Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote, 13 other states allow voting on release, and then some more restore the right after parole/probation.
Many of the remaining states allow petitioning of the governor to restore the right to vote.
(That felon voting is not particularly problematic in the states where it is allowed can be used as an argument against disenfranchisement, so I think it is good to try to accurately characterize the situation)
Yes, you are right in that most states do have a path to restoring voting rights.
But the fact that it is an issue at all is the problem. A non-violent ex-offender should not have to go through a process of petitioning, or even have to worry about having their voting rights restored at all, when their sentence is completed. Even automatic restoration is not always "sure thing". Florida for example used to have "automatic restoration" but it actually entailed filing with the clemency board and getting approved (although approval was pretty much a guarantee). Since then though, Florida, like some of the other states that have automatic restoration, has changed to add a waiting period and additional approvals. For non-violent felons that complete their sentence there should not be a wait. Using the Florida example, an 18 year old arrested for selling drugs on the street corner. Serves a year in jail. Gets out free/clear (meaning no parole or probation). Has to wait 5 years to have his right to vote restored. That is wrong in my opinion and only makes the situation worse. Disenfranchisement is a much bigger problem than people realize when it comes to elections. There are over 6 million adults in the US that are disenfranchised. Making the number worse is the hodgepodge of state laws across the country that lead to confusion. There are countless numbers above the 6 million that have no clue if they can vote at all, if their rights have been restored, or what is even required to get them restored. Yes, they can get lawyers to figure it out for them, but who is going to pay for that?
The page I linked has resources for each state. Maybe not always sufficiently detailed, but I think ex prisoners in Alaska probably understand what unconditional discharge means.
The point of my reply is that you said and then we tell them they can't vote in elections, which does exactly what it complains about. Hearing that they probably can vote is going to get more people to look into it than overstatements of the disenfranchisement.
I am aware of the link and the laws, I actually run an advocacy group for ex-offenders nationwide, so pretty familiar with this topic.
With Alaska I would beg to differ to some extent. The term "unconditional discharge" simply means no parole or probation. Alaska still has other restrictions though based on the type of felony that was actually committed. So while it may sound simple on the website it becomes convoluted in the actual law.
As for my reply regarding saying they can't vote, I stated that here more as a generalization in the context of this discussion. You are right if you make that statement to an ex-offender it is going to have a negative context, whereas if you tell them they may be able to vote they are more apt to find out how.
The fact remains though that the laws work against, and not for, the ex-offender upon release. My point was simply that we continue to punish through the laws of collateral consequences. If you want to see just how in-depth and convoluted collateral consequences can be, take a look at this site by the American Bar Association:
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Vermont and Maine allow prisoners to vote, 13 other states allow voting on release, and then some more restore the right after parole/probation.
Many of the remaining states allow petitioning of the governor to restore the right to vote.
(That felon voting is not particularly problematic in the states where it is allowed can be used as an argument against disenfranchisement, so I think it is good to try to accurately characterize the situation)