On April 27, Sen. Bernie Sanders stirred the pot of American debate with a divisive claim: convicted felons should be allowed to vote. This was not a unanimous decision across the party line. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg are among the Democratic presidential candidates that disagree with his views. Some, like Buttigieg, outright rejected his views, claiming that “when you have served your sentence, then part of being restored to society is that you’re part of the political life of this nation again.” Others felt that it was a more complicated issue than a sweeping statement could hope to cover, put succinctly by Warren with a simple, “I’m not there yet.”

Immediate public backlash centered around figures like the Boston marathon bombers, who were used as an example when the question was first posed at the CNN town hall event. 

“Those individuals should never vote in America again,” California Rep. Eric Swalwell said. 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez attempted to redirect the conversation in a tweet: “’Should the Boston Bomber have the right to vote?’ Try, ‘Should a nonviolent person stopped w/ a dime bag LOSE the right to vote?’” 

This issue is shaping up to be a key one for the Democratic Primary. Currently, the most common practice among states is to restrict voting rights while an individual is incarcerated but restore them upon the completion of their sentence (New York allows probationers to vote, but not inmates or parolees). While there are clear concerns about giving convicted felons a voice in government, debate raises concerns over who is labeled “too dangerous” to vote. With African-Americans being incarcerated at disproportionate rates for low-end crimes, there is reason to be skeptical of a candidate that would suppress a significant demographic over minor crimes that relate in no way to national security. 

Most seem to agree that the ideal solution would be to only restrict voting in more dangerous and violent prisoners, hence invoking the Boston bombers. Applying this punishment subjectively holds its own issues, as it could potentially open the door for biased sentences that favor certain groups over others, which would tilt the vote even more than the current system. 

What happens if we do allow all incarcerated citizens to vote? It may feel wrong when contextualized with the most shocking examples, but it makes more sense when viewed objectively. It seems like a stretch to say that all or even a significant number of prisoners would vote for a candidate that actively seeks to worsen the country. Most people do not commit crimes with the intent of undermining democracy. More often, it comes out of personal conflicts, business disputes or poverty. It may, in fact, be a benefit for people who have experienced the failings of society to have a voice in changing it. 

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, offences related to homicide, assault, sex offenses, weapons, explosives, arson and national security combined account for 18.5% of the prison population, making up about 53,000 individuals out of the country’s 327,200,000 citizens. Of these, only 54 individuals are currently incarcerated for issues of national security, hardly making up a fraction of a percentage. If all prisoners were given a vote the same as free citizens, the vote would include historically disenfranchised communities and very little risk would be posed by the boogeymen used to justify withholding the rights of thousands of people.

Photo from DanielVanderkin via Pixabay