- 1100 BC-1799
- 1800-1849
- 2000-2019
Voting with felony convictions
A felony crime in the United States is typically “punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or more. Misdemeanors are often defined as offenses punishable only by fines or by short terms of imprisonment in local jails,” according to Encyclopædia Britannica. While the crimes that qualify as a felony differ from state to state, they often include arson, assault, battery, burglary, child endangerment, domestic assault, drug dealing, fraud, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, rape, robbery, and stalking. That not all felony crimes are violent, and not all violent crimes are felonies is important to note. Regardless of felony crime, Britannica notes, a person with a felony conviction “may lose some civil rights. These vary from state to state, but they usually include the right to own or possess firearms, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.” The loss of voting rights can raise questions about the idea of popular sovereignty—that the government has authority only by the consent of the people. [1] [2] [3]
Historical felony disenfranchisement
Felony disenfranchisement is the practice of denying people with felony convictions from voting. “Criminal disenfranchisement has its roots in the punishment of ‘civil death,’ imposed for criminal offences under Greek, Roman, Germanic and later Anglo-Saxon law,” explains professor of law Debra Parkes.
English law developed the related punishment of attainder which resulted in forfeiture of all property, inability to inherit or devise property, and loss of all civil rights. These principles were transplanted to the British colonies which later became Canada and the United States. [4]
These early practices illustrate the long-standing relationships between citizenship, rights, and civic responsibility that are still central to modern democracies.
The U.S. Constitution gave the states control of suffrage (voting rights), illustrating the idea of shared power between states and a nation in a federal system of government. Individual states then began adding disenfranchisement laws to their constitutions. For example, Kentucky’s first constitution (1792) provided the right to vote to all free male citizens, de facto disenfranchising all others including women and enslaved people. Upon revision in 1799, the constitution specifically disenfranchised free “negroes, mulattoes, and Indians.” The 1850 revision stipulated that only free white male citizens could vote. Then, in the 1891 revision of the Kentucky constitution, people with felony convictions were disenfranchised. Kentucky remains a state in which felony disenfranchisement may be permanent at the discretion of the state government. [5] [6]
Lawyer Erin Kelley explains,
It wasn’t until the end of the [American] Civil War and the expansion of suffrage to Black men that felony disenfranchisement became a significant barrier to U.S. ballot boxes. At that point, two interconnected trends combined to make disenfranchisement a major obstacle for newly enfranchised Black voters. First, lawmakers — especially in the South — implemented a slew of criminal laws designed to target Black citizens. And nearly simultaneously, many states enacted broad disenfranchisement laws that revoked voting rights from anyone convicted of any felony. These two trends laid the foundation for the form of mass disenfranchisement seen in this country today. [5]
Thus, laws governing voting can shape the inclusivity or exclusivity of democratic participation. While most of these early felony disenfranchisement laws were broad, the trend quickly moved toward disenfranchising citizens for only certain felonies, specifically those believed by lawmakers to be mostly committed by Black men. For example, Mississippi disenfranchised those convicted of “bigamy, forgery, burglary, arson, and perjury” in 1890. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the law in 1896, while noting the racial discrepancy:
Restrained by the federal constitution from discriminating against the negro race, the convention discriminated against its characteristics and the offenses to which its weaker member were prone … Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications [from voting], while robbery and murders, and other crimes in which violence was the principal ingredient, were not. [5] [7]
Forty-two states had adopted felony disenfranchisement laws by 1912 and another six would adopt laws later in the 20th century. [7]
U.S Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court first weighed in on felony disenfranchisement in 1974. Per the case summary:
three individual respondents, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences and paroles, were refused registration to vote in three different California counties respectively because of their felony convictions, they brought a class petition, on behalf of themselves and all other ex-felons similarly situated. [9]
The disenfranchisement was challenged as a violation of the California Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individuals, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment allows disenfranchisement “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” [7] [8] [9]
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court once again tackled felony disenfranchisement laws in Hunter v. Underwood, this time considering Alabama’s law that stripped the right to vote from people who committed a “crime involving moral turpitude.” In this case, the Supreme Court ruled the law had both discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact, thus overturning the law. [7] [10]
The Supreme Court ruling marked a turning point in felony disenfranchisement laws. Despite the “tough on crime” trends of the 1990s, 25 states and Washington, D.C., “expanded eligibility [for voting], streamlined the restoration process [i.e., the process by which to regain the right to vote] or improved voter education” for people convicted of felonies between 1997 and 2017. [7]
Current landscape of felony disenfranchisement
As of November 4, 2026, the felony disenfranchisement landscape looks much different than a century ago. Only 9 U.S. states have laws that allow the state to disenfranchise people with felony convictions permanently (though the state may also choose to allow those with felony convictions to vote), while 15 states allow re-enfranchisement after prison, parole, and probation are complete. And 24 states re-enfranchise people with felony convictions after completion of their prison terms. Four U.S. jurisdictions (D.C., Maine, Puerto Rico, and Vermont) even allow voting from prison, meaning they do not disenfranchise based on conviction. [113]
Internationally, the United States is an outlier. The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch state that the organizations “know of no other democracy besides the United States in which convicted offenders who have served their sentences are nonetheless disenfranchised for life.” Only a few countries allow disenfranchisement after prison, but most of these laws are narrow, only allowing for a few years of disenfranchisement or denying the right to vote for election crimes (such as election rigging or fraud). Comparisons of the U.S. to other democracies offer perspective on how voting rights are defined and protected in other political systems. [12]
On the other end of the spectrum, many countries allow and even encourage voting from prison, including: Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and Zimbabwe. [4]
Pros and Cons at a Glance
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: Contributing to the law-making process is an essential step in an offender’s reintegration into society. Read More. | Con 1: People with felony convictions should lose their say in the law-making process because they have shown a disregard for the law. Read More. |
| Pro 2: Disenfranchisement is a denial of a right and often a form of racial discrimination. Read More. | Con 2: Disenfranchisement reinforces the principle that voting is a right with responsibilities. Read More. |
| Pro 3: Denying the vote to adults who pay taxes is unconstitutional. Read More. | Con 3: Far from being undemocratic, felony disenfranchisement is supported by the U.S. Constitution. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: Contributing to the law-making process is an essential step in an offender’s reintegration into society.
“Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior,” explains Ethics Unwrapped. In this debate, that means that the restoration of voting rights means that a person has re-entered the social contract after completion of their punishment. Some believe people with felony convictions have irrevocably broken that contract, but the reality is that not everyone who breaks the social contract by committing crimes is disenfranchised. Consider criminals who enter plea deals instead of serving prison time, or those who commit misdemeanors. Furthermore, the social contract depends upon restoration of benefits in order to help the person reenter the contract. [14]
Thus, disenfranchisement is not an appropriate method of ensuring someone becomes a good citizen again. As journalist Chandra Bozelko explains, “voting is a right that belongs to all citizens, not just good or reformed ones. Denying citizens their rights isn’t an appropriate form of accountability because citizen status can’t be punished out of someone … it’s not punishment. It’s power-stripping.” [15]
Furthermore, regardless of whether the punishment is appropriate, the punishment does not work. Felony disenfranchisement has not lowered crime rates. Instead, the states with re-enfranchisement policies, in which those convicted of felonies are allowed to vote after serving their time, have lower crime rates and fewer people with felony convictions per capita. [16]
Re-enfranchisement policies not only allow people with felony convictions to vote, they have a positive ripple effect, allowing people to be involved in their communities while feeling valued. As explained by Colie Lavar Long, who voted for the first time from a D.C. prison,
I’ve been locked up 26 years on the fringes of existence. So when I actually … checked that box, and they actually said that he won—this person I voted for—it reaffirmed that I’m worthy to be back in society.” [17]
Studies have also shown connections between re-enfranchisement and the reduced likelihood of returning to prison (recidivism). “If recidivism is due in part to not being able to fully sustain one’s livelihood and fully integrate into the community by accessing key resources like housing and employment, then it would stand to reason that being barred from the vote would also be a barrier to full reintegration,” offers journalist Tamar Sarai. [17]
And, law-abiding citizens agree: 85 percent of American voters believe that the criminal justice system “should focus on rehabilitating people to become productive law-abiding citizens,” according to an August 2022 poll. [13]
Pro 2: Disenfranchisement is a denial of a right and often a form of racial discrimination.
“You can’t look at the history of slavery and Jim Crow and the current fact of felony disenfranchisement without seeing it as a direct legacy of those original systems. It was very deliberate, there’s no question,” argues Amy Fettig, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project. “White people in power knew if you wanted to marginalize Black people and people of color and exclude them from political power, you can use the system to ‘legitimize’ reasons to take rights away.” [18]
The “war on drugs, sentencing laws, and discretionary prosecution” have led to the mass incarceration of Black men in particular. In turn, studies have shown that the “greater the nonwhite prison population, the more likely a state will ban convicted felons from voting.” As a result, explains lawyer Giovanni Padilla,
whether it be for strictly political reasons, racial biases, or a mixture of both, felony disenfranchisement provisions have had the effect of keeping Black Americans in limited positions of power with limited ability to elect politicians of their choice and with little opportunity to be a part of the democracy that was promised to them. [19]
About four million Americans (1.7 percent of the population) could not vote in 2024 due to felony disenfranchisement laws. However, 4.5 percent of the Black voting age population was disenfranchised nationally, compared to 1.3 percent of all other races. More than 10 percent of Black adults suffer disenfranchisement in Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The Latino American population was also disproportionately disenfranchised at 1.5 percent. [113]
Not only does felony disenfranchisement prevent more Black citizens from voting, it also affects the overall health of their communities. As a 2022 study concludes,
racialized felony disenfranchisement is associated with worse physical and mental health among Black Americans.” Thus, “enacting laws to dismantle racialized felony disenfranchisement would likely improve the health of Black people and make progress toward achieving health equity. [21]
Pro 3: Denying the vote to adults who pay taxes is unconstitutional.
In response to the 1765 Stamp Act, American colonists famously argued that “taxation without representation” was tyranny. The act was the “first British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation of all colonial commercial and legal papers, newspapers, pamphlets, cards, almanacs, and dice.” [22] [36]
John Adams believed “this tax to be unconstitutional. We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle of the constitution that no freeman should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy.” The resulting protests eventually coalesced into the American Revolution (1775-83). And, yet, as if ignoring this founding principle of the country, many with felony convictions who pay taxes are denied their representation because they are denied their right to vote.[22]
According to the Internal Revenue Service, the government office tasked with collecting taxes, “Incarceration neither changes one’s obligation to pay taxes and tax debts nor prohibits the receipt of tax credits and deductions upon release.” [23]
Felony disenfranchisement policies also violate international law, according to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which recommends that the United States “should adopt appropriate measures to ensure that states restore voting rights to citizens who have fully served their sentences and those who have been released on parole.” [24]
A Brennan Center report “concludes that post-incarceration voting rights restoration builds a stronger democracy, advances civil rights, ends second-class citizenship, aids law enforcement, empowers family and communities, and assures fair and accurate voter rolls.” In essence, denying the right to vote is undemocratic. Democracy should emphasize broad participation and civic responsibility. [25]
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: People with felony convictions should lose their say in the law-making process because they have shown a disregard for the law.
Roger Clegg, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, explains,
If you’re not willing to follow the law yourself, then you shouldn’t have a right in making the law for everyone else…. The common denominator is that we have certain objective minimum qualifications, in terms of responsibility and trustworthiness and commitment to our laws, that we require of people before they participate in the solemn enterprise of self-government. [26]
In other words, civic responsibility is a condition for political rights. Similarly news commentator Tucker Carlson wonders,
why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives. If you’re a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why do we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? [27]
Moreover, most people with felony convictions are rearrested for new crimes, affirming not a new commitment to civic responsibility but to greater criminality. As Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation points out,
a study of felons in 30 states revealed that two-thirds (67.8 percent) were arrested for a new crime within three years, and three-quarters (76.6 percent) were rearrested within five years. In fact, more than a third of all prisoners who were rearrested within five years of release were arrested within the first six months after release, with more than half arrested by the end of the first year. The high recidivism rate of felons provides strong support for states such as Nebraska that require a waiting period [before voting rights are restored] or states such as Alabama that require an individualized application process. [28]
Why automatically re-enfranchise those who are likely to commit another crime, further harming our communities and forcing us to strip them of their voting rights yet again? Historic racism and discrimination are undeniable, but no amount of injustice in the past, going back to the Civil War period and Jim Crow era, negates the prudence of disenfranchisement and “waiting periods” today, in the 21st century. Our communities and our citizenry—indeed our democracy—deserve such prudence and caution, especially in light of rampant criminality.
Con 2: Disenfranchisement reinforces the principle that voting is a right with responsibilities.
People with felony convictions should have to prove their commitment to following the law after prison before regaining the right to vote. “Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live,” according to professor of philosophy Celeste Friend. People with felony convictions have broken this trust and contract with their communities and should be punished appropriately, losing their say in how our communities are governed until they have proven their ability to follow the law. Voting is a right they should have to earn back, not receive as a gift. [29] [30]
Proving a renewed commitment to civility should include completing their prison sentences, parole, and probation, as well as paying financial restitution to the state and victims’ families. Some argue that requiring people with felony convictions to pay fees, fines, and restitution constitutes a “poll tax,” but serving “all terms of a sentence means all terms….There are multiple avenues to restore rights, pay off debts, and seek financial forgiveness from one’s victims. Second chances and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive,” explains Fred Piccolo, lawyer and spokesperson for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Many felony crimes are vicious, violent acts. Asking the perpetrators of such atrocities to complete their sentences and take trackable steps toward re-enfranchisement is not only reasonable but prudent for the safety of our communities and democracy. [31] [32]
“Every felony is a serious breach of the bonds that unite our society. Rather than obligate the government to initiate the restoration process, it is reasonable to require felons to ask to have their rights restored. Also, felons should demonstrate rehabilitation by living crime-free during a waiting period after the completion of their sentences,” asserts former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. [33]
Before regaining the right to vote, people with felony convictions need first to take responsibility for their crimes and the impact of their crimes on society, their victims, and the families of their victims and then prove their trustworthiness and civic-mindedness over time. Only then should they earn consideration for re-enfranchisement.
Con 3: Far from being undemocratic, felony disenfranchisement is supported by the U.S. Constitution.
Denying people with felony convictions the right to vote is a policy sanctioned by the founding documents of the country and upheld by courts ever since. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, prohibits the states from denying citizens “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” However, the amendment includes the caveat that the “right to vote” may be “abridged … for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” This single clause has been central to the debate about whether voting rights may be limited within a democracy. [8]
“Unlike any other voting qualification, felon disenfranchisement laws are explicitly endorsed by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment….They are presumptively constitutional. Only a narrow subset of them – those enacted with an invidious, racially discriminatory purpose – is unconstitutional,” explains Alex Kozinski, former U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. [34]
Additionally, felony disenfranchisement does not qualify as a “poll tax” that violates the 24th Amendment. “Requiring the payment of a poll tax as a qualification for voting is unconstitutional because it bears ‘‘no relation to voting qualifications.’ By contrast, both the federal and state constitutions recognize the State’s legitimate policy decision not to extend the right to vote to convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored,” notes former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna. [35]
He continues, “Felony convictions, unlike the applications of the poll tax, [are] linked to the individual choices and conscious behavior of the particular person. Felon disenfranchisement ‘does not deny any citizen [the] equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice.’ The cause of disenfranchisement is simply that the felon’s ‘conscious decision to commit a criminal act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment.’” [35]
Most people accused of felony crimes were convicted because of choices they made to break the law, frequently in violent ways. The consequences of committing such crimes, which are almost as old as the country itself, are widely known and should have been considered by the criminal before engaging in the crime.
State voting laws and policies for people with felony convictions
Some states have laws on the books that contradict current state policy as enacted by the current governor. Here we have tried to list the current policy as it impacts those with felony convictions. States that have changed policies fairly recently have more information included below. Please note the last updated date on this page and consult your state government if you have any questions. [102]
May lose vote permanently: 9 states
In 10 states, people with felony convictions may still be disenfranchised after completion of prison, parole, and probation: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wyoming. [113]
*Maryland and Missouri may permanently disenfranchise voters convicted of certain election crimes, but we’ve categorized the states according to the policy for the most people.
Alabama
Some people convicted of a felony may apply to have their vote restored immediately upon completion of their full sentence. Those convicted of certain felony offenses such as murder, rape, incest, sexual crime against children, and treason are not eligible for re-enfranchisement. [49]
Arizona
Automatic voting restoration upon completion of sentence and payment of all fines for first-time, single-felony offenders. Second-time felony offenders may apply for restoration with their county after completion of their sentence. [50]
Delaware
On April 16, 2013 the Delaware Senate passed the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act in a 15-6 vote. The act amended the Delaware Constitution by removing the five year waiting period for most with felony convictions to regain the ability to vote. People convicted of a felony (with some exceptions) are now automatically eligible to vote after serving their full sentence including incarceration, parole, and probation.
Exceptions: People convicted of murder or manslaughter, a felony offense against public administration involving bribery, improper influence, or abuse of office, or a felony sexual offense remain permanently disqualified from voting.
Florida
On November 6, 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 (64 percent in favor – 36 percent opposed), allowing people with prior felony convictions (other than murder and sex offenses) to automatically regain their ability to vote once they have served their terms of incarceration and completed all parole and probation. On June 28, 2019, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed bill SB 7066 that requires those convicted of felonies to pay all restitution, court fees, and fines before they can regain the right to vote.
The law has since undergone several rounds of court challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on July 16, 2020, that the law requiring payment of fines prior to restoration of voting rights can be enforced by the state of Florida. On September 11, 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Florida law requiring payment, stating, “Florida withholds the franchise from any felon, regardless of wealth, who has failed to complete any term of his criminal sentence—financial or otherwise.”
According to the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition website (accessed November 7, 2018), “If you were convicted of a felony in another state and had your civil rights restored before you became a Florida resident, you do not need to apply for RCR [restoration of civil rights] in Florida. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]
Iowa
On January 14, 2011, the Republican Gov. of Iowa, Terry Branstad, issued executive order 70, rescinding a law allowing people convicted of a felony to automatically have their ability to vote restored after completing their sentences. The automatic voting restoration law had been instituted by former Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack’s signing of executive order 42 in 2005. People convicted of a felony in Iowa must now pay all outstanding monetary obligations to the court in addition to completing their sentence and period of parole or probation. People convicted of a felony may then apply for restoration of the ability to vote.
On August 5, 2020, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed an executive order automatically restoring the vote to people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences. People convicted of felony homicide will still have to apply for re-enfranchisement. [66] [67] [68] [69]
Kentucky
On November 24, 2015, Kentucky Gov. Steven L. Beshear issued executive order 2015-871 to automatically restore the right to vote to people convicted of nonviolent felonies who have completed probation, parole, and who have no outstanding court-ordered restitution payments. On December 22, 2015, newly elected Gov. Matthew G. Bevin issued executive order 2015-052, rescinding the previous governor’s executive order. On December 12, 2019, on his third day in office, newly elected Gov. Andy Beshear (son of former Gov. Steven Beshear) signed an executive order restoring the vote to 140,000 people who had completed their sentences for nonviolent felonies. [70] [71] [72] [73]
Those convicted of violent felonies did not have their votes restored, leaving Kentucky categorized as a state in which people may permanently lose their votes.
Mississippi
People convicted of a felony are barred from voting only if they have been convicted of one or more of the following specific felony crimes: “murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy, armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, carjacking, or larceny under lease or rental agreement.”
To regain the ability to vote, an individual, after completion of his/her sentence, must go to his/her state representative and convince them to personally author a bill restoring the vote to that individual. Both houses of the legislature must then pass the bill. Re-enfranchisement can also be granted directly by the governor.
Individuals convicted of felonies in Mississippi remain ineligible to vote for U.S. President in federal elections. [77] [78]
Tennessee
All people convicted of a felony since 1981, except for some serious felonies such as murder, rape, treason and voter fraud, may apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for voting restoration upon completion of their sentence.
People convicted of a felony between January 15, 1973, and May 17, 1981, are eligible to register to vote regardless of the crime committed. People convicted of certain felonies prior to January 15, 1973 may be barred from voting.[90]
Wyoming
Effective July 1, 2017, W.S. §7-13-105 allows individuals convicted for the first time for nonviolent felonies, to automatically have their right to vote restored if they completed their supervision or were discharged from an institution on or after January 1, 2010. Individuals who completed their sentence prior to January 1, 2010, are required to apply for restoration of the right to vote.” All others convicted of a felony must be pardoned or have their rights restored by the governor.[100] [101]
Vote restored after prison, parole, or probation: 15 states
In 15 states, a person with a felony conviction will have their vote restored after they have completed their sentence: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. [113]
Louisiana
On May 31, 2018, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards signed House Bill 265 into law. All people who have been convicted of a felony in Louisiana, and who have not been incarcerated in prison during the previous five years, are allowed to register to vote, even if they are still serving a term of probation or parole.[74]
Nebraska
People convicted of a felony are automatically permitted to vote after completion of their sentence of incarceration and all parole and probation for all convictions except treason. The law previously required a two-year waiting period. A 2024 law and Nebraska Supreme Court ruling eliminated the wait, allowing felons to vote immediately after completing their sentences. [79] [111]
North Carolina
On August 23, 2021, a three-judge panel in North Carolina issued a preliminary injunction declaring that people with felony convictions who have completed their prison time must be allowed to register to vote immediately. The injunction restored the right to vote to about 56,000 people who are on probation, parole or post-release supervision.
On September 14, 2021, the NC Supreme Court put that ruling on hold while it was appealed. According to Democracy Docket, “Individuals in the state who are on probation, parole or a suspended sentence may no longer register to vote while the case moves through the appeals process, though those who registered to vote before the lower court’s ruling was paused are still considered registered voters.”
On March 28, 2022, a NC state court ruled that people with felony convictions could vote once released from prison. However, that ruling was temporarily stayed, pending appeals to the NC State Supreme Court, by the Wake County Superior Court. The ruling states that the NC Board of Elections should hold and not act upon voter registrations by people with felony convictions who are out of prison.
On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the trial court decision. Those convicted of felonies are now required to complete prison, probation, parole, and pay all fines before they may register to vote. [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]
South Dakota
On March 19, 2012, HB 1247 was enacted. The bill took the ability to vote away from people with felony convictions serving terms of probation. Previously, only people on parole or incarcerated were ineligible to register to vote. Now people with felony convictions must serve their full term of incarceration, parole, and probation before they may register to vote.[89]
Vote restored after prison: 23 states
In 23 states, a person with a felony conviction will have their vote restored upon release from prison: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. [113]
Below are legislative highlights of some of the states that have allowed voting restoration after prison.
California
On September 28, 2016, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 2466, a bill that allows those convicted of felonies who are serving time in county jails (rather than state prison) the ability to vote from within jail.
On November 3, 2020, California voters approved Proposition 17, which allows people on parole to vote. [51] [52]
Colorado
On July 1, 2019, a law went into effect that reenfranchises people with felony convictions who have been released from prison, but who are serving parole. [53]
Connecticut
On June 23, 2021, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signed legislation restoring the right to vote to all state residents who are not in prison. Previously, people with felony convictions had to have completed parole to vote. [54]
Maryland
On February 9, 2016, the Maryland General Assembly overrode the governor’s veto of SB 340 and restored the vote to all people with felony convictions immediately upon their release from prison. Previously, people with felony convictions in Maryland had to complete all parole and probation before they were able to vote. [75]
Minnesota
On March 3, 2023, Gov. Tim Walz signed SF26, which restored the right to vote to people with felony convictions once they complete their prison sentence(s). Minnesota previously required that parole was completed. [76]
Nevada
On May 30, 2019, Nevada’s governor signed Assembly Bill 431, which allowed for the automatic restoration of voting privileges to all people upon release from prison. [80]
New Jersey
On December 18, 2019, Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation to restore voting rights to those who are on probation or parole after completing prison sentences. The law will take effect in March 2020. Previously, voting was allowed only after completion of probation or parole. [81]
New York
On April 18, 2018, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 181 to restore the right to vote to parolees, dependent upon review of records by the Governor’s Office. The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision will submit records for individuals released from prison in the prior month beginning on May 1, 2018 for review. Previously, voting was allowed only after completion of parole.
On May 4, 2021, Gov. Cuomo signed a bill into law that automatically restores voting rights upon release from prison, even if the person is on parole. Previously, under Cuomo’s executive order, the person would have to apply for a review of records. [82] [83]
Virginia
Prior to November 2026, Virginia law indicated that people with felony convictions would be disenfranchised. However, Virginia governors since 2014 broadly restored rights to those who had completed their prison sentences with executive actions.
On April 18, 2014 Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced changes to Virginia’s restoration of rights process. Under the new rules, people convicted of non-violent felonies (including drug crimes) had their ability to vote automatically restored providing that they:
- have completed their term of incarceration and all probation or parole;
- have paid all court costs, fines, and any restitution; and
- have no pending felony charges.
On June 23, 2015 Gov. McAuliffe announced that “outstanding court costs and fees will no longer prohibit an individual from having his or her rights restored.”
On April 22, 2016, Gov. McAuliffe signed an order restoring the vote to all 200,000+ people with felony convictions in Virginia, regardless of their charge, who had completed their term of incarceration and their term of probation or parole. The New York Times reported that the governor’s action would not apply to people with felony convictions released in the future, although the Governor’s aides say he plans “to issue similar orders on a monthly basis to cover people as they are released.”
On July 22, 2016, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s blanket restoration of voting rights for over 200,000 people with felony convictions. In a press release the Gov. stated that he “will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians.”
On March 16, 2021, Gov. Ralph Northam issued rules that allowed those with felony convictions to vote as soon as they have completed their prison sentences.
On May 20, 2022, Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced he would restore voting (and other civil) rights to 3,496 people with felony convictions who had completed their sentences. The Youngkin administration stated rights would be restored “on an ongoing basis.”
In March 2023, the Youngkin administration announced that people with felony convictions who had completed their sentences would have to apply to have their voting rights restored, a split from the previous three administrations during which rights were restored automatically by the governors.
On January 22, 2026, a federal judge ruled that “Virginia’s Constitution broke federal law by stripping the voting rights of every Virginian with a felony conviction, paving the way for potentially hundreds of thousands of Virginians to have their voting rights restored,” according to Protect Democracy. As the organization explains:
When the U.S. Congress readmitted Virginia’s representatives to Congress after the Civil War in the Virginia Readmission Act, it did so on the fundamental condition that Virginia was prohibited from depriving Virginians of the right to vote except as punishment for a very narrow set of felonies. Just a few years later, Virginia violated the Act by amending its constitution to disenfranchise anyone convicted of any felony.
On November 3, 2026, Virginia voters approved Question 3, which automatically restores the right to vote one someone with a felony conviction is released from prison. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [110] [112] [192]
Washington
All people with a felony conviction must re-register to vote after completion of their sentence and all parole and probation. However, the Secretary of State’s website states that “your voting rights can be revoked if the sentencing court determines that you have failed to comply with the terms of your legal financial obligations.”
Legislation signed on April 7, 2021 by Gov. Jay Inslee restores the right to vote upon release from prison and went into effect in January 2022. [98] [99]
Unrestricted—People with felony convictions may vote from prison: 4 U.S. jurisdictions
A person with a felony conviction is not disenfranchised in 4 U.S. jurisdictions: D.C., Maine, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. [113]