Loading…

Some Kind of Process for Felon Reenfranchisement

State executives have long had the authority to issue pardons and to release individuals from the legal consequences of conviction. Exercise of the clemency authority has evolved over the years. In the past, restoring suffrage was largely an incidental effect of clemency grants. Then in the wake of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The University of Chicago law review 2005-10, Vol.72 (4), p.1331-1366
Main Author: Chiang, Melissa C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:State executives have long had the authority to issue pardons and to release individuals from the legal consequences of conviction. Exercise of the clemency authority has evolved over the years. In the past, restoring suffrage was largely an incidental effect of clemency grants. Then in the wake of the recount in Florida after the 2000 election, public pressure began to mount against criminal disenfranchisement, under which individuals are temporarily or permanently rendered ineligible to vote. In response, many states reduced criminal disenfranchisement or dropped it altogether. Other states, such as Alabama and Florida, began relying on ad hoc clemency determinations to minimize the effect of disenfranchisement. With a discretionary regime for reenfranchisement, these states use the clemency power for the express purpose of restoring voting rights. This paper addresses the procedural dimension of reenfranchisement proceedings: whether due process applies to the clemency hearings that restore a felon's right to vote; and if so, what process is due. So far, no circuit court has considered the issue.
ISSN:0041-9494
1939-859X