(Page 1 of 28) - A Modified Version of Double Jeopardy -- Rehabilitated African-American Felons Barred From the Voting Box authored by Rajan, Sara.

“A Modified Version of Double Jeopardy –

Rehabilitated African-American Males

Barred from the Ballot Box”

Sara Gorman Rajan

Wayne State University

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.

Prepared for delivery at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. August 28-31, 2003. Copyright by the American Political Science
Association.