Additional Resource
As part of the Ash Center’s ongoing work examining the legal, political, and policy implications of advancing jail-based voting, Aaron Rosewood and Tova Wang examine the statutory basis for jail voting in each state.
Under the U.S. Constitution, all qualified citizens have the “unquestionable” right to vote. However, hundreds of thousands of eligible voters across the United States still face limited access to this fundamental right. On any given day, more than 500,000 Americans are held in jail for pretrial detention or misdemeanor offenses. Unlike Americans in prison, who are generally being held for felony convictions that disqualify them from voting, the bulk of people in American jails have not been convicted of any disqualifying crime. Nevertheless, those who are incarcerated on an election day encounter substantial barriers to voting in almost every state.
Our research aims to highlight the barriers voters in state and local jails face when trying to exer- cise their voting rights as well as opportunities for states to improve access to voting for these citizens. To that end, our team evaluated laws in all 50 states with two focuses: first, assessing states’ adoption of key policies that facilitate voting from jail, and second, identifying the states whose policies fail to meet the fundamental threshold of ensuring incarcerated voters’ rights.
For the purposes of this report, we hold establishing a polling place within the jail and allowing voters to cast their ballots in person as the ideal standard for providing voting rights to the jail population. While we acknowledge the unique challenges posed by in-person voting in jails, multiple cities in the United States have recently demonstrated that it is both possible and deeply meaningful for voters.
The following pages contain the results of our research. We begin with a series of representative state profiles. Each profiled state represents a different set of prevailing legal conditions that influence the possibility of voting from jail. In some, existing law provides a sturdy foothold for efforts to create in-person jail voting. In others, promoting incarcerated voters’ rights will involve changing obstructive laws. Still others leave the choice up to individual jurisdictions, making the fate of jail voters dependent on county or municipal leadership. We hope that these profiles provide insight into the practical implications of the data we have gathered, benefiting both voters and advocates.
The bulk of the report consists of summaries of the relevant features of each state’s legal code. For each state, we provide a summary of the effect of current laws on jailed voters’ access to the franchise. We then provide citations to the sections of the state code that either enable or restrict jailed residents’ ability to vote, whether in person or by mail. We have also attempted to highlight occasions where non-statutory state policies have a significant impact on jail voting. That said, our focus is on the statutory basis for jail voting in each state, and our findings should be read with an awareness that laws on the books do not always reflect the lived experience of incarcerated voters.
Podcast
Princeton University Professor Kim Lane Scheppele, who studies the nexus of autocracy and constitutional democracy, joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss the recent resounding electoral defeat of Hungary’s longtime authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, and its potential ripple effects.
Podcast
The relationship between Silicon Valley and the Democratic Party has undergone a dramatic shift over the past decade, with many tech leaders moving away from their once-strong political alignment. This special episode of Terms of Engagement explores what drove that change and what it means for the future of democracy, political power, and the influence of technology elites.
Podcast
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Troy Edwards, who was a leading prosecutor in the case of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, joins Terms of Engagement to discuss the Trump Administration’s move to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and what it means for the future of the Department of Justice and the rule of law.
Commentary
Allen Lab Fellow Hillary Lehr convened a Voter Experience Summit at Harvard’s Ash Center in March, bringing together 25 cross-sector experts to rigorously map the voter journey. This essay explores how that collaborative process could lay the groundwork for new interventions to understand and improve the experience of voting for all.
Additional Resource
After Neoliberalism: From Left to Right brought together hundreds of leading economists, political scientists, journalists, writers and thinkers from across the political spectrum to explore and debate emerging visions for the future of the political economy.
Panel videos below.
Commentary
Allen Lab Affiliate Benjamin A. Barsky examines alternative emergency response programs — arguing for a democratic model of public safety governance in which responses to nonviolent incidents are shared across government and civil society rather than dominated by police.
