The Politics of the Restoration of Ex-Felon Voting Rights: The Case of Iowa

Abstract

We investigate how the restoration of voting rights affects the political participation of ex-felons. Our primary analysis uses unique administrative data from Iowa, which changed how ex-felons restore their voting rights in both 2005 and 2011. Prior to 2005, ex-felons had to apply to apply to the governor restore their voting rights. We show that ex-felon turnout increased after Iowa began to automatically restore these rights. Consistent with misinformation being a significant barrier to ex-felons' political participation, ex-felons were more likely to vote if they were informed about this policy change. The application requirement was re-instated for ex-felons discharged since 2011 and we show that this reduced their 2012 presidential election turnout. We conclude by comparing the actual turnout rate of recently discharged ex-felons in Iowa, Maine, and Rhode Island to the turnout rate predicted by Uggen and Manza (2002). This comparison suggests that although restoration procedures can substantively affect exfelon turnout, restoration procedures are not the only reason why ex-felons vote less often than observably similar non-felons.

Voting But for the Law: Evidence from Virginia on Photo Identification Requirements

“…This surprising relationship may be explained by the fact that many who lacked photo identification received an informational mailer from the Department of Elections informing them of the law and instructing them on how to acquire photo identification, as the significant increase in turnout we observe is consolidated in places that received more of these mailings. This is consistent with evidence from other recent studies that find that informational mailings from the state can increase turnout among marginalized and potentially misinformed populations (Gerber et al 2013(Gerber et al , 2015Meredith & Morse 2015).…”

Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?

“…Much smaller differences are observed in North carolina and New Mexico. These point estimates likely understate the actual gender differences because our matching procedure is more likely to miss female matches (Meredith and Morse 2013).…”

“…consistent with this intuition, hjalmarsson and Lopez (2010) find that observable variables only explain about half of the difference in the turnout rates of those who have been incarcerated and those who have never had contact with the criminal justice system. Studies that use public records to estimate the turnout rates of the nondisenfranchised ex-felon population also usually find smaller turnout rates than predicted by Uggen and Manza's models (Burch 2007(Burch , 2011(Burch , 2012haselswerdt 2009;Meredith and Morse 2013 Misinformation may be one reason why actual turnout is less than what Uggen and Manza (2002) predict. Previous research shows that many individuals who have contact with the criminal justice system hold incorrect beliefs about their right to vote.…”

“…Because these traditional ways of measuring registration and turnout are insufficient, we follow the example of recent research, combining information in criminal justice discharge records and state voter files to create our own measures (Burch 2007(Burch , 2011(Burch , 2012haselswerdt 2009;Meredith and Morse 2013). Voter files are databases that contain the name, address, demographic information, and turnout history of all registered voters in a state.…”

Can Incarcerated Felons Be (Re)integrated into the Political System? Results from a Field Experiment

“…In light of this apparent lack of knowledge by former felons about their right to vote, a relevant question is whether seeking to correct these views may increase political participation. Two studies provide contrasting answers (Meredith and Morse , ). Meredith and Morse () compare the participation in 2008 of two groups of Iowa former felons who were both eligible to register and vote: those released prior to July 4, 2005, who were retroactively made eligible to vote, and those released between July 4, 2005, and September 30, 2008, who were both eligible upon release and informed of this right in a letter sent by the governor.…”