9
establish vote dilution that violated the Voting Rights Act (Thompson 2002). Although the court
found that the substantial disproportional effect of disenfranchisement on African-Americans
compared to Caucasians did not violate the Voting Rights Act, this disproportional effect should
not go unnoticed. The disproportionate racial impact of disenfranchisement should prompt
judicial inquiries and justify corrective legislation (Thompson 2002).
Since the Wesley decision in 1986, the disenfranchisement figures continue to rise, and as
such continue to be substantially more disproportionate (Thompson 2002). These figures should
now be enough to establish a sufficient basis for a Voting Rights Act violation claim (Thompson
2002). In 2001, four or five million people were legally prevented from voting, and more than
half of those prevented from voting were African Americans (Harvey 1994). As a result of
felony convictions, 4.2 million Americans were barred from voting (Harvey 1994). Almost one-
third of those disenfranchised are African-American men. As a result of felony
disenfranchisement, thirty-one percent of African American men in Alabama and Florida are
permanently barred from voting (Thompson 2002; Fellner and Mauer 1998). Twenty-six percent
of African American men are permanently barred from voicing their opinion at the polls in Iowa,
Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming (Thompson 2002; Fellner and Mauer 1998).
Seventeen-percent of all African American males who reside in Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode
Island and Wisconsin cannot vote due to a felony conviction (Thompson 2002; Fellner and
Mauer 1998). Because ex-felons are excluded from participating in the electoral system, it is not
unreasonable to suggest that society does not treat felons as full citizens. The United States
citizenry is composed of all races and the electorate of the United States should represent the
same (Thompson 2002).
Convention