Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62261_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Rajan, Sara. "A Modified Version of Double Jeopardy -- Rehabilitated African-American Felons Barred From the Voting Box" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 27, 2003 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62261_index.html>

Rajan, S. , 2003-08-27 "A Modified Version of Double Jeopardy -- Rehabilitated African-American Felons Barred From the Voting Box" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p62261_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: American democracy is premised on the theory of �One Man, One Vote.� In practice, however, this theory is lost in the arbitrary enforcement of laws serving to deny American citizens the right to vote. Throughout our history, the ability to vote was not enjoyed by African-Americans, women, and the poor, as well as other minority groups. America gradually began to rid itself of these restrictions, due in large part, to constitutional amendments and rulings by the United States Supreme Court. Despite this evolvement, American still denies felons and ex-felons the right to vote through the creation and execution of disenfranchisement laws. State laws prohibiting felons and ex-felons from voting serve to punish the offender twice, both criminally and civilly. African-American males receive the �fall-out� effect of these laws more than other racial or ethnic groups. This is because African-American males are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates. As such, I suggest that not only are disenfranchisement laws created to deprive felons and ex-felons the ability to vote constitutionally flawed, but also have a discriminatory and disparate effect on African-American males. Further, I suggest that felon disenfranchisement laws serve to dilute the black vote, and as such have a further detrimental effect on the already perilous position African-Americans find themselves in our society. Scholars of multiple disciplines, including law, political science, and sociology, have questioned the validity of disenfranchisement laws and have proffered convincing arguments as to why such laws violate multiple sections of the United States Constitution. Yet, disenfranchisement laws, despite the disparate impact inflicted upon African-Americans, continue to withstand judicial scrutiny and constitutional muster. Why is this? There are viable arguments that such laws violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. However, such arguments fail as various courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have concluded that voting, while a fundamental right is not an automatic entitlement of American citizenship and, as such, may be regulated by state governments. This article will explore some of these issues in arguing that the disenfranchisement of ex-felons deserves closer judicial scrutiny, and should be deemed to be unconstitutional because such laws discriminate against African-Americans under the guise of preserving the sanctity of society and the electoral process.

American State Constitutions and the Agenda of State Supreme Courts

The Unlocked Door in the Inter-American Human Rights System: Why States Recognize and Withdraw from Voluntary Regional Human Rights Courts

Redistributive Justice in a Neoliberal Context: The Colombian Constitutional Court and the Promotion of Social Rights