Skip to main content

Locked Out 2020: Estimates of People Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction

October 30, 2020
Chris Uggen, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Arleth Pulido-Nava
5.2 million Americans are forbidden to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, or laws restricting voting rights for those convicted of felony-level crimes.

In the past 25 years, half the states have changed their laws and practices to expand voting access to people with felony convictions. Despite these important reforms, 5.2 million Americans remain disenfranchised, 2.3 percent of the voting age population.

Table of Contents:

  1. Overview
  2. Methodology
  3. Disenfranchisement in 2020
  4. Recent Changes
  5. Restoration of Voting Rights
  6. Summary
  7. State Estimates of Disenfranchisement
  8. References

This report was updated on October 30, 2020.


In this presidential election year, the question of voting restrictions, and their disproportionate impact on Black and Brown communities, should receive greater public attention.

This report is intended to update and expand our previous work on the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States. 1)see Uggen, Larson, and Shannon 2016; Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012; Uggen and Manza 2002; Manza and Uggen 2006). For the first time, we present estimates of the percentage of the Latinx population disenfranchised due to felony convictions. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2020 election.

Our key findings include the following:

  • As of 2020, an estimated 5.17 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has declined by almost 15 percent since 2016, as states enacted new policies to curtail this practice. There were an estimated 1.17 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.34 million in 1996, 5.85 million in 2010, and 6.11 million in 2016.
  • One out of 44 adults – 2.27 percent of the total U.S. voting eligible population–is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction.
  • Individuals who have completed their sentences in the eleven states that disenfranchise at least some people post-sentence make up most (43 percent) of the entire disenfranchised population, totaling 2.23 million people.
  • Rates of disenfranchisement vary dramatically by state due to broad variations in voting prohibitions. In three states – Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee – more than 8 percent of the adult population, one of every thirteen people, is disenfranchised.
  • We estimate that nearly 900,000 Floridians who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised, despite a 2018 ballot referendum that promised to restore their voting rights. Florida thus remains the nation’s disenfranchisement leader in absolute numbers, with over 1.1 million people currently banned from voting – often because they cannot afford to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions or because the state is not obligated to tell them the amount of their sanction.
  • One in 16 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.7 times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 6.2 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.7 percent of the non-African American population.
  • African American disenfranchisement rates vary significantly by state. In seven states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming – more than one in seven African Americans is disenfranchised, twice the national average for African Americans.
  • Although data on ethnicity in correctional populations are still unevenly reported, we can conservatively estimate that over 560,000 Latinx Americans or over 2 percent of the voting eligible population are disenfranchised.
  • Approximately 1.2 million women are disenfranchised, comprising over one-fifth of the total disenfranchised population.

State Disenfranchisement Law

To compile estimates of disenfranchised populations, we take into account new U.S. Census data on voting eligible populations and recent changes in state-level disenfranchisement policies, including those reported in Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer (Chung 2019) and Expanding the Vote (Porter 2010; McLeod 2018). Since 2016, five states have re-enfranchised some nonincarcerated populations: Nevada (all non-prison, including post-sentence), Colorado (parole), Louisiana (probation and many on parole), New Jersey (probation and parole), and New York (parole). Other states have revised their waiting periods and streamlined the process for regaining civil rights. In November 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4, which allowed most people who have completed their sentences to vote (with the exception of people convicted of sex offenses and murder). A legal battle has ensued over whether legal financial obligations (LFOs) must be paid before voting rights are restored. In June of this year, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that it is unconstitutional to require payment of LFOs in order to vote, but on September 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta reversed that ruling.

As shown in Table 1, Maine and Vermont remain the only states that allow persons in prison to vote (as well as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). In July 2020, the Washington, D.C. Council passed an emergency bill that authorized all incarcerated residents with a felony conviction to vote in the November 2020 election. The Council intends to make the change permanent. Twenty-seven U.S. states deny voting rights to felony probationers, and 30 states disenfranchise people on parole. In the most extreme cases, 11 states continue to deny voting rights to some or all of the individuals who have successfully fulfilled their prison, parole, or probation sentences.

In addition to Florida, other states partly condition reenfranchisement on payment of outstanding fines, fees, court costs, and restitution. With regard to the categories in Table 1, Margaret Love and David Schlussel (2020) note that one state in the “Prison & parole” column (CT), and five states in the “Prison, parole & probation” column (AR, GA, KS, SD, TX), appear to disenfranchise some people post-sentence, on the basis of unpaid legal financial obligations. Connecticut requires payment of fines for out-of-state and federal convictions; Arkansas requires payment of court costs, fines, and restitution; Georgia requires payment of fines; Kansas requires payment of restitution and fines; South Dakota requires payment of fines, fees, and restitution; and Texas requires payment of fines. Three states in addition to Florida condition eligibility for reenfranchisement on payment of some or all legal financial obligations. Alabama conditions reenfranchisement after a first felony on payment of fines, fees, court costs, and victim restitution; Arizona conditions restoration after a first felony on payment of restitution; and Tennessee conditions restoration on payment of restitution, court costs (unless a finding of indigency was made), and child support. The scope and enforcement of such restrictions varies greatly across these states, such that we cannot provide firm estimates on the number of people impacted. Nevertheless, they serve as an additional driver of disenfranchisement, above and beyond the restrictions reported in Table 1 and the numbers reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

Table 1. Summary of State Felony Disenfranchisement Restrictions in 2020
No restrictions (2) Prison only (17) Prison & Parole (4) Prison, parole, & probation (16) Prison, parole, probation, & post-sentence (11)
Maine Colorado Californiaa Alaska Alabamad
Vermont Hawaii Connecticut Arkansas Arizonae
Illinois New Yorkb Georgia Delawaref
Indiana Idaho Floridag
Maryland Kansas Iowah
Massachusetts Louisianac Kentuckyi
Michigan Minnesota Mississippij
Montana Missouri Nebraskak
Nevada New Mexico Tennesseel
New Hampshire North Carolina Virginiam
New Jersey Oklahoma Wyomingn
North Dakota South Carolina
Ohio South Dakota
Oregon Texas
Pennsylvania Washington
Rhode Island West Virginia
Utah Wisconsin
a. California – In 2016, lawmakers restored voting rights to people convicted of a felony offense housed in jail, but not in prison. That
year, officials authorized persons sentenced to prison to be released to probation rather than parole, affirming voting rights for residents under felony community supervision.
b. New York – In 2018, Governor Cuomo reviewed and restored voting rights to persons currently on parole via executive order. There is currently no assurance that this practice will continue, however, so New York is listed as a state that continues to disenfranchise people on parole.
c. Louisiana – In 2019, authorized voting for residents under an order of imprisonment for a felony who have not been incarcerated for five years, including those on probation and parole.
d. Alabama – In 2016, legislation eased the rights restoration process after completion of sentence for persons not convicted of a crime of “moral turpitude.” The state codified the list of felony offenses that are ineligible for re-enfranchisement in 2017.
e. Arizona – Permanently disenfranchises persons with two or more felony convictions. In 2019, removed the requirement to pay outstanding fines before rights are automatically restored for first time felony offenses only.
f. Delaware – In 2013, removed the five-year waiting period to regain voting eligibility. Apart from some disqualifying offenses, people
convicted of a felony are now eligible to vote upon completion of sentence and supervision.
g. Florida – In 2018, voters passed an amendment to restore voting rights to most people after sentence completion. In 2019, legislation was passed that made restoration conditional on payment of all restitution, fees, and fines. As of October, 2020, only the rights of those who had paid all legal financial obligations (fines and fees) had been restored.
h. Iowa – In 2020, Governor Reynolds signed an executive order restoring voting rights to people who have completed their sentences, except for those convicted of homicide. This follows previous executive orders from Governor Vilsack (restoring voting rights to individuals who had completed their sentences in 2005) and Governor Branstad (reversing this executive order in 2011).
i. Kentucky – In 2019, Governor A. Beshear issued an executive order restoring voting rights to those who had completed sentences for nonviolent offenses. This follows a similar 2015 executive order by Governor S. Beshear, which had been rescinded by Governor Bevin later that year.
j. Mississippi – Permanently disenfranchises individuals convicted of certain offenses.
k. Nebraska – In 2005, reduced its indefinite ban on post-sentence voting to a two-year waiting period.
l. Tennessee – Disenfranchises those convicted of certain felonies since 1981, in addition to those convicted of select crimes prior to 1973. Others must apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for restoration.
m. Virginia – In 2019, Governor Northam reported that his administration has restored voting rights to 22,205 Virginians previously
convicted of felonies. Governor McAuliffe had earlier restored rights to 173,166.
n. Wyoming – In 2017, restored voting rights after five years to people who complete sentences for first-time, non-violent felony convictions.


We estimated the number of people released from prison and those who have completed their terms of parole or probation based on demographic life tables for each state, as described in Uggen, Manza, and Thompson (2006) and Shannon et al. (2017). We modeled each state’s disenfranchisement rate in accordance with its distinctive felony voting policies, as listed in Table 1. For example, some states impose disenfranchisement for two years after release from supervision, some states only disenfranchise those convicted of multiple felonies, and some only disenfranchise those convicted of violent offenses.2)In Florida, some can avoid a formal felony conviction by successfully completing a period of probation. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, as much as 40 percent of the total probation population holds this “adjudication withheld” status. According to reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about 50 percent of Florida probationers successfully complete probation. In light of this, we reduce the annual current disenfranchised felony probation numbers by 40 percent and individuals disenfranchised post-sentence by 20 percent (.4*.5=.20) in each year in the life tables.

In brief, we compiled demographic life tables for the years 1948-2020 to determine the number of released individuals lost to recidivism (and therefore already included in our annual head counts) and to mortality each year. This allows us to estimate the number of individuals who have completed their sentences in a given state and year who are no longer under correctional supervision yet remain disenfranchised. Because data on correctional populations are currently available only through year-end 2018, we extended state-specific trends from 2015-2018 to obtain estimates for 2020. Our duration-specific recidivism rate estimates are derived from large-scale national studies of recidivism for people released from prison or on probation. Based on these studies, our models assume that most released individuals will be re-incarcerated (66 percent) and a smaller percentage of those on probation or in jail (57 percent) will cycle back through the criminal justice system. We also assume a substantially higher mortality rate for people convicted of felony offenses relative to the rest of the population. Both recidivists and deaths are removed from the post-sentence pool to avoid overestimating the number of individuals in the population who have completed their sentences. Each release cohort is thus reduced each successive year – at a level commensurate with the age-adjusted hazard rate for mortality and duration-adjusted hazard rate for recidivism – and added to each new cohort of releases. Overall, we produced more than 200 spreadsheets covering 72
years of data. These provide the figures needed to compile disenfranchisement rate estimates that are keyed to the appropriate correctional populations for each state and year.3)Our data sources include numerous United States Department of Justice (DOJ) publications, including the annual Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, as well as the Prisoners and Jail Inmates at Midyear series. Where available, we used data from state departments of corrections rather than national sources, as in the case of Minnesota. For early years, we also referenced National Prisoner Statistics, and Race of Prisoners Admitted to State and Federal Institutions, 1926-1986. We determined the median age of released prisoners based on annual data from the National Corrections Reporting Program. The recidivism rate we use to decrease the releasee population each year is based upon the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1989) “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983” study and “Recidivism of Felons on Probation 1986 1989.” For those in prison or on parole, we use a reincarceration rate of 18.6 percent at one year, 32.8 percent at two years, 41.4 percent at 3 years. Although rearrest rates have increased since 1983, the overall reconviction and reincarceration rates used for this study are much more stable (Langan and Levin (2002), p. 11). For those on probation or in jail, the corresponding three-year failure rate is 36 percent, meaning that individuals are in prison or jail and therefore counted in a different population.

To extend the analysis to subsequent years, we calculated a trend line using the ratio of increases provided by Hoffman and Stone-Meierhoefer (1980) on federal prisoners. By year 10, we estimate a 59.4 percent recidivism rate among released prisoners and parolees, which increases to 65.9 percent by year 62 (the longest observation period in this analysis). Because these estimates are higher than most long-term recidivism studies, they are likely to yield conservative estimates of the formerly incarcerated population. We apply the same trend line to the 3-year probation and jail recidivism rate of 36 percent; by year 62, the recidivism rate is 57.3 percent. 1948 is the earliest year for which detailed data are available on releases from supervision.

Disenfranchisement in 2020

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 5,177,780 disenfranchised individuals across correctional populations. Three-quarters of the disenfranchised population are people living in their communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole, including nearly half (43%) who have completed their sentence. People currently in prison and jail now represent about one-fourth (25 percent) of those disenfranchised. Our intent here is to provide a portrait of disenfranchisement that would be accurate as of the 2020 November election, though we stress that much of the data we report are based on estimates rather than head counts.

Figure 1. Disenfranchisement Distribution Across Correctional Populations, 2020
Figure 2. Total Felony Disenfranchisement Rates, 2020

Variation Across States

Due to differences in state laws and rates of criminal punishment, states vary widely in the practice of disenfranchisement. These maps and tables represent the disenfranchised population as a percentage of the adult voting eligible population in each state. As noted, we estimate that 5,177,780 Americans are currently ineligible to vote by state law. As Figure 2 and the statistics in Table 3 show, state-level disenfranchisement rates in 2020 varied from 0.18 percent in Massachusetts (and zero in Maine and Vermont) to more than 8 percent in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

These figures reflect significant but uneven change in recent decades. Although half of the states have scaled back voting restrictions for people with felony convictions, the others have retained such restrictions and their disenfranchised populations have increased commensurate with the expansion of the criminal legal system.

The cartogram in Figure 3 provides another way to visualize the impact of these policies by highlighting the large regional differences in felony disenfranchisement laws. Cartograms distort the land area on the map under an alternative statistic, in this case the total felony disenfranchisement rate. Southeastern states appear bloated because they disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who have completed their sentences. In contrast, the many Northeastern and Midwestern states shrink because they limit disenfranchisement to individuals currently in prison, or not at all. This distorted map thus provides a clear visual representation of the great range of differences in the scope and impact of felony disenfranchisement across the 50 states.

Figure 3. Cartogram of Total Disenfranchisement Rates by State, 2020

Trends Over Time

Figure 4 illustrates the historical trend in U.S. disenfranchisement, showing growth in the disenfranchised population for selected years from 1960 to 2020. The number disenfranchised dropped from approximately 1.8 million to 1.2 million between 1960 and 1976, as states expanded voting rights in the civil rights era. Many states have pared back their disenfranchisement provisions since the 1970s (see Behrens, Uggen, and Manza, 2003; Manza and Uggen, 2006). Nevertheless, the total number banned from voting continued to rise with the significant expansion in U.S. correctional populations since 1970.The total disenfranchised population rose from 3.3 million in 1996 to 4.7 million in 2000, to 5.4 million in 2004, to 5.9 million in 2010, and 6.1 million in 2016. Today, we estimate that 5.2 million Americans are disenfranchised by virtue of a felony conviction. Roughly the same number of voters will be disenfranchised in the 2020 presidential election as in 2004.

Figure 4. Number Disenfranchised for Selected Years, 1960-2020

Variations By Race and Ethnicity

Disenfranchisement rates vary widely across racial and ethnic groups; felony disenfranchisement provisions have an outsized impact on communities of color. Ethnicity data in particular have not been consistently collected or reported in the data sources used to compile our estimates, so our ability to construct these estimates is limited. This is especially the case for Latinx populations, who now constitute a significant portion of criminal justice populations. Race data on criminal justice populations is more complete, and we have used the most recent data available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop a complete set of state specific disenfranchisement estimates for the African American voting eligible population.

Figure 5 shows the corresponding rates for 2020. African American disenfranchisement rates in Tennessee and Wyoming now exceed 20 percent of the adult voting age population.

Figure 5. African American Felony Disenfranchisement Rates, 2020

Data are limited regarding ethnicity, but more states are now consistently reporting Latinx or Hispanic ethnicity for justice-involved populations. We therefore compiled estimates for these populations but present them with the caveat that these figures likely undercount the true rate of Latinx disenfranchisement in many states. Although data on Latinx ethnicity in correctional populations are still unevenly reported, we can conservatively estimate that over 560,000 Latinx Americans (over 2 percent of the voting eligible population) are disenfranchised. In Arizona and Tennessee over 7 percent of the Latinx voters are disenfranchised due to felony-level convictions. Even with the likely undercounting, 34 states report a higher rate of disenfranchisement in the Latinx population than in the general population. Many of those disenfranchised today were convicted at a time when the Latinx population was significantly smaller than it is today. Because the overall U.S. Latinx population has quadrupled since 1980, we anticipate that Latinx disenfranchisement will comprise an increasing share of those disenfranchised due to felony convictions in coming years.

Figure 6. Latinx Felony Disenfranchisement Rates (Available Data), 2020

Sex and Disenfranchisement

To estimate the percentage of disenfranchised male and female voters, we compiled national prison, probation, parole and jail statistics, and prepared a national life table to obtain the post-sentence sex distribution. By this method, we estimate that approximately 1.24 million women are disenfranchised in 2020, making up over one-fifth of the total disenfranchised population.

Recent Changes

The total disenfranchisement rate in 2020 (2.27 percent) shows a small decline relative to the figures our team reported in 2016 (2.47 percent) and 2006 (2.42 percent), due in part to state changes in disenfranchisement policy and population growth. Our estimates for African American disenfranchisement in 2020 are also lower than those for 2016: 6.26 percent, versus 7.44 percent in 2016, 7.66 percent in 2010, and 8.25 percent in 2004. For the 2020 estimates, we used the American Community Survey to obtain denominators for the African American voting eligible population. For 2020, 2016 and 2010, we used race-specific recidivism rates (resulting in a higher rate for African Americans) that more accurately reflect current scholarship on recidivism. This results in a higher rate of attrition in our life tables, but produces a more conservative and, we believe, more accurate portrait of the number of disenfranchised African Americans. Though lower than in 2004, the 6.26 percent rate of disenfranchisement for African Americans remains 3.7 times greater than the non-African American rate of 1.69 percent.

Given the size of Florida’s disenfranchised population, we also note our estimation procedure for this state. Based on a state-specific recidivism report in 1999, our 2004 estimates included much higher recidivism rates for African Americans in Florida (up to 88 percent lifetime). A 2010 report from the Florida Department of Corrections shows that rates of recidivism for African Americans are now more closely in line with the national rates we apply to other states. In light of this more recent evidence, we apply our national rate of recidivism for African Americans (up to 73 percent lifetime) to Florida’s African American population with prior felony convictions from 2005 onward.

As detailed in the notes to Table 1, there have been numerous significant changes in state disenfranchisement policies since our last report in 2016. States have advanced a diversity of reform measures. Perhaps most notably, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 in 2018, which should have reenfranchised most people who have completed their sentences (with some offenses exempted). We estimate that almost 900,000 people who owe outstanding legal financial obligations (fines, fees, and restitution) remain disenfranchised. Wyoming in 2017 restored voting rights after five years to people who complete sentences for first-time, non-violent felony convictions. Governors in Iowa (2020) and Kentucky (2019) issued executive orders restoring civil rights to people who had completed their sentences, and the New York governor (2018) restored voting rights to people on parole. In Virginia (2016), Governor McAuliffe issued an executive order that would have reenfranchised 200,000 people, but was invalidated by the Virginia Supreme Court, which held that such reenfranchisement required individual action. After this decision, Governor McAuliffe signed individual restorations for 173,000 people. California restored voting rights to people serving time for felony convictions in jails (though not prisons) in 2016. Colorado and Nevada authorized voting rights for residents on parole in 2019. Maryland (2016), Louisiana (2019), and New Jersey (2019) reenfranchised people serving probation and parole terms.

Voting laws will exclude 5.2 million Americans from participating in the 2020 election, but some reforms are opening up our democracy to voices long silenced. Free the Vote introduces you to four Americans eager to vote and gain their rights of citizenship.

Restoration of Voting Rights

States typically provide some limited mechanism for disenfranchised persons to restore their right to vote. These vary greatly in scope, eligibility requirements, and reporting practices. It is thus difficult to obtain consistent information about the rate and number of disenfranchised Americans whose rights are restored through these generally administrative procedures. Nevertheless, we contacted each of the appropriate state agencies by email and phone and compiled the information they made available to us in Table 2. These numbers provides some information about the frequency of state restoration of rights – outside of law changes regarding eligibility – in those 11 states that disenfranchise beyond sentence completion.

We subtracted all known restorations of civil rights (including full pardons) from each state’s total disenfranchised post-sentence figure. Even accounting for these restorations, it is clear that restoration of voting rights is rare in most states. The states reporting the greatest number of restorations since 2016 — Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia – have had executive orders that re-enfranchised large categories of people who had completed their sentences. Indeed, some states have significantly curtailed restoration efforts since 2016, including Florida. Table 2 shows restorations of voting rights from 2016 to the most recent year available (for restorations in previous years, see Uggen, Larson, and Shannon, 2016).

Table 2. Restoration of Voting Rights Since 2016 in States that Disenfranchise Residents Post-Sentence
 State  Restorations
 Alabama  3,493
 Arizona  13
Delaware  1,676
 Florida 3,250
Iowa 45,376
Kentucky 181,361
Mississippi 26
Nebraska 44
Tennessee 3,4154
Virginia 195,371
Wyoming 0
3. In Arizona, the 1 restoration listed is a pardon by the state’s governor. We caution that our data may be incomplete. Restoration of voting rights may be processed at the court level in Arizona but, to our knowledge, these data have not yet been compiled at the state level.
4. Number of restorations in Tennessee was updated on 10/26/20, based on information provided by the Tennessee Secretary of State’s Office. We incorporated these figures in revised estimates in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, updating the overall numbers to take account of the new restoration figures making a proportionality assumption to distribute these restorations across racial and ethnic groups. In the course of these updates, we also made a minor adjustment in how we treat Tennessee convictions prior to 1973, but these have a very small impact on the 2020 numbers.


This report provides new state-level estimates on felony disenfranchisement for 2020 in the United States to update those provided by Uggen, Larson, and Shannon (2016) for previous years. In Tables 3 and 4, we provide state-specific point estimates of the disenfranchised population and African American disenfranchised population, subject to the caveats described below.

Despite significant legal changes in recent decades, about 5.2 million Americans are disenfranchised in 2020. When we break these figures down by race and ethnicity, it is clear that disparities in the criminal justice system are linked to disparities in political representation. The distribution of disenfranchised individuals shown in Figure 1 also bears repeating: about one-fourth of this population is currently incarcerated, and about 4 million adults who live in their communities are banned from voting. Of this total, 1.3 million are African Americans.

In addition, the prison, probation, parole, and jail populations we report for 2020 are also estimated, based on year-end 2018 data and the recent state-specific trends in each state. In other work, we have presented figures that adjust or “bound” these estimates by assuming different levels of recidivism, inter-state mobility, and state-specific variation.

With these caveats in mind, the results reported here present our best account of the prevalence of U.S. disenfranchisement in 2020. These estimates will be adjusted if and when we discover errors or omissions in the data compiled from individual states, U.S. Census and Bureau of Justice Statistics sources, or in our own spreadsheets and estimation procedures.

It’s clear that disparities in the criminal justice system are linked to disparities in political representation.


We have taken care to produce estimates of current populations and “post-sentence” populations that are reliable and valid by social science standards. Nevertheless, readers should bear in mind that our state specific figures for the 11 states that bar individuals from voting after they have completed their sentences remain point estimates rather than actual head counts.

State Estimates of Disenfranchisement

Click here for state estimates of disenfranchised individuals with felony convictions.

Click here for state estimates of disenfranchised African Americans with felony convictions.

Click here for state estimates of disenfranchised Latinx Americans with felony convictions.


Behrens, Angela, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza. 2003. “Ballot Manipulation and the ‘Menace of Negro Domination’: Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-2002.” American Journal of Sociology 109:559-605.

Chung, Jean. 2019. “Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer.” Washington: The Sentencing Project.

Langan, Patrick and Mark Cunniff. 1992. “Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89.” NCJ 134177. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Love, Margaret, and David Schlussel. 2020. Who Must Pay to Regain the Vote? A 50-State Survey. Collateral Consequences Research Center.

Manza, Jeff and Christopher Uggen. 2006. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Manza, Jeff, Clem Brooks, and Christopher Uggen. 2004. “Public Attitudes toward Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68:275-86.

McLeod, Morgan. 2018. “Expanding the Vote: Two Decades of Felony Disenfranchisement Reforms.” Washington: The Sentencing Project.

McNeil, Walter. 2010. “2009 Florida Prison Recidivism Study: Releases from 2001 to 2008.” Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Research and Data Analysis.

Porter, Nicole D. 2010. “Expanding the Vote: State Felony Disenfranchisement Reform, 2010.” The Sentencing Project, Washington DC.

Shannon, Sarah, Christopher Uggen, Jason Schnittker, Melissa Thompson, Sara Wakefield, and Michael Massoglia. 2017. “The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People with Felony Records in the United States, 1948-2010.” Demography 54:1795-1818

Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza, and Melissa Thompson. 2006. “Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 605:281-310.

Uggen, Christopher and Jeff Manza. 2002. “Democratic Contraction? The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States.” American Sociological Review 67:777-803.

Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, and Sarah Shannon. 2016. “6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016.” Washington: Sentencing Project.

Uggen, Christopher, Sarah Shannon, and Jeff Manza. 2012. “State-level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010.” Washington: Sentencing Project.



Related Posts
September 08, 2022

How Many People Are Spending Over a Decade in Prison?

Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D. and Ashley Nellis, Ph.D.

In 2019, over half of the people in U.S. prisons – amounting to more than 770,000 people – were serving sentences of 10 years or longer – a huge jump from 2000.

September 06, 2022

Formerly Incarcerated People and Advocacy Organizations Urge Reform of US Bureau of Prisons