Proposition 17: California’s New Move Against Historical Disenfranchisement

Illustration by Cozette Ellis for Davis Political Review

During the 2020 election, California voters voted yes on Proposition 17, which proposed to restore ex-felons’ right to vote following the completion of their prison term. With a successful passage of close to 60% in favor, it is interesting to observe how this came about. 

At its face, Proposition 17 is simple and to the point. But to understand its origins, constitutionality, opposing arguments, and long-term effects, it is important to first recognize the presence of disenfranchisement in the history of American suffrage. 

In the United States, voting rights entitles itself to a centuries-long history, one filled with political movements, partisan tactics, and the overarching idea of a universal right to suffrage. The United States’ Constitution clearly reflects this; with the addition of the fifteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-sixth amendments, voting rights expanded, irrespective of differences in race, gender, and age. 

Yet, in the midst of enfranchisement, the Constitution set a restriction. The Fourteenth Amendment, one which established citizenship and an equal protection guarantee, set a clause of exemption, allowing the abridgement of voting rights for those in “participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The clause found itself under Supreme Court judicial interpretation, its constitutionality contested, but from the 6-3 decision of Richardson v. Ramirez, the Court determined states hold the right to decide whether ex-felons are enfranchised. 

What does this mean? Against what most Americans believe today, felons and ex-felons can hold the right to vote, all depending on a state’s decision. 

The topic of ex-felons voting though, enters a moral debate. Voting is a universal right, as recognized by the constitutions' of just about all modern demoratic countries, except for the United States. Restoring voting rights for felons and ex-felons would enfranchise more than six million Americans, while also aiding the integration of ex-felons back into society post-sentence.  

The debate for enfranchisement continues, as the history of felony disenfranchisement displays strong racial undertones. Following the Civil War and ratification of the fifteenth amendment, southern states adopted several criminalization methods and restrictions on felony populations under Jim Crow. These laws disportionately affected African Americans’ right to vote, with this racial history still present in today’s criminal justice system. Former Jim Crow law states hold the most restrictions on felony voting rights, ranging from disenfranchisement during probation, to needing to apply for a restoration of voting rights, rather than receiving automatic restoration. 

Currently in California, felons and ex-felons hold some voting rights. A 1974 ballot measure allowed ex-felons the right to vote, but only after their parole was complete. Since 2016, those in county jails, but not state or federal, have gained the right to vote. It is clear that California is paving the way to extend voting rights for ex-felons, and Proposition 17 helps to do so. 

Proposition 17 was placed on the ballot through the state legislature as AB-464 and ACA-6. Its appearance in the state legislature involves the work of advocacy groups such as Initiate Justice, but also provides an analysis of partisan ties involved with felony enfranchisement. The authors of the legislation are of the Democratic party, with only two Republican party assembly members voting in favor of the legislation. A partisan influence on felony enfranchisement is difficult to see in California--a predominantly Democratic state--but can be seen in a partisan-tied state, such as Florida. 

In Florida, 1.4 million people have lost their right to vote due to a felony disenfranchisement. A measure passed by voters in 2018 restored these rights, but the Republican-led legislature added provisions to this measure, one of which required payment of prison fines and fees (averaging $1,000) prior to registering to vote. With Florida’s status in the electoral college as a swing state, each vote matters. Demographics place a majority of ex-felons as Democratic voters, which can greatly affect election results. Looking at past presidential elections alone, Donald Trump won by less than 113,000 votes, while George W. Bush won by only 537 votes. There is a clear incentive for Republicans to not support the enfranchisement of ex-felons in order to retain party control in key states. 

The passing of Proposition 17 places California as one of eighteen states granting a restoration of voting rights after release. This not only extends voting rights by granting an estimated 50,000 parolees the right to vote, but also allows ex-felons the right to run for office (with some exceptions). With California as a strong Democratic state, an increase in ex-felons voters will have little to no effect on its electoral college’s status, but shares the possibility of change at a local level. 

This passage aligns with California’s recent actions to restore rights for ex-felons. Earlier this year, California passed and signed into law AB2147, which allows inmate fire crews to become career firefighters following the completion of their sentence. 

California’s trend towards a restoration of rights comes from the prominent work of advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Brennan Center for Justice, pushing for enfranchisement of ex-felons nationwide. In fact, California is only one of many states that have recently expanded enfranchisement for felon populations. It is also plausible that the recent racial and political tension in the United States has introduced a widespread education of systemic racism present within our society. In the United States, African Americans are 5.9 times and Hispanic Americans 3.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. Proposition 16, which failed to pass on the same ballot, held the same intent as Proposition 17: to help restore rights in a racially biased institution. Proposition 16 would have ended the ban on affirmative action by allowing diversity to be a factor in determining admission or hiring. 

With little to no partisan gain, the outcome of California Proposition 17 relied heavily on how voters value the right to vote. With the election over, it will be important to note how the effects of Proposition 17 play out in future voter turnout.