# Could Congress restore suffrage for felons in federal elections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 25, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278 "2017-12-25T19:28:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/1 "2017-12-25T19:28:44Z")
Back in 1970 Congress passed a law requiring states to allow 18-20 to vote in all elections (the voting age being 21 in most states). In Oregon v. Mitchell the Supreme Court ruled that while Congress couldn’t lower the voting age for state & local elections it could lower the voting age in federal election (ie for Congress or Presidential electors). Enforcing this would’ve been an expensive & logistical nightmare for states (they would’ve needed to maintain 2 separate voter rolls), but it became a moot point when the 26th Amendment was quickly ratified next year. Could Congress do something similar regarding voting rights for convicted felons, say pass a law requiring states to allow felons to vote in federal elections once they’ve served their sentences? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/2 "2017-12-25T21:38:53Z")
From what I understand, Congress has total authority to regulate how federal elections are conducted, provided they don’t violate the Constitution. The practical reason why they won’t is because it would deter voting in state and local elections. Red states could easily turn it to their advantage by having the state and local elections at different sites or on different days, or even doing something as simple as asking voters to select which ballots they wanted on a form when they entered the polls. The amount of votes Democrats could gain from enfranchising felons(not a sure thing, BTW, as no real studies have been done on felon voting preferences) would be dwarfed by state and local losses by those races turning into low turnout affairs. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/3 "2017-12-25T22:00:07Z")
There is no such thing as a “federal election” when it comes to voter eligibility. Eligibility is a state function, regardless of who is on the ballot. While you may vote for president, senator, or representative at a particular election, your eligibility to vote in the election [is based on your residence and that state’s election laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States#Eligibility). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/4 "2017-12-25T22:06:49Z")
In practice you’re right, but in theory Congress can actually decide eligibility for federal elections: > **[Oregon v. Mitchell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell)** > > Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a Supreme Court case which held that the United States Congress could set voting age requirements for federal elections but not for local or state elections. The case also upheld Congress's nationwide prohibition on literacy tests and similar "tests or devices" used as voting qualifications as defined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. > Congress had passed the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 requiring all states to register citizens between the age... However, due to the 5-4 decision and the majority opinion not actually being a majority opinion, this might not be a firm precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/5 "2017-12-25T23:34:54Z")
Then congress could reinstate the voting rights act voided by SCOTUS a few years ago with respect to federal elections. Wouldn’t that be a mess? ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/6 "2017-12-26T00:50:20Z")
Almost all states already do: > [@](#): > > Voting as an Ex-Offender > > In all but two states, voting age citizens convicted of a felony are barred from voting for some period of time. Laws vary in each state. While many states restore voting rights to individuals automatically after they exit jail or prison, others permanently disenfranchise people with a past felony conviction or require they petition the government to have their right restored. > > This is a short up-to-date state guide to voting for ex-offenders. For more, visit the resources on the right. > Overview > > Voting rights retained while incarcerated for a felony conviction in: > > **Maine and Vermont.** > > Voting rights restored automatically upon release from prison in: > > **The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah.** > > Voting rights restored automatically once released from prison and discharged from parole (probationers can vote) in: > > **California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York.** > > Voting rights restored automatically upon completion of sentence, including prison, parole, and probation in: > > **Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.** > > Voting rights restoration is dependent on the type of conviction and/or the outcome of an individual petition or application to the government in: > > \*\*Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wyoming. > \*\* > Voting rights can ONLY be restored through an individual petition or application to the government in: > > \*\*Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia. > \*\* > > [http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-...n-ex-offender/](http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-...n-ex-offender/) ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/7 "2017-12-26T00:58:54Z")
better link > **[Voting Rights for People with a Felony Conviction - Nonprofit Vote](https://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/voting-as-an-ex-offender/)** > > (Last updated August 2021. This page is currently being refreshed. For more current rulings as they relate to voting rights restoration please visit the National Conference on State Legislatures Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons page) In all... ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/8 "2017-12-26T01:45:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In practice you’re right, but in theory Congress can actually decide eligibility for federal elections: > > [Oregon v. Mitchell - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell) > > However, due to the 5-4 decision and the majority opinion not actually being a majority opinion, this might not be a firm precedent. Yes, I think this is one of those opinions that gets read only to resolve the actual issue. Age limits in federal elections can be set by Congress, period. No other justice joined Black’s opinion; there were two different 4-justice opinions that addressed state and federal powers more generally. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/9 "2017-12-26T02:36:36Z")
The 4 justices who thought that the federal government can use the 14th amendment to regulate state and local elections in regards to AGE seems like pretty extreme judicial activism to me. It almost seems like they wanted to interpret the 14th amendment much as the interstate commerce clause is interpreted: to give the federal government nearly limitless power. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/10 "2017-12-26T19:38:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The 4 justices who thought that the federal government can use the 14th amendment to regulate state and local elections in regards to AGE seems like pretty extreme judicial activism to me. It almost seems like they wanted to interpret the 14th amendment much as the interstate commerce clause is interpreted: to give the federal government nearly limitless power. Expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment is pretty much a universal thing now. See recent 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, for example. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/11 "2017-12-26T19:40:47Z")
Expansive interpretation of equal protection and due process, yes. Expansive interpretation as far as federal government powers over the states go is another matter entirely. Ruling for the federal government in the Oregon case would mean that the federal government could control California housing policy, or state occupational licensing laws, since those laws have disparate effect on minorities. There would really be no policy area left to state and local governments. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/12 "2017-12-26T19:57:58Z")
It _was_ an expansive interpretation of [the] equal protection [clause]. It’s not like they just said “14th Amendment is my cite!” or something. > [@](#): > > The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. And yes, the federal government can control housing policy in California. That’s what the Fair Housing Act does. Congress hasn’t generally meddled in state occupational licensing laws because it hasn’t found systemic equal protection violations that it felt needed to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/13 "2017-12-26T20:13:05Z")
Well if Congress can void state occupational licensing laws they should probably go ahead and do it. Both left and right wingers who care about the overuse of licensing regulations have seen it as a state level battle, but if one act of Congress can fix it, why not? Same for California’s zoning laws which make housing so expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/14 "2017-12-27T14:32:55Z")
They can’t override _anything_ using their 14th Amendment powers. Only laws which deny equal protection or due process. If Idaho refused to grant optometry licenses to blacks or Muslims, Congress might get involved. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-restore-suffrage-for-felons-in-federal-elections/805278/15 "2017-12-27T15:36:39Z")
The laws I mentioned have a disparate effect on minorities. And young people, since that was the issue in the Oregon case rather than race.