Framers and Criminal Voting Rights

Upvote:4

Fascinating question. Revocation of voting rights of convicted Criminals is based on "civil death", which is explained further at PROCON. British common law gave the government the right to revoke voting rights. I'm not aware of the framers explicitly addressing the issue, but they did discuss a more democratic franchise. My recollection is that they discussed this in terms of the ideal of democratic franchise, not in terms of civil death. I doubt that the topic came up.

1764 - 1776: Colonial Lawmakers Debate over Status of Voting as a Right or a Privilege Lawmakers in the British colonies of North America debate whether voting is a right or a privilege under the law. Voting, like many other civil rights, can be denied to convicted criminals under the ancient concept of “civil death” and the English legal concept of “attainder” (see 1607-1776). History and social policy professor Alexander Keyssar will later write that the various colonies have “no firm principles governing colonial voting rights, and suffrage [voting] laws accordingly were quite varied.… In practice, moreover, the enforcement of application of suffrage laws was uneven and dependent on local circumstances.” Many American colonists argue that voting is a privilege and not a right, and thusly can be granted or taken away by the government. Keyssar will write: “Yet there was a problem with this vision of suffrage as a right… there was no way to argue that voting was a right or a natural right without opening a Pandora’s box. If voting was a natural right, then everyone should possess it.” Eventually, the Founders define voting as a constitutional issue. Keyssar will write, “Implicit in this treatment was the notion that suffrage requirements ought to be durable and difficult to change.” PROCON, 10/19/2010 quoted in History Commons Entity Tags: Alexander Keyssar Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties

More post

Search Posts

Related post