamilton-Smith et al. 2012).
Felon disenfranchisement laws significantly affect the voter participation of non-felons specifically among Black and Hispanic communities (Bowers 2009). Felon disenfranchisement has affected the results of many close elections because it eliminates approximately 13% of Black males and has eliminated up to 31% in some states (Reiman 2005). Prison population statistics are skewed because they do not reflect the amount of crimes that have been committed, just the people who have been convicted (Bowers 2009). Black and Hispanic people are charged and convicted of violent crimes more often than other races (Bowers 2009).
Disenfranchising a high percentage of minority groups eliminates a voter pool that may lean towards political parties and policies that are more liberal (Crutchfield 2007). Most academic sources agree that disenfranchisement is not healthy for democracy, but the overwhelming number of states who still disenfranchise felons on some level are contrary to this ideal. Policies are changing, and felon enfranchisement allows more people to have a voice (Dawson-Edwards 2008). Autonomy, engagement, and equality are necessary for a healthy democracy (Lanning 2008). According to John Kleinig disenfranchisement, “has become an eviscerating social problem — the relative lack of civic involvement by those who are most in need of its benefits and the mediocrity of much democratic deliberation” (Kleinig 2005). Disenfranchisement should not be a collateral consequence of criminal convictions (Siegal 2011).
According to Mary Sigler disenfranchisement, in some cases is defendable. Some actions she lists are crimes against humanity and electoral fraud. She also contends, “the temporary loss of a citizen's right to vote dramatically conveys the significance of the breach of civic trust that serious crime represents without practically impairing an offender's prospects for rehabilitation” (Sigler 2014). However, Sigler also states,
Even a serious offender, after he is released from prison, should have a chance to restore his status once he has provided appropriate assurance that he is again worthy of civic trust. Permanent disenfranchisement for ex-felons is not only inconsistent with our working conception of political community, it is also a disproportionate response to the breach of trust that serious crime represents. (Sigler 2014)
Justification
Many people in Utah do not know that felons can vote. My primary rationale for promoting the fact that felons can vote is my personal experience. I want people who I have encountered who have committed felonies to get involved civically because I believe it is a necessary part of social reintegration that leads to rehabilitation.
Purpose
The purpose of this media project is to raise awareness that felons can vote in Utah.
Plan
I created a Facebook page to raise awareness that felons can vote in Utah. I started this project with the intent on maintaining it indefinitely. I was not sure what the State of Utah's policy was on felon voting. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Utah was at the forefront of felon enfranchisement. When I found out that felons could indeed vote as long as they were not in custody, I knew my best bet on getting the word out would be through social media. I did some research by utilizing some of my friends who had been convicted of felonies to see how they would respond to the fact that they could vote. I was not shocked to find that none of them were aware that they could vote. Most of them seemed excited, and that was enough to solidify my desire to raise awareness for this cause.
Execution
The first thing that I did was to create a page on Facebook. I added links and articles showing statistics and information on felon voting. I pinned the link to register online to the top of my page. I asked all of my friends to “like” and “share” my page. One of the most valuable resources that I had in this process was my husband, Michael. Michael is a felon who served over eleven years in the federal penitentiary system. It has been interesting to be a part of his journey as he reintegrates into society. He is one of my biggest motivators for choosing this project. My husband at 35 years old had never voted. This year the election was for city council positions, and it would be the first time Michael would cast his ballot for a political candidate. With my page up and running, it is relatively easy to maintain. I recognized I needed to do some promoting to get the word out in the embryonic stages of my page. Out of the three posts that are most successful, two are informative and one is humorous.
These posts are links to sites that provide current information on voter rights. I included these links to add credibility to my page. I am not surprised that these posts reached the most people because they are informative as opposed to opinionated. My intent was to flood my page with facts on felon enfranchisement and these posts do that well.
This popular post backs up what I have learned in my research. It is funny and light. I did not expect this post to be received so well. I learned that adding some color and flair helps raise awareness.
Peripheral Activities
I created flyers and distributed them in places were felons would habituate such as Adult Probation and Parole and the federal drug screening facility. I talked to as many people as I could in law enforcement and alternative programs, specifically the Mental Health Court and Drug Court social workers. Michael and I spoke in two communication classes at Dixie State to promote my page within the academic community. I joined several online voter activist pages like MTV’s Rock the Vote. I posted on local forums and group pages to start discussions and raise awareness. I wrote letters to the editors of several Utah newspapers. The Saint George Spectrum published my letter. The feedback I received was not always positive, but I was glad to get any attention regarding this issue.
Discussion
I am happy with my project. I feel that I was successful in choosing a cause that I am passionate about and that I can further post-graduation. I intend to maintain this page, and I expect that I will get many more “likes” and “shares” as we near the upcoming 2016 presidential election. If I could change anything, I would have started this project earlier, and I would have accompanied my page with a group that would act as a forum for people to interactively discuss current events and issues dealing with felon voting rights. I would also have utilized other social media applications like Twitter and interactively posted. I used my personal Twitter account to extend and further my cause, but it was not as successful as it would have been coming from an account devoted to the project. Overall, the project lacked connection.
There was a very distinct lack of personalization in my page. As a Human Communication major, I understand the value of reaching people on a personal level. I had a hard time connecting with followers of my page. I realized that I have discrepancies in my belief system. I am lobbying to raise awareness that felons can vote, but I am not necessarily comfortable letting everyone know that I am a felon. I fear judgment, and I am afraid that people's perspective of me may render some truth. I know intrinsically that this is illogical, and yet I cannot gravitate away from feeling, at times, like a "criminal." I recognize the idiosyncrasies and yet they remain.
I began to wonder if I feel this way, how others feel. I have many privileges that most felons do not, but I have still felt uncomfortable with my status as a felon. I realize that there is a pervasive issue regarding the social stigma felons’ face. I explored this further on a personal level. I posted a video of my husband voting. This video reached more people in a shorter amount of time than any other post. I had intended to personalize this page by doing short videos. However, I ran into the same apprehension as I felt when I asked people if they would be willing to share on my page. During this time I had run into some issues at my place of employment due to my criminal history and I did not want to draw more attention to myself. This fear of being transparent limited me from maximizing the benefits of my project. I feel that my hesitation was hypocritical and limited the overall success of my project. In the future, as I maintain my page I will post on a more personal level.
Attachments
References
Altman, A. (2005). Democratic Self-Determination and the Disenfranchisement of Felons. Journal Of Applied Philosophy, 22(3), 263-273. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2005.00309.x
Bowers, M., & Preuhs, R. R. (2009). Collateral Consequences of a Collateral Penalty: The Negative Effect of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws on the Political Participation of Nonfelons. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 90(3), 722-743. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00640.x
Crutchfield, R. D. (2007). Abandon Felon Disenfranchisement Policies. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 707-715. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00483.x
Dawson-Edwards, C. (2008). Enfranchising Convicted Felons: Current Research on Opinions Towards Felon Voting Rights. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3/4), 13-29.
Dhami, M. K. (2005). Prisoner Disenfranchisement Policy: A Threat to Democracy?. Analyses Of Social Issues & Public Policy, 5(1), 235-247. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00069.
Dhami, M. K., & Cruise, P. A. (2013). Prisoner Disenfranchisement: Prisoner and Public Views of an Invisible Punishment. Analyses Of Social Issues & Public Policy, 13(1), 211-227. doi:10.1111/asap.12007
Grady, Sarah C. 2012. "Civil Death Is Different: An Examination Of A Post-Graham Challenge To Felon Disenfranchisement Under The Eighth Amendment." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology 102, no. 2: 441-470. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed December 1, 2015).
Hamilton-Smith, G. P., & Vogel, M. (2012). The Violence Of Voicelessness: The Impact Of Felony Disenfranchisement On Recidivism. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 22407-431.
Lanning, K. (2008). Democracy, Voting, and Disenfranchisement in the United States: A Social Psychological Perspective. Journal Of Social Issues, 64(3), 431-446. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00571.x
Lavoie, M., Rey, E., Brooks, A., Wang, E., & Purtle, J. (2013). Promoting Civic Engagement Post-Release From Correctional Facilities. American Journal Of Public Health, 103(11), e6-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301541
Re, R. M., & Re, C. M. (2012). Voting and Vice: Criminal Disenfranchisement and the Reconstruction Amendments. Yale Law Journal, 121(7), 1584-1670.
Reiman, J. (2005). Liberal and Republican Arguments Against the Disenfranchisement of Felons. Criminal Justice Ethics, 24(1), 3-18.
Siegel, J. A. (2011). Felon Disenfranchisement and the Fight for Universal Suffrage. Social Work, 56(1), 89-91.
Sigler, M. (2014). Defensible Disenfranchisement. Iowa Law Review, 99(4), 1725-1744.
Turner, J. (2012). Criminals with ‘Community Spirit’: Practicing Citizenship in the Hidden World of the Prison. Space & Polity, 16(3), 321-334. doi:10.1080/13562576.2012.733571
Williams, D. (2006). Autoethnography in Offender Rehabilitation Research and Practice:
Addressing the “Us vs. Them” Problem. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(1), 23-38.
doi:10.1080/10282580600564818
