%20(2).png)
It is not uncommon for incarcerated people to lose their eligibility to vote, something called felon disenfranchisement. However, while it is usually restored upon the completion of a prison, parole or probation sentence, Florida is one of four states (along with Mississippi, Iowa and Kentucky) that has a lifetime ban on voting for convicted felons.
Amendment 4, or the ‘Voter Restoration Amendment’, restores the right to vote for those with a past felony. This excludes individuals who have either committed murder or a felony sexual offence. This is especially significant because the lifetime voting ban policy had blatantly racist roots.
The policy was implemented in the post-Civil War era, after significant changes to the US Constitution were enacted, including the 13th, 14th, and 15thamendments. These were, respectively, the abolishment of slavery, the granting of citizenship to persons born or naturalised in the United States, and the right to vote regardless of a citizen’s race or “previous condition of servitude”(this therefore included African American men, but not women). In theory, these should have empowered the recently freed African Americans. In practice, many states attempted to circumvent the amendments and curtail African Americans’ right to vote.
Thus, the Florida State’s voting ban. The 1865 ‘Black Codes’ were implemented to increase the severity of penalties of crimes typically pinned on Black men (disobedience, vagrancy, assaults on white women). In their 1868 constitution the inclusion of Article XIV, Section 2, imposed a lifetime voting ban for people with these felony convictions, a measure designed to ensure that freed slaves could not exercise the right to vote. As concerning is the fact that the provision relating to disenfranchisement was re-enacted in Florida’s 1968 Constitution.
The only way to restore one’s voting rights is through an application that can be made to the governor and Cabinet, which can be rejected at the discretion of the governor.
The implementation of Amendment 4 benefits an estimated 1.6 million disenfranchised Floridians. This includes around 17.9% of potential black voters who are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated. The amendment is officially supported by ‘Floridians for a Fair Democracy’, which has gathered more than 1.1 million signatures for its petition, suggesting strong support for this area of reform.
In the UK, the Representation of the People Act 1983, Section 3 disenfranchises convicted prisoners who are serving their sentence. The UK has since only offered small concessions in relation to the voting rights of prisoners, by restoring voting rights to those released on temporary licence. While public opinion gradually shifts, those in power can are instead ‘dragging their feet’.
The Representation of the People Act 1983 was disputed in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005). The ECtHR found that a blanket ban on British prisoners’ voting rights was contrary to Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The 1998 Human Rights Act incorporates the ECHR into UK law. Sections of the Act that are particularly relevant are Section 3, which states that judges have to interpret statutory legislation to comply with the ECHR ‘as far as it is possible to do so’ and Section 4, which holds that a declaration of incompatibility can be issued by judges when it is apparent that legislation cannot be interpreted in a way that complies with the ECHR. Legally, however, the UK government has no obligation to amend legislation.
After the ruling in Hirst, the government attempted to eliminate the ban on voting for prisoners serving a sentence but this was struck down by Parliament. The Hirst ruling had called for the UK to justify its prisoner voting ban, contesting the fact that it could simply be based on public opinion. This brings up the question of whether current public opinion should be incorporated as a factor in deciding prisoners’ voting rights. The UK’s delay in execution of the ECtHR’s judgment has brought to light the vulnerability of the Human Rights Act, which was brought into force to protect citizens domestic human rights. Although it is not compulsory for the government to act, it is concerning that Parliament seems to have held no qualms in continuing disenfranchisement.
A major change in public opinion is taking place overseas in Florida. The approval of Amendment 4 through a state-wide vote holds great potential for those incarnated in the state. The question remains as to whether it should be up to public opinion to decide on human rights matters such as recognising the rights of certain citizens to vote. An infringement of voting rights is still a human rights violation, regardless of today’s current political climate. Given the importance that is given to public opinion, it is positive that, at least in Florida, this is changing enough to finally empower previously disenfranchised groups and restore their right to vote.