514 10TH S TREET NW, S UITE 1000
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
TEL: 202.628.0871 • FAX: 202.628.1091
S TAFF@S ENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG
WWW.S ENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG

BARRED FOR LIFE:
VOTING RIGHTS RESTORATION
IN PERMANENT DISENFRANCHISEMENT STATES

B Y MARC MAUER AND T USHAR KANSAL

FEBRUARY 2005

This report was written by Marc Mauer and Tushar Kansal, Assistant Director and Research
Associate respectively, of The Sentencing Project.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged in research and advocacy
on criminal justice policy issues. Funding for this project was made possible by support from the
JEHT Foundation, Open Society Institute, and the Tides Foundation.
The Sentencing Project is a partner in the Right to Vote Campaign, a national campaign to
remove barriers to voting faced by people with felony convictions. Further information can be
found at www.righttovote.org.
Copyright © 2005 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this document in full or part in
print or electronic format only by permission of The Sentencing Project.
For further information:
The Sentencing Project
514 10th St. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

BARRED FOR LIFE:
VOTING RIGHTS RESTORATION
IN PERMANENT DISENFRANCHISEMENT STATES
Overview -- Rights Restoration in 14 States
An estimated 4.7 million Americans are not eligible to vote as a result of felony
disenfranchisement laws that apply in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Election laws are
determined by each state, and so disenfranchisement laws vary significantly across the country.
Persons who are excluded from voting include people currently serving a felony sentence in
prison or on probation or parole, as well as persons in 14 states which disenfranchise convicted
persons even after completion of sentence.
Of the 14 states that disenfranchise persons after completion of sentence, 6 do so for all persons
convicted of a felony1 and 8 others do so either for certain categories of offenses or for certain
time periods.2 In all 14 states, some or all persons convicted of a felony can be considered to be
permanently disenfranchised. In some states, for example, this can include an 18-year old
convicted of a first-time non-violent offense and sentenced to probation.
The only means by which these persons can have their voting rights restored is through action by
the state, variously by a pardon or restoration of rights from the governor or board or pardons, or
by legislative action. In many of these 14 jurisdictions, restoration of rights is as a practical
matter unattainable for most convicted persons.

Findings
This report represents the first national survey of the restoration process in each of the 14 states.
We present data on the number of people seeking to have their rights restored in these states,
along with estimates of the total number of disenfranchised persons who have completed a
felony sentence. Due to great variation among the states in recordkeeping and reporting, the data
presented here cover varying time frames with varying levels of specificity.
Legislative and executive changes in recent years have made the restoration process simpler in
some states. For example, legislation passed in Alabama in 2003 permits many persons to apply
for restoration of voting rights immediately after completion of sentence and establishes a 45-day
time frame for review. In Virginia, Governor Mark Warner has expedited the application and
review process. In each of these states, the number of rights restorations has increased as a result
of these policy changes.
Despite these reforms, the number of persons who are denied voting rights following completion
of a felony sentence is still about 1.5 million in these 14 states. Even with an expedited process
in some states, procedures to register to vote remain far more complicated for persons with
felony convictions than for other Americans.
1
2

Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Virginia.
Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.

Our survey of the 14 states generally demonstrates a restoration process that is frequently
confusing, cumbersome, and not widely used. Overall, we find broad problems with both policy
and practice in the rights restoration process, as seen below:
Limited Rights Restoration
With the exception of Florida, the data indicate that the number of persons whose voting rights
are restored in most states is very modest, particularly in comparison with the number of persons
disenfranchised. For example, just 107 persons have had their rights restored in Mississippi
since 1992, compared to a disenfranchised population of 82,002. In Nebraska, 343 people have
regained their voting rights since 1993 out of a pool of 44,001. In 11 of the states for which data
is available, less than 3% of ex-felons have had their rights restored.
The number of people who have regained voting rights in Florida – 48,000 in the past six years
– is clearly significant, but, as detailed in the text, the total figure is a result of lengthy court
battles in recent years and represents just a small fraction of the estimated overall
disenfranchised population of 613,514.
Inadequate Data
In most states there is relatively little data available by which to track the rights restoration
process. As can be seen in this report, the depth of data and time frames covered in most states
are extremely fragile in most regards. In two states, Arizona and Nevada, no state agency
compiles data on this process. In Tennessee, data is only available for the period 2001-04, and in
Wyoming, the state tracks data on the number of persons whose rights have been restored but not
on the number of applicants.
The failure to maintain comprehensive data on this process results in a system whereby state
government is not accountable and where there is no means of assessing the impact of these
practices over time.
Lengthy and Confusing Waiting Periods
Six states (Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, Virginia, and Wyoming) with a policy of
permanent disenfranchisement impose a waiting period even after completion of sentence before
a convicted person can apply to have rights restored. Such policies are problematic for several
reasons. First, they impose an unnecessary restraint on regaining democratic rights. In
Nebraska, the Board of Pardons requires persons to wait ten years before applying for restoration
of rights; this applies even for a first-time conviction for a non-violent offense that results in
probation.
Regulations governing waiting periods are confusing as well. In Virginia, for example, persons
convicted of non-violent offenses are required to wait three years after completion of sentence
before applying for restoration, but those convicted of drug trafficking and violent offenses must
wait five years.

2

In almost all cases, the burden of tracking the waiting period falls on the potential applicant.
This is particularly challenging in states like Maryland, where advocates report that persons
leaving parole supervision do not normally receive any documentation to this effect and
therefore, cannot “prove” to election officials that the three-year waiting period has expired.
Cumbersome Restoration Processes
Whether intentional or not, the process by which persons can seek to regain their voting rights is
often extremely cumbersome and arcane. Tennessee is the most extreme state in this regard. As
a result of frequent legislative changes, the process for restoration of rights differs depending on
which of five different time periods a felony conviction was acquired. Such procedures present
obstacles to voting that are unnecessarily burdensome.
Arbitrariness
In a system as discretionary as rights restoration, the prospects for regaining one’s rights can
shift dramatically depending on the state administration. In Virginia, for example, incoming
Governor Mark Warner implemented a streamlined restoration process through executive order,
resulting in a significantly increased number of applications and restorations. Conversely,
Governor Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky made the process considerably more burdensome than it
had previously been by requiring applicants to submit a written statement explaining why they
wanted to regain their voting rights, and three letters of reference.
While governors are free to exercise their powers in this manner, such shifts in policy can result
in overly arbitrary results depending on the time frame in which an application is considered.
Inappropriate Character Tests
Governors in Florida, Kentucky, and other states employ various types of character tests for
applicants seeking to restore their rights. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, for example, frequently
asks applicants in interviews whether they drink alcohol. As noted, Governor Fletcher of
Kentucky requires letters of reference attesting to the applicant’s good character.
Behavioral inquiries are appropriate in some situations regarding people with felony convictions.
For example, parole officers may legitimately try to seek information regarding drug or alcohol
use, living arrangements, and employment status of people on parole. But in a democracy,
individual attributes or character flaws have no bearing on qualifications for voting. There is no
more rational justification for employing such a standard to people with felony convictions than
there would be for any other citizen.

3

Recommendations
This report has detailed that the process for regaining the right to vote in the 14 states that
practice permanent disenfranchisement is generally little used, overly cumbersome, and antidemocratic. To remedy these problems, policymakers in these states should consider the
following recommendations for reform.
Repeal permanent disenfranchisement laws
In a democracy there is no reasonable justification for a lifetime ban on voting by people with
felony convictions. Internationally, the United States stands virtually alone in this regard, in the
extent to which persons are disenfranchised after completing their sentence. Most industrialized
nations restore voting rights immediately after release from prison, and many permit persons in
prison to vote as well.
Within the U.S. there is growing momentum and support for such change. The American Bar
Association, the American Correctional Association, and the Ford/Carter Commission on
Electoral Reform have all adopted resolutions in support of voting rights after release from
prison or completion of sentence. 3 In 2001, the state of New Mexico repealed its lifetime ban.
Other states should consider adopting such a change as well.
Provide transparency in the restoration process
To the extent that states maintain permanent disenfranchisement policies, they should be
obligated to compile comprehensive data on the restoration process. At a minimum, this should
include annual reporting of data on the number of applications, recommendations, and approvals
by each administration. States should also establish efficient administrative processes, clear
standards, and eliminate character tests.
Eliminate waiting periods for restoration
Restoration processes should be available to permanently disenfranchised persons immediately
after completing a felony sentence. While there is no inherent right to receive a restoration of
rights, there is no compelling rationale for imposing a waiting period, and doing so only results
in far fewer people availing themselves of the process.
Aid eligible persons in the restoration process
Corrections officials in each state, including probation and parole officers, should be required to
inform persons under supervision about the restoration process, and assist them in applying.
This should include notification of relevant procedures prior to exiting from corrections
supervision and assistance in obtaining or completing application forms.

3

Note that the ABA is on record as opposing any link between a felony conviction and loss of voting rights, but
takes no position on whether persons in prison should be disenfranchised.

4

Establish a presumption of restoration
Given that there is no rationale for denial of voting rights based on a felony conviction,
decisionmakers should establish a presumption of restoration for all eligible applicants unless
there is a compelling justification for not doing so.
Use Discretion to Reduce the Number of Felony Convictions
Criminal justice practitioners should use their discretion in appropriate cases to reduce the
number of persons acquiring a felony conviction. This could include diversion to treatment
programs in cases involving substance abuse or trying young people in juvenile court rather than
transferring their cases to adult court. Such practices would lead to appropriate resolution of
cases without attaching all the collateral consequences of a felony conviction.

Note on Data Sources
Data on the restoration process for each state was obtained through contacts with officials in
governors’ offices and with probation, parole, and pardon agencies. Where not available,
contacts were made with county officials and non-profit agencies engaged in restoration
programs.
Estimates on the number of persons disenfranchised in each state after completing supervision
are taken from Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, “Democratic Contraction? Political
Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States,” American Sociological
Review, 2002, Vol. 67 (December: 777-803). Data represent estimates as of 2000. These
estimates are affected by changes in criminal justice populations and voting restorations since
that time, but in most cases these changes are relatively modest.
Information on state restoration policies is generally taken from the “50-State Report on ReEnfranchisement: A Guide to Restoring Your Right to Vote,” by the Lawyers’ Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, 2004.

5

RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS FOR EX-FELONS
State
Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

Number Disenfranchised
148,830
58,936
14,384
613,514
80,257
109,132
78,206
82,002
44,001
43,395
28,720
243,902
32,856
12,797

6

Restorations
1,697
(est., 2004)
N/A
800
(est., 2000)
48,000 (1998-2004)
2,210 (1999-2004)
1,320 (2002-2004)
147 (1996-2003)
107 (1992-2004)
343 (1993-2004)
50 (est., 2004)
393 (2001-2004)
5,043 (1982-2004)
53 (1996-2004)
17 (1995-2002)

Alabama
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 148,830
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Alabama disenfranchises all people who are convicted of a crime involving “moral turpitude,” a
list which includes all felonies. In 2003, the state passed legislation to streamline the process of
restoring voting rights. Individuals seeking to regain their right to vote can now apply for a
Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board
is obligated to issue a certificate within 45 days if all requirements are satisfied.
The process is generally only available to persons convicted of non-violent offenses. Persons
with a conviction for a violent offense and certain other offenses are required to apply for a
pardon from the Board of Pardons and Parole.
Reenfranchisement Activity — Restorations: 1,697 (estimated, 2004)
As of September 2004, 1,697 persons had received their Certificate of Eligibility, and an
additional 5,000 requests were still pending. 4 These figures are the result of the law change in
2003 and a vigorous advocacy campaign by community organizations to inform eligible people
of the rights restoration process. State officials have reported that they have insufficient staff to
handle the volume of applications and that the 45-day time period may not always be met.

4

Source: Paul Robinson, 1 For Life, communication on September 13, 2004.

7

Arizona
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 58,936
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Arizona automatically restores the vote upon completion of sentence to people with a single
felony conviction, but permanently disenfranchises people who have been convicted of two or
more unrelated felonies. Persons seeking to regain the right to vote can obtain a Certificate of
Absolute Discharge from the Bureau of Prisons, if they have served a prison term for the most
recent conviction, or an affidavit of discharge from a judge if the most recent sentence was to a
term of probation. Once either of these documents has been obtained, the individual can submit
an application for restoration of civil rights to the superior court in his or her county of residence.
However, persons who served a prison term as a consequence of their most recent conviction
must wait two years from the date of final discharge before applying for the restoration of civil
rights.
Reenfranchisement Activity — Restorations: no available data
The Arizona Supreme Court does not maintain statewide records regarding the restoration of
rights process, and neither Maricopa County (which includes Phoenix) nor Pima County (which
includes Tucson) maintains statistical information regarding the application process for the
restoration of rights. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of persons applying for
restoration is very modest.

8

Delaware
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 14,384
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Following legislative reform in 2000, Delaware now permanently disenfranchises only those
persons convicted of murder, manslaughter, sexual offenses, or any felony that involves a
violation of the public trust (including election law offenses). All others can apply for
restoration of their voting rights five years after completion of sentence, which is an automatic
process for those who meet the criteria. Persons who are not automatically restored (meaning
those who were convicted for one of the crimes listed above) must apply for a pardon in order to
be reenfranchised.
Reenfranchisement Activity — Restorations: 800 (estimated, 2000)
Following the law change, it has been reported that an estimated 1,200 persons submitted
applications to have their rights restored in 2000, and 800 successfully met the criteria.5 While
restoration of rights has now been established as an automatic process for qualifying persons, the
burden on tracking the time period and applying for restoration falls on the individual, with no
notice from the state.
In addition to the persons applying for automatic restoration of rights, a relative handful of nonqualifying persons have applied for a gubernatorial pardon in recent years, as seen below:
Pardon Activity by Year6
Year
Applications Pardons
Submitted
Granted
2000
0
0
2001
3
1
2002
5
0
2003
0
0
7
2004
4
—

5

Source: Communication with Janet Leban, Delaware Center for Justice, August 25, 2004.
Source: Judy Smith, Board of Pardons Assistant, Delaware Board of Pardons, Secretary of State’s Office.
Received by telephone on July 30, 2004.
7
As of July 30, 2004, all four pardon applications submitted during 2004 were still pending final decisions.
6

9

Florida
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 613,514
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration:
Florida permanently disenfranchises any person with a felony conviction. In order to regain the
right to vote, interested individuals generally must apply for a restoration of civil rights or a
pardon. The Department of Corrections is obligated by statute to assist all offenders departing
prison or supervision in completing the application for restoration. The name and other
identifying data of each offender leaving prison or supervision is submitted electronically to the
Parole Commission for its consideration of civil rights restoration without a hearing. At present,
fewer than 15% of persons leaving prison qualify for this process, which is based on a
combination of offense history and current offense. Persons going through this process have
their names forwarded to the Clemency Board for a twenty-day review for a restoration of civil
rights. If two or more members of the Clemency Board, which is composed of the Governor and
members of his Cabinet, object to the restoration of civil rights, then the individual’s request is
denied and he or she must go through the longer application and hearing process. The decision
on restoration without a hearing process can take up to a year or longer to determine.
Persons who do not qualify for restoration without a hearing process can call, write or email the
Clemency Board requesting restoration of civil rights with a hearing or a pardon.
In order to be eligible for the restoration of civil rights, the applicant must have completed all
sentences and conditions of supervision, including probation and parole; must have no
outstanding detainers or warrants and no pecuniary penalties or liabilities which total more than
$1,000 and result from any criminal conviction or traffic infraction; and must have paid all
victim restitution. Persons meeting these conditions and being granted a hearing are required to
appear before the Clemency Board, which meets four times a year, and respond to questions
from the Governor and cabinet.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 48,000 (1998-2004)
The restoration process in Florida has varied significantly over time, dependent in large part on
gubernatorial policies. In 1975, Governor Reubin Askew enacted a policy of automatically
restoring voting rights to persons completing a felony sentence. In the mid-1980s as many as
15,000 persons a year had their rights restored without a hearing. But in the 1990s, gubernatorial
decisions produced a more restrictive process that has resulted in far fewer qualifying persons.
Beginning in 1991, various governors imposed restrictions on this process, based on type of
offense and prior record. In 1999, Governor Bush added more than 200 offenses to the list of
disqualifying crimes. Subsequently the Governor relaxed rules disqualifying persons who owed
court costs or traffic fines in response to litigation that it was a poll tax. Since Governor Bush
took office in 1999, the Clemency Board has rejected more than 200,000 applications for civil
rights.

10

Litigation filed in 2001 resulted in a court ruling that the Department of Corrections had failed to
inform and assist 124,769 eligible persons leaving prison of their right to apply for restoration.
As a result, 14,527 persons had their rights restored and an additional 7,265 were expected to
regain their rights after review by the Clemency Board. At least 56,649 of the total were
required to request a hearing by the Board. 8 Overall, the Governor’s office reports that 48,000
persons have had their rights restored in the past six years.
Due to increased advocacy efforts in recent years, the number of persons applying for rights
restoration with a hearing has risen considerably. Despite this, the Governor’s Cabinet only
meets four times a year to consider these cases, reviewing an average of 134 cases a year.
Currently, more than 4,000 persons have filed applications to the Clemency Board and are
awaiting a hearing. Over the past 16 years, the Board has heard fewer than 1,500 cases and
restored rights in fewer than 1,000 of these.9
In December 2004, Governor Bush enacted modifications to the clemency process. Persons
convicted of non-violent felonies will now be able to apply for restoration of rights without a
hearing five years after completion of sentence if they have been crime-free. Persons convicted
of violent felonies will be required to wait 15 years before applying. The governor also
eliminated some factors that prevent applicants from qualifying for restoration without a hearing.

8

Press release, Department of Corrections, “Department of Corrections Urges Inmates to call toll-free Hot Line for
Assistance with Voting Rights Restoration.”
9
Jason Grotto and Debbie Cenziper, “The long road to clemency,” Miami Herald, November 7, 2004.

11

Iowa
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 80,257
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Iowa disenfranchises any person who has been convicted of a felony. In order to regain the right
to vote, individuals must apply for a Pardon from the Governor or for a Restoration of
Citizenship through the Iowa Board of Parole, at any time following conviction. After reviewing
the case, the Board of Parole makes a recommendation to the Governor regarding restoration.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 2,210 (1999-2004)
As detailed in the charts below, a significant number of persons have applied to the Board of
Parole for restoration of rights in recent years, totaling more than 3,067 from 1998-2003. Of
these, 79% (2,245) have been recommended to the Governor for restoration. (Note that
recommendations made in a given year may result from applications filed in a previous year.)
Of the 2,654 applications reaching the Governor’s office from 1999-2004, 81% (2,158) were
approved for restoration of rights. Of the 238 persons requesting a pardon during this period, 52
were granted.
Both the number of persons seeking restoration of rights and the approval rate in Iowa are
significantly higher than in a number of states. Despite this, the number of persons who have
had their rights restored as a proportion of the overall population of permanently disenfranchised
persons – 80,257 – is quite modest.
Clemency Activity of the Iowa Board of Parole 10
Fiscal Year 11

FY 1998 12
FY 1999 13
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003

Restoration of
Citizenship
Applications

Restorations
Recommended to
the Governor

Pardon
Applications

Pardons
Recommended to
the Governor

685
578
558
487
402
357

610
524
423
320
285
263

21
29
32
16
30
9

5
17
8
17
9
2

10

“Annual Report,” Iowa Board of Parole, retrieved from http://www.bop.state.ia.us/annual.asp on June 22, 2004.
For the relevant statistics, see the “Executive Clemency” table for the relevant fiscal year, and for fiscal years 1998
and 1999, see the “Performance Summary FY 1998 & 1999” table.
11
The Iowa Fiscal Year begins on July 1 and concludes on June 30.
12
The data for FY 1998 replaces the categories “Number of Restoration of Citizenship Applications Received” and
“Number of Pardon Applications Received” with “Number of Restoration of Citizenship Applications Reviewed”
and “Number of Pardon Applications Reviewed” as the Board of Parole 1999 Annual Report does not report
information on the number of applications received for the two categories.
13
The data for FY 1999 replaces the categories “Number of Restoration of Citizenship Applications Received” and
“Number of Pardon Applications Received” with “Number of Restoration of Citizenship Applications Reviewed”
and “Number of Pardon Applications Reviewed” as the Board of Parole 1999 Annual Report does not report
information on the number of applications received for the two categories.

12

Clemency Activity of the Governor of Iowa 14
Year

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 (through 6/21/04)

14

Restoration of
Citizenship
Applications

Citizenships
Restored

Pardon
Applications

Pardons
Granted

581
462
456
466
397
292

496
515
358
227
387
175

39
30
37
60
41
31

12
7
5
6
14
8

Source: Kristen Hardt, Legal Assistant, Office of the Governor. Received by e-mail on July 19, 2004.

13

Kentucky
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 109,132
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Kentucky disenfranchises all persons convicted of a felony, subject to restoration of rights by the
Governor. Individuals seeking to restore their right to vote must submit an Application for
Restoration to Civil Rights to the Division of Probation and Parole, which then forwards it to the
Governor for consideration. In order to be eligible for this type of restoration, the applicant must
have reached the maximum expiration of sentence or have received final discharge from the
Division of Probation and Parole, cannot have any pending warrants, charges, or indictments,
and must have paid full restitution as ordered by the court. In 2001, the legislature passed a bill
requiring that the Department of Corrections aid eligible persons in the process of rights
restoration.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 1,320 (2002-2004)
Application for Restoration to Civil Rights Activity by Year15
Year

2002
2003
200416

Applications for
Restoration

561
1,226
550

Applications sent
to the Governor

174
1,118
523

Applications approved
by the Governor

163
1,056
101

The doubling of applicants seeking to restore their civil rights between 2002 and 2003, and the
numbers for the first six months of 2004, indicate greater use of reenfranchisement in this period.
Especially significant in this regard is the increase in the proportion of applications that the
Division of Probation and Parole forwarded to the Governor from 2002 (31%) to 2003 (91%),
and through June 2004 (95%).
Under the current administration of Gov. Ernie Fletcher, however, the reenfranchisement process
has become considerably more onerous.17 Governor Fletcher now requires that applicants for
rights restoration submit three character references and an explanation in writing of why they
seek to vote. Beginning July 26, 2004, the governor had signed 101 orders to restore rights,
compared to the previous governor’s 637 restorations during a comparable period in his first year
in office. As of September, 600 applications were still pending.

15

Source: Connie Westmoreland, Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole. Received facsimile
on June 28, 2004.
16
Applications as of June 28, 2004, restorations as of August 31, 2004.
17
Associated Press, “Steps added for restoring felons’ voting rights,” Lexington Herald Leader, September 7, 2004.

14

Maryland
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 78,206
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
As a result of legislative change in 2002, individuals convicted of two or more nonviolent crimes
must wait for three years from the final completion of all terms of their sentence, including
probation, parole, community service, restitution, and fines, to be eligible to register to vote.
Previously, such persons were permanently disenfranchised. Data is not available regarding how
many people have registered to vote three years after the final disposition of their sentence for a
second or subsequent nonviolent crime. Individuals convicted of two or more violent crimes,
and individuals convicted of buying and selling votes, are permanently disenfranchised in
Maryland. Persons who have been permanently disenfranchised must apply to the Governor of
Maryland for a pardon.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 147 (1996-2003)
As seen below, few permanently disenfranchised individuals in Maryland have been
reenfranchised through the pardon process since 1996. These figures include both misdemeanor
and felony convictions, and do not differentiate between first convictions and subsequent
convictions. As indicated above, additional numbers of people may have had rights restored as a
result of the 2002 legislative change.

Pardon Activity by Year18
Year
Number granted
1996
5
1997
20
1998
8
1999
20
2000
27
2001
21
2002
32
2003
14

While the 2002 law change in Maryland theoretically opens up the application process for a
significant number of disenfranchised persons, widespread reports indicate that there are many
technical problems with the new policy. Persons terminating from parole supervision are not
generally given any documentation certifying the completion of sentence and therefore are not
able to demonstrate to election officials that the three-year post-supervision time period has been
completed.
18

Source: Linda Dodge, Maryland Parole Commission. E-mail received on June 18, 2004.

15

Mississippi
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 82,002
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Persons convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false
pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy in a Mississippi State Court lose their right
to vote. Persons seeking to regain the right to vote can attempt to do so in three different ways:
they can apply for a Pardon from the Governor; they can apply for an Executive Order Restoring
Civil Rights from the Governor; or they can seek to have the Mississippi State Legislature pass a
Bill of Suffrage on their behalf, which must pass with a two-thirds majority.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 107 (1992-2004)
Data relevant to restoration of voting rights by Pardon and Executive Order Restoring Civil
Rights shows just 26 persons have had their rights restored since 1992.
Gubernatorial Clemency Activity by Term19
Years

Restorations

1992-1996
1996-2000
2000-2004

0
2
10

Pardons

1
12
1

Data relevant to restoring voting rights by Bill of Suffrage shows similarly modest numbers of
rights restoration cases. While the number of persons having their rights restored over the past
decade is fairly trivial, there has been a modest increase in the number of legislative bills
introduced in the past several years, with 36 persons regaining their voting rights through this
method in 2004. At the same time, a significantly greater proportion of legislative bills have
been opposed as well. During the period 2001-2004, 55 bills passed while 57 were defeated.
Legislative Clemency Activity by Year20
Year

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Bills of Suffrage Passed

7
5
3
1
4
13
2
36

Bills of Suffrage Failed

0
0
2
0
10
14
23
10

19

Source: Donna Rogers, Special Projects Officer, Secretary of State’s Office, by facsimile on July 15, 2004.
Source: “Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System,” The Mississippi Legislature.
Retrieved from
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/default.htm on June 22, 2004.
20

16

Nebraska
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 44,00121
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
The State of Nebraska permanently disenfranchises persons convicted of felonies or treason.
From 1969 to 2002 a legislative statute provided that a prisoner would be issued a certificate of
discharge upon release from confinement to restore civil rights, but it is believed that this
provision was not widely understood or used. In 2002, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that
the statute conflicted with the constitutional power of the Board of Pardons; the statute was
subsequently amended so that the certificate does not result in a restoration of rights. As a result,
persons who had previously had their rights restored through a certificate of discharge became
ineligible. Persons seeking to regain the right to vote now must apply for a pardon from the
Nebraska Board of Pardons. All persons convicted of a crime, except those convicted of treason
or having been impeached, can apply for a pardon. However, one must normally wait ten years
from the date of final discharge (from jail, a state correctional facility, probation, parole, or
payment of a fine) with no further convictions before a pardon application will be considered by the
Board.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 343 (1993-2004)
Nebraska maintains a record of its pardon process, catalogued by fiscal year. The Board of Pardons
records the number of applications for consideration for a pardon and number of persons granted it
each fiscal year. Since 1993, 815 persons have applied for a pardon, of whom 42% (343) have been
granted one.

Pardon Activity by Fiscal Year22
Fiscal Year

Applications

Granted

1993/1994
1994/1995
1995/1996
1996/1997
1997/1998
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004

59
36
60
67
45
53
82
64
84
120
145

32
13
23
10
17
21
31
33
38
56
69

21

Estimate from Uggen and Manza assuming all persons with felony convictions are disenfranchised, including the
period 1969-2002.
22
Source: Rachel Marden, Administrative Assistant, Nebraska Board of Pardons. Received e-mail on June 8, 2004.

17

Nevada
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 43,395
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
With one exception, all categories of persons convicted of a felony in Nevada are permanently
disenfranchised. The exception relates to passage of a law in 2003 that provided for automatic
restoration of rights for first-time non-violent felons upon completion of sentence. All other
persons seeking to regain the right to vote must either obtain a pardon or petition for the
restoration of civil rights in the court in which they were convicted.
The pardon power is vested in the Board of Pardons Commissioners, which consists of the
Governor, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the State Attorney General; a majority of the
Board can grant a pardon, but the Governor must be among the majority. A pardon may or may
not restore civil rights, as the pardon document specifies.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 50 (estimated, 2004)
Nevada maintains little information regarding the restoration of rights process. The Secretary of
State’s Office, the Nevada Supreme Court, the Board of Pardons Commissioners, and the Board
of Probation do not keep records of the restoration process. In addition, the county clerks and
district courts in Clark (Las Vegas), and Washoe counties (Reno), and in Carson City do not
maintain statistics regarding the number of disenfranchised individuals seeking to regain their
vote.
The only available information is from election officials in Clark County, which contains
approximately 70% of the state’s population. From January 1, 2004 to June 17, 2004, the Clark
County Voter Registrar registered 50 former felons to vote. 23

23

Source: Cathy Smith, Clark County Voter Registrar. By way of Launa Hall, Progressive Leadership Alliance of
Nevada. Received by e-mail on June 18, 2004.

18

Tennessee
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 28,720
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
The state of Tennessee maintains the most complex disenfranchisement scheme in the nation,
with disenfranchisement based on the date of the conviction and the type of crime. Persons
convicted before January 15, 1973, for any felony that falls within eight categories lose the right
to vote but can apply to their local circuit court or the court in which they were convicted to have
their voting rights restored after completing their sentence. Persons convicted of a felony
between January 15, 1973 and May 17, 1981 are eligible to vote after completion of sentence.
Any felony conviction after May 18, 1981 results in disenfranchisement, but the procedure
changed from time to time regarding regaining the right to vote. Any person convicted of a
felony between May 18, 1981 and June 30, 1986 can apply to their local circuit court or the court
in which they were convicted to have their voting rights restored after completing their sentence.
Persons convicted of felonies other than first degree murder, aggravated rape, treason, or voter
fraud between July 1, 1986 and June 30, 1996 had their right to vote restored automatically upon
completion of sentence, and can apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for a Certificate of
Restoration of Voting Rights. Persons convicted of one of the four crimes mentioned are not
eligible to regain the right to vote and must gain a pardon from the Governor in order to do so.
The law was amended again in 1996, so that persons convicted of felonies (except for those
convicted of murder, rape, treason, or voter fraud) after June 30, 1996 must once again apply to
their local circuit court or the court in which they were convicted to have their voting rights
restored.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 393 (2001-2004)
The only data that the State of Tennessee has available regarding the restoration of voting rights
for convicted persons was for a two-year period at the Board of Probation and Parole (which
handles requests for Certificates of Restoration of Voting Rights for people convicted between
July 1, 1986 and June 30, 1996). Between December 2001 and February 2004, the Board of
Probation and Parole received 454 requests for Certificates, and granted 393 of these requests.
The 61 requests that were denied were because the applicant did not fit the criteria for the Board
to consider the request or because no information could be found on the conviction. 24

24

Source: Vickie Moreland, Board of Probation and Parole. Received by e-mail on July 20, 2004.

19

Virginia
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 243,902
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
An individual convicted of a felony is ineligible to vote in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
There are two avenues by which one can regain the right to vote: one which only restores that
right, and a second which restores a broader array of civil rights, such as the right to run for
office or serve on a jury. The first option is done through either the local circuit court of
residence or the circuit court in which the individual was convicted. To qualify, the applicant
must be free from criminal convictions for at least five years after the completion of the sentence
and supervisory period, and must demonstrate civic responsibility through community or
comparable service. The petition for the right to vote is not open to persons convicted of violent
offenses or drug manufacturing or distribution. While the application process goes through the
circuit courts, an affirmative recommendation by the court for the restoration of the right to vote
must still be approved by the Governor.
The second process, by way of which one can regain all civil rights lost as a result of conviction
(although the right to possess and transport firearms is not reinstated), is an application for
restoration of rights directly to the Governor, handled through the Office of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth. Individuals with convictions for nonviolent crimes, including drug possession,
must be free from any felony or misdemeanor convictions and have no pending charges for three
years from the date of final discharge from the criminal justice system, meaning that all
sentences, including probation and parole, and all associated fees and court costs have been paid.
The terms for individuals with convictions for violent crimes and individuals convicted of drug
manufacturing or distribution are the same as for convictions for nonviolent crimes, although the
waiting period is five years from the date of final discharge.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 5,043 (1982-2004)
Neither the Office of the Governor, nor the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, nor
the Virginia Supreme Court maintain records regarding the reinstatement of the right to vote
process through Virginia’s circuit courts (the first process described above). Data is maintained
by gubernatorial term on the application for restoration of rights that is handled by the Office of
the Secretary of the Commonwealth (the latter process described above).
The increase in the number of people who have had their rights restored since 2002 is largely
attributable to a procedural change instituted by Governor Warner in August 2002 that greatly
streamlined the application process for persons convicted of nonviolent offenses. As can be
seen, the number of persons whose rights have been restored since 2002 (1,885) is greater than
for the entire period of 1990-2002 (through January 12, 2002). Further, the discretionary nature
of this process can be seen in the significant variations in the number of restorations approved
during each gubernatorial term.

20

Restoration of Rights Activity by Gubernatorial Administration25
Governor

Robb (1982-1986)
Baliles (1986-1990)
Wilder (1990-1994)
Allen, Jr. (1994-1998)
Gilmore, III (1998-2002)
Warner (2002-present) 26

Applications approved
during 4-year term

1,180
853
427
460
238
1,885

25

Approval average
per year

295
213
107
115
60
685

Source: Alan Brittle, Clemency Specialist, Secretary of the Commonwealth. Received e-mail on June 11, 2004.
John Hopkins, “Governor Warner has restored voting rights to 1,885 ex-convicts.” Virginian-Pilot, October 1,
2004.
26

21

Washington
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 32,856
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
The State of Washington disenfranchises all individuals convicted of “infamous crimes,”
meaning crimes punishable by incarceration in a state correctional institution. In order to
register to vote, a person convicted of an infamous crime needs to present a “certificate of
discharge” to the registering authority. For those who were convicted before July 1, 1984, and
who completed all terms of sentence before 1993, reinstatement of the right to vote is not
automatic; such individuals seeking to regain the right to vote can apply to the Indeterminate
Sentence Review Board (ISRB) for a certificate of discharge. Beginning in 1993, individuals
who were convicted before July 1, 1984 automatically began receiving a certificate of discharge
from the ISRB three years after completing all terms of their sentence. Individuals who are
convicted in a court of the State of Washington after July 1, 1984 automatically receive a
certificate of discharge upon final completion of their sentence. Individuals who are convicted in
federal court or in another state (and now reside in Washington) do not automatically receive a
certificate of discharge, even if their conviction was after July 1, 1984, and so must petition the
Clemency and Pardons Board for a Restoration of Rights in order to regain the right to vote. The
Clemency and Pardons Board has final authority on decisions regarding Restoration of Rights
and does not submit these cases for Gubernatorial review. Finally, certain sex offenders who
committed their crimes after September 1, 2001 are also under the jurisdiction of the
Indeterminate Sentence Review Board; there is currently no procedure in place for these
individuals to obtain a certificate of discharge.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 53 (1996-2004)
The Indeterminate Sentence Review Board only maintains data for the period July 2003 through
June 14, 2004. During this period, the ISRB received 8 applications for final discharge from
people who had been convicted before July 1, 1984 and had completed all terms of their sentence
by 1993. Out of these 8 applications, the ISRB approved 4 for receipt of final discharge and
rejected 4 applications. During this same period, the ISRB also automatically granted 11
certificates of discharge to individuals who were convicted before July 1, 1984 and who, after
completing their sentences, waited for a period of three years (meaning that, most likely, the
certificates of discharge automatically granted by the ISRB from July 2003 to June 2004 were to
people who were convicted before July 1, 1984 and who completed their sentences between July
2000 and June 2001).27
The Clemency and Pardons Board does not maintain statistics on the applications for pardons,
clemency, and restoration of rights, but rather only on those applications that an internal
subcommittee decides to recommend to the full Board.

27

Source: Robin Riley, Correctional Records Specialist, Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. Received facsimile
on June 14, 2004.

22

Restoration of Rights cases considered by the
Clemency and Pardons Board28
Year

199629
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
200430

Internal Subcommittee
Referrals

Board Approvals

7
1
6
6
6
5
3
7
—

6
0
6
6
6
5
3
6
—

28

Source: Shelby Hultman, Legal Affairs Assistant, Office of the Governor. Received e-mail on June 16, 2004.
From May, 1996 through December, 1996.
30
As of May 23, 2004.
29

23

Wyoming
Estimated Number of Disenfranchised Ex-Felons: 12,797
Felony Disenfranchisement Laws and the Process of Restoration
Wyoming law disenfranchises all people convicted of felonies, and anyone seeking to regain the
right to vote must apply to do so. Historically, Wyoming law has required an application to the
Governor for either a pardon or a restoration of rights. Since July 1, 2003, however, persons
convicted of a first-time non-violent felony have been able to apply to the Wyoming Board of
Parole for a certificate that restores voting rights. Applicants must wait for a period of five years
after successfully completing all aspects of their sentence in order to be eligible to apply. Other
persons seeking to reinstate the right to vote must still apply to the Governor for either a pardon
or a restoration of rights, although the Governor’s policy generally excludes from consideration
persons convicted of sexual crimes or crimes involving a child as a victim. Persons seeking a
pardon or restoration of rights must wait ten years and five years respectively (previously twenty
years and ten years) from the time of completion of sentence before applying.
Reenfranchisement Activity – Restorations: 17 (1995-2002)
From July 1, 2003 until July 31, 2004, 6 people applied for a certificate that restores voting rights
from the Board of Parole (the new procedure that applies to non-violent offenders). Five of these
six applicants have been approved, and the sixth denied, although this denial was because the
applicant was ineligible for the certificate.31
The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Wyoming does not maintain statistics
regarding the number of applicants for pardons and restoration of rights, but only for actions
affirmatively granted, totaling 12 for the period 1995-2002.
:
Restoration of Rights and Pardons Granted by Year32
Year
Restoration
Pardons
1995
0
0
1996
0
0
1997
3
0
1998
0
0
1999
1
1
2000
1
1
2001
1
0
33
2002
4
0

31

Source: Tony Escamia, Wyoming Board of Parole Coordinator. Telephone conversations dating: 6/30/2004,
7/23/2004.
32
Source: Facsimile received from Deputy Attorney General of Wyoming, Paul S. Rehurek on June 14, 2004.
33
The four Restoration of Rights granted during 2002 includes a Restoration of Rights granted on January 2, 2003.

24