I make this argument based on the plain meaning of the 13th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment 13 provides, in pertinent part:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (emphasis added :D)
So, by it’s plain meaning, this amendment encapsulates the concept that involuntary servitude is lawful as a punishment for a crime “where the party shall have been duly convicted”; i.e. it is obviously constitutional to lock somebody up against their will if it’s because they’re in prison.
Amendment 15 provides, in pertinent part:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
By it’s plain meaning, the U.S. Constitution tells us that a person’s right to vote shall not be abridged (distinct from denied, meaning it encapsulates more than prohibition, and also contemplates restrictions, such as a requirement for the petition of rights) because of one’s prior condition of servitude. Given that the 13th amendment defined involuntary servitude as “going to prison”, the Constitution plainly prohibits a diminution of voting rights because someone is an ex-con.
Lest you think this is a spurious issue, the ACLU confirms that my home state of Florida requires our voters to petition for a return of their voting rights, if they are a paroled felon. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
No, I’d say that by its plain meaning, the 13th amendment says that it’s legal to put somebody to work on a chain gang and force them to work when they’re in prison.
Historically, the franchise was among the rights that one lost, permanently, by committing and being convicted of a felony. I’m certain this has been addressed before by the courts, but of course I don’t have any case cites. Many states – North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama are three besides Florida I know of – provide that felons forfeit the franchise, and must petition after years of exemplary behavior for its restoration. It was the case in New York until 1970, when the provision was repealed, as well.
I rather like your line of argument, and look forward to seeing it anylized.
One minor nitpick: the 13th did not define involuntary servitude as going to prison, it simply identified that as one form of I.S. that was not abolished by its adoption.
Involuntary servitude is not defined as “going to prison” either by the 13th amendment itself or historically. Prison labor i.e. chain gangs would be a form of involuntary servitude, but prison itself is not since a prisoner is not forced to work in every type of prison system. So, while involuntary servitude in the form of chain gangs or required labor might be a feature of prison, this servitude in and of itself is not the reason that states require a petition process for reclaiming voting rights from a released convict.
This is better illustrated by the fact that in a state that forever terminates a convicted felon’s voting rights, it is the conviction itself that serves as the catalyst for the termination not a sentence of imprisonment. In such a state, whether the defendant was sentenced to prison or probation would not matter for the purposes of terminating their right to vote.
Yes. And historically, it was a way to recreate a form of widespread subjugation against poor, impoverished Blacks.
Thank you. Me too. It’s been rolling around my head for a while.
I slightly disagree. I believe it defined the one form of I.S. that was not abolished by its adoption. Ergo, the 15th amendment must be referring to this constitutional form, since all others were abolished by amendment 13.
If a felon, while in prison, makes license plates, or works in the kitchen peeling potatoes, or has to black top the roof, and for that effort, gets money to spend in the commissary, has he been subject to involuntary servitude? Is that condition factually distinguishable from the fact that he was confined in prison while doing so?
Your argument is wrong. The 15th Amendment says you cannot be denied the right to vote based on any previous condition of servitude. That does not mean that you cannot be denied the right to vote based on being convicted of a felony, even if you also have had a previous condition of servitude.
I agree. The OP’s argument is a non-starter. Unless, of course, he can cite some legal precedent equating “being convicted of a felony” and “involuntary servitude”.
Well, wouldn’t that depend on whether the work was voluntary or not? I don’t think whether someone is paid or not determines whether the servitude is voluntary. If the prisoner has no choice but to perform the work, it is involuntary. I’m not sure what the situation is in prisons in the U.S. as to whether prisoners can be compelled to work.
As a total aside, I worked recently on some Holocaust reparations matters, where a new scheme was established to compensate ghetto residents for ‘voluntary’ work performed in the ghetto. One of the hardest parts was explaining to the survivors that the definition of voluntary was a legal term, and didn’t in any way imply that by performing that work, they had been choosing to aid the Nazis.
Ok, let’s say I commit and a jury convicts me of some felony – aggravated littering in the first degree, or something. However, the judge sees that I am deeply remorseful and decides my punishment shall only be a fine, no time in the lock-up whatsoever.
Since I was not put in a position of servitude – no time served, remember – does that mean under the OP’s argument that it would be perfectly constitutional, under a plain reading of those amendments, for me to be stripped of the right to vote?
Doesn’t it seem like an absurdity that the OP seems to argue that a convicted and released murderer would be obliged to regain his voting rights, but I could be permanently disenfranchised because of my crime for which I did not serve any time?
Interesting point. But – at age 25, Joe is convicted of grand larceny, sentenced to five to ten years imprisonment aty hard labor, serves seven, is paroled, serves out his parole, and is now 35 and a free man, his debt to society paid. Presuming that the 13th Amendment makes his sentence a permissible form of involuntary servitude, is he now not a person with a “previous condition of servitude”? Or are you understanding it to mean only prior to the amendment’s adoption?
He is now a person with a previous condition of servitude, but the reason for denying him the right to vote is not because of that previous condition. The rationale for the voting prohibiting is the conviction of a felony crime, NOT the previous condition of servitude.
ETA: And I think it is pretty clear that the purpose of adding the “previous condition of servitude” to the 15th amendment was so that the states couldn’t get cute and pass laws disenfranchising former slaves. Saying that it applies to modern day prisoners would be a stretch.
Yes, he is, but he’s not just a person with a previous condition of servitude. The 15th Amendment doesn’t grant general immunity to being denied the right to vote, only immunity to being denied the right to vote because of your previous condition of servitude. Joe is being denied the right to vote because he was convicted of committing a sufficiently serious crime. It has nothing to do with the form of punishment he was sentenced to.
Person 1 is in prison and is forced to make license plates for money to spend in the commissary. He’s being subjected to involuntary servitude, because he’s being forced to work.
Person 2 is in prison and is forced to make license plates for free. He’s being subjected to involuntary servitude, because he’s being forced to work.
Person 3 has been convicted of a crime, but instead of prison, is given so many hours of community service. He’s being subjected to involuntary servitude, because he’s being forced to work.
Person 4 is in prison, but he’s not made to work. They just lock him up in his cell. He’s not being subjected to involuntary servitude, because he’s not being forced to work.
The OP is wrong, as he is reading parts of the Constitution in isolation and conveniently ignoring parts of that document that directly address this concern. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads thus:
I added the bolding. Clearly denying the franchise for conviction of a crime is constitutional - states that do so may be making a wise or unwise policy choice but are not violating the Constitution.
A number of Dopers are telling me I’m wrong, and I’m ok with that. It wasn’t my intention of staking my (sparse) reputation on it. This was just one of those things that rattled in my brain after the many controversies of the 2000 election (where some voters were said to be disenfranchised because they were improperly being included in felon voting rolls); if I’m wrong, so be it.
I find it interesting that the amendments, clearly crafted to give the freed slaves the right to vote, added additional language to cover another form of status- that of the forced laborer. I wonder if this was meant to protect former POW’s from the Civil War, too?
I think that as I alluded to above, the drafters of those amendments could see a southern state passing a law consistent with the new amendment saying that all races could vote, except that no person formerly held as a slave could vote.
Not so fast, says Congress. We will stop you there by inserting this “former condition of servitude” clause. They weren’t quick enough to go for the literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses.
I think that as I alluded to above, the drafters of those amendments could see a southern state passing a law consistent with the new amendment saying that all races could vote, except that no person formerly held as a slave could vote.
Not so fast, says Congress. We will stop you there by inserting this “former condition of servitude” clause. They weren’t quick enough to see the literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses.
