Voting Rights for the Incarcerated: Human Rights and Reform
This paper examines the fundamental human right to vote as it applies to incarcerated individuals, drawing on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as a normative baseline. It argues that felon disenfranchisement is inseparable from broader patterns of racial, economic, and social inequality, particularly in the United States, where prison populations are disproportionately Black, Latino, and low-income. The paper evaluates prisoner voting rights through the lenses of liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, and utilitarianism, finding each framework broadly supportive of enfranchisement. It also traces the historical use of disenfranchisement as a tool of racial suppression from Jim Crow through contemporary mandatory sentencing laws, and concludes with concrete policy strategies to reduce structural barriers to the vote.
- Introduction: Voting as a Fundamental Human Right: ICCPR grounds universal right to vote
- The Case Against Disenfranchisement: Racial and economic bias in prison populations
- Major Philosophical Frameworks: Liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, utilitarianism support enfranchisement
- Global, Economic, and Social Injustices: Jim Crow legacy and systemic racial disenfranchisement
- Strategies to Limit Structural Barriers: Policy reforms to expand prisoner voting access
- Conclusion: Disenfranchisement inseparable from systemic inequality
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in an international human rights instrument (the ICCPR) before moving to domestic examples, giving the claim broad normative authority.
- It connects felon disenfranchisement explicitly to race, income, and disability, showing that ostensibly neutral laws compound pre-existing inequalities rather than operate in isolation.
- The philosophical section efficiently surveys four distinct ethical traditions — liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, and utilitarianism — and finds each broadly supportive of prisoner enfranchisement, strengthening the argument from multiple angles.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs convergent ethical reasoning: rather than committing to a single moral framework, it demonstrates that the same policy conclusion (enfranchising prisoners) is supported across competing philosophical traditions. This technique is particularly persuasive in policy writing because it preempts ideological objections from multiple directions.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an international rights standard, then refutes the most common objection to prisoner voting before building its positive case. A philosophical analysis section follows, organized by named ethical traditions. The paper then shifts to historical and sociological evidence — particularly the Jim Crow legacy — and closes with concrete, actionable reform recommendations. This moves logically from normative foundations, through evidence, to practical application.
Introduction: Voting as a Fundamental Human Right
One of the fundamental human rights established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is access to the vote. The right to self-determination is critical, and without it, equality of treatment is impossible to realize. Politicians have no incentive to pass laws protecting the rights of groups whose opinions they are not beholden to for reelection. According to the ICCPR, the right to vote should be bestowed "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" (Dhami, 2005, p. 236). Other fundamental human rights — such as the right to pursue a livelihood of one's choice, to live free and unmolested, to express one's political opinions, to practice one's religion, and to be safe and secure in one's person — all extend from that right to political representation rooted in democratic ideals.
Unfortunately, despite the fundamental nature of this right, even many ostensibly democratic nations have passed restrictions on the right to vote. One of the most common is banning individuals in prison from voting, as is the case in the United Kingdom and in Australia for any prisoner serving a sentence longer than five years (Dhami, 2005). In the United States, because of its federalist system, laws often vary between states. But even when incarcerated individuals are eligible to vote, they may not be aware of this fact. Voters may lack the basic civic literacy to learn "they are eligible to vote, and others may ask for voter registration or absentee ballot request forms, only to be refused by local sheriffs or county clerks" (Paikowsky, 2019, p. 833).
References
Arp, W. & Morton, B. (2005). A political history and analysis of disenfranchisement and restoration of the black vote in Louisiana. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 29(3): 629–638.
Dhami, M. (2005). Prisoner disenfranchisement policy: A threat to democracy? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1): 235–247.
Paikowsky, D. (2019). Jails as polling places: Living up to the obligation to enfranchise the voters we jail. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 54(2): 829–873.
Zhang, E. (2019). New tricks for an old dog: Deterring the vote through confusion in felon disenfranchisement. Missouri Law Review, 84: 1037–1053.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.