Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy (review)

Most of us who write about ex-felon disenfranchisement know intuitively that its origins and continued viability are heavily tinged with racism, and we know that whatever popularity the practice still enjoys stems in large part from its partisan benefits. Sociologists Christopher Uggen and Jeffrey Manza may share these assumptions, but in their new book, Locked Out, they nevertheless subject them to rigorous empirical scrutiny.

Manza and Uggen are among a handful of influential academics, lawyers and social activists who have militated against disenfranchisement since 1998, when Marc Mauer, under the auspices of the organization he directs, The Sentencing Project, first publicized the phenomenon. They are also the finest sort of social scientist –consummate professionals who are also engaged citizens. As citizens they are profoundly troubled by the damage disenfranchisement wreaks not only on the racial minorities who bear its brunt, but also on our democratic polity as a whole.

The authors' eclectic methodology draws from "the full sociological tool kit (vi)." They have compiled and analyzed an enormous amount of historical, institutional and voting data, undertaken in-depth interviews with offenders subject to disenfranchisement, scrutinized court cases, and through experimental surveys probed American attitudes on issues related to prisoners' rights.

Manza and Uggen start with grim statistics: On election day in 2004, by their conservative estimate, some 5.3 million American citizens with felony convictions – roughly 2.7 percent of the "voting eligible" public – were prohibited from casting a ballot (75). (This is more people than inhabit all of Cuba or Sweden.) Disenfranchisement rates are sky-high because our incarceration rate is sky high – the largest in the world and growing. In the past 30 years our prison population has ballooned six-fold. At the same time crime rates have fallen. How can this be? Because we choose to punish for more extensively than "social necessity" would dictate (111).

Attempts by liberal Democrats to moderate these policies have been futile. As Sen. Joe Biden proclaimed in a 1994 speech that Manza and Uggen quote: "The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now for 60 new death penalties. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has 70 enhanced penalties. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 100,000 new cops. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is for 125,000 new state prison cells." (106)

After discussing mass incarceration and the consequent spike in disenfranchisement rates, the authors focus on the theoretical availability of clemency. When confronted with claims that it is unfair to deny voting rights to citizens who have "paid their dues," those defending the sanction (and yes, there are defenders, although now days "surprisingly few") (11) respond that anyone who really wants to vote can seek re-enfranchisement through an appeals process.

Ha! Easy for them to say. Uggen and Manza undertook a state-by-state survey of the various procedures citizens must follow in order to reclaim their franchise, concluding that without legal assistance these procedures were vastly too complex for the average person – let alone the typically under-educated, impoverished and bewildered ex-felon.

Securing amnesty involves gathering all sorts of documents and records, paying what can be whopping restitution and court fees, answering intrusive questions and satisfying demeaning conditions (such as providing DNA samples, which until recently Alabama claimants were required to do).

Some clemency seekers, of course, have it easier than others. George Steinbrenner, the multi-millionaire owner of the New York Yankees, lost his vote after being convicted of illegally siphoning money to Nixon's re-election campaign in 1972. He soon regained it, however, ( as did Charles Colson, another Watergate notable whom the authors don't mention).

As Uggen and Manza point out, "…those with relatively greater income and opportunities appear to come out ahead." (94)

Unless one is rich or well-connected, it's anybody's guess who will ultimately reclaim his or her franchise, given the secrecy and total discretion that shrouds the process. The authors quote journalist Abby Goodnough, who described in a 2004 New York Times article the hearing...