Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Voter Turnout, Felon Disenfranchisement and Partisan Outcomes in Presidential Elections, 1988–2012

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

States vary in their treatment of the voting rights of convicted felons through incarceration, probation, parole, and beyond. A few states permit even incarcerated felons to vote, while others rescind the right permanently, with most states’ policies located between those extremes. This paper analyzes the relationship among voter turnout, election outcomes, and levels of felon disenfranchisement by state. The results show a pattern of divergence around the 2000 election before which turnout, disenfranchisement, crime rates, and Republican or Democratic success in elections were unrelated and since which strong correlations are found. Disenfranchisement rates no longer bear a significant relationship to crime rates, and states won by Republicans have both lower overall turnout and higher levels of ineligible felons in the voting-age population. Partisan control of state legislatures does not predict these patterns, but there is a strong regional component to the data with disenfranchisement notably higher in Southern states regardless of partisan control. Overall the data support a need for further research on the disparate treatment of felon voting rights among states which may be contributing to broader trends emerging in political science research of a growing relationship between lower voter turnout and Republican electoral success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. E.g., Johnson v. Bush, 02-14469 [11th Cir., December 19, 2003].

  2. This is not intended as a comprehensive summary of the legal history of this issue, and the author is thankful to legal scholars including Miles (2004) who have undertaken that task.

  3. Current as of December 31, 2016. Source: State attorneys general websites, plus District of Columbia.

  4. The relative difficulty and complexity of these procedures are not considered here but are a relevant topic for further research on interstate differences in rates of disenfranchisement and participation.

  5. However, recent research including data from elections since 2000 has provided more support for partisan effects and turnout; see for example Burmila (2014); Fowler (2015), Bechtel, Hangartner, and Schmid (2015), Rodon (2015), Terry (2016).

  6. Data from the US Elections Project calculate disenfranchisement rates as the number of ineligible felons as a percentage of all adults of voting age in each state.

  7. It is possible, of course, that causality flows in either direction on this point; GOP-dominated states may be more likely to pass disenfranchising laws, or states with such laws may be more favorable to GOP candidates. For the scope and purpose of this analysis, the intention is to investigate whether any relationship is found in the data at all. If so, determining the causal mechanisms will be an important topic for further research.

  8. These and all other data are available upon request from the author and online at (insert).

  9. Data source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting statistics, via http://www.fbi.gov.

  10. Like the U.S. House of Representatives, nearly all state legislatures have two-year terms for one or both chambers of the legislature, creating the potential for partisan control to change with each presidential and midterm election.

  11. For a list and official definitions, see Census Regions and Census Divisions.

  12. See also Vote View blog, “Collapse of the Voting Structure” for record high levels of polarization as measured by DW-Nominate scores, 1/12/2017.

References

  • Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (1997). The transition to Republican rule in the House: Implications for theories of congressional politics. Political Science Quarterly, 112(4), 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, M. M., Hangartner, D., & Schmid, L. (2015). Does compulsory voting increase support for leftist policy? American Journal of Political Science onlinefirst. doi:10.1111/ajps.12224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, A., Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2003). Ballot manipulation and the ‘Menace of Negro Domination’: Racial threat and felon disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 559–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch, T. (2010). Did disfranchisement laws help elect President Bush? New Evidence on the turnout rates and candidate preferences of Florida’s ex-felons. Political Behavior, 34(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burmila, E. (2014). Surge and decline: The impact of changes in voter turnout on the 2010 Senate elections. Congress & The Presidency, 41(3), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., Schickler, E., & Sides, J. (2003). What if everyone voted? Simulating the impact of increased turnout in senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeNardo, J. (1980). Turnout and the vote: The joke’s on the democrats. American Political Science Review, 74(2), 406–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, A. (2015). Regular voters, marginal voters and the electoral effects of turnout. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(2), 205–219. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Meredith, M., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2015). Can incarcerated felons Be(Re)integrated into the political system? Results from a field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 912–926. doi:10.1111/ajps.12166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, D. S. (2004). The modern-day literacy test?: Felon disenfranchisement and race discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 57(2), 611–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajnal, Z., Lajevardi, N., & Nielson, L. (2017). Voter Identification laws and the suppression of minority votes. The Journal of Politics. doi:10.1086/688343.

  • Harvey, A. E. (1994). Ex-felon disenfranchisement and its influence on the black vote: The need for a second look. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142(3), 1145–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B., & Wolfinger, R. E. (2001). The political implications of higher turnout. British Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlan, P. S. (2004). Convictions and doubts: Retribution, representation, and the debate over felon disenfranchisement. Stanford Law Review, 56(5), 1147–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manza, J., Brooks, C., & Uggen, C. (2004). Public attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(2), 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, T. J. (2004). Felon Disenfranchisement and voter turnout. Journal of Legal Studies, 33(1), 85–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. J., & Deckard, N. (2015). Felon disenfranchisement laws and the feedback loop of political exclusion: The case of Florida. Journal of African American Studies, 20(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1988). Why Americans don’t vote. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodon, T. (2015). When the kingmaker stays home revisiting the ideological bias on turnout. Party Politics. doi:10.1177/1354068815576291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry, W. C. (2016). Yes, structurally low turnout favors the right. Politics, Groups, and Identities. doi:10.1080/21565503.2015.1124789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2006). Party polarization in the US Congress member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12(4), 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2013). The Gingrich senators: The roots of partisan warfare in Congress. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 67(6), 777–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelock, D. (2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality felon status restrictions as a system of disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bradley University, 1501 W. Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL, 61625, USA

    Edward M. Burmila

Authors
  1. Edward M. Burmila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward M. Burmila.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Human and Animal Rights Statements

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Ethical Approval

The research and manuscript were conducted and prepared in accordance with all ethical guidelines stated in the Social Justice Research “Instruction for Authors.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burmila, E.M. Voter Turnout, Felon Disenfranchisement and Partisan Outcomes in Presidential Elections, 1988–2012. Soc Just Res 30, 72–88 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0277-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0277-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation