Can You Register To Vote From Jail

Eligible, merely excluded: A guide to removing the barriers to jail voting

While people in state or federal prison generally cannot vote, well-nigh people in local jails can, although numerous barriers forbid them from doing so.

past Ginger Jackson-Gleich and Rev. Dr. S. Todd Yeary Tweet this
Press release

Most people in jail¹ are legally eligible to vote, but in practice, they tin't. This "de facto disenfranchisement" stems from numerous factors, including widespread misinformation about eligibility, myriad barriers to voter registration, and challenges to casting a ballot. Below, nosotros explain who in jail is eligible to vote (state by state), discuss the barriers that keep them from voting, and offer recommendations for advocates, policymakers, election officials, and sheriffs to ensure that people in jail are able to vote.

Who in jail tin vote?

Put simply, of the approximately 746,000 individuals in jail on any given 24-hour interval, about have the right to vote.² This is the example for several reasons:

Almost people in jail have not been convicted of the charges on which they are being held (i.e. they are being detained "pretrial"), and pretrial detention does not disqualify someone from voting.
People in jail who are serving post-conviction sentences have typically been convicted of only modest offenses called misdemeanors, and very few states disenfranchise people serving fourth dimension for misdemeanor convictions.
Although some people in jail may be disenfranchised for reasons independent of their current detention (east.chiliad. a prior felony conviction or beingness on probation/parole in a different instance), not all states disenfranchise people on probation or parole (see table below), and the number of people who are in jail while likewise on probation or parole is relatively small.

flowchart explaining restrictions on people voting from jail

In most states, the almost common reasons that people are in jail are not disenfranchising. Recognizing that some readers may want to utilise this table for help in assessing whether individual people in jails tin vote, we thought information technology important to highlight — via the three columns on the right — that other provisions of state law may disenfranchise jailed people for reasons unrelated to their current detention.
Considering the goal of the flowchart and table is to offer a high-level overview, we omit 2 considerations. First, many states also separately disenfranchise for election-police force offenses, but in low-cal of the extremely low incidence of voter fraud in the U.s.a., this overview does not account for that unnecessary complexity. 2d, because every state'south laws vary in complicated and surprising ways, there may exist unique or unusual policies that touch an individual's right to vote; for example, in Oregon felony disenfranchisement takes outcome upon sentencing, not confidence, such that someone convicted of a felony, only not all the same sentenced does not lose their right to vote. And of form, state laws and their interpretation past election officials can alter rapidly, so anyone relying on our enquiry is encouraged to go legal communication from election lawyers in their state.

*Please visit the Sentencing Project's comprehensive primer on this subject for more than data on Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming. For example, in Alabama just fifty specific felonies (involving "moral turpitude") result in disenfranchisement. In improver, but certain felonies are disenfranchising in Mississippi.
	Does the nature of a person's current detention impose barriers on voting eligibility?			Do any prior criminal convictions separately impose barriers on voting eligibility?
	Detained pretrial	Serving misdemeanor sentence	Serving felony sentence	Currently on felony probation	Currently on parole	Prior felony conviction
Alabama	No Bulwark	No Bulwark	Bulwark*	Barrier*	Barrier*	Barrier*
Alaska	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
Arizona	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier*
Arkansas	No Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
California	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
Colorado	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Bulwark
Connecticut	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
Delaware	No Bulwark	No Bulwark	Barrier	Bulwark	Bulwark	Barrier*
Florida	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier*

Georgia	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrierⁱⁱⁱ	Barrier^iv	Barrier	No Bulwark
Hawaii	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier	No Barrier
Idaho	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	No Barrier
Illinois	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
Indiana	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier
Iowa	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier^five
Kansas	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier
Kentucky	No Bulwark	Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier*
Louisiana	No Bulwark	No Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier*	Barrier*	No Bulwark
Maine	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Bulwark	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark
Maryland	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
Massachusetts	No Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier	No Bulwark
Michigan	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark
Minnesota	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
Mississippi	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier*	Barrier*	Barrier*	Barrier*
Missouri	No Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
Montana	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier	No Barrier
Nebraska	No Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier*
Nevada	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier
New Hampshire	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
New Jersey	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark
New Mexico	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Bulwark	Bulwark	Barrier	No Barrier
New York	No Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier*	No Bulwark
Due north Carolina	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	No Bulwark
Due north Dakota	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier
Ohio	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
Oklahoma	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier
Oregon	No Bulwark	Barrier⁶	Bulwark	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Bulwark
Pennsylvania	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
Rhode Island	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
South Carolina	No Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	No Barrier
S Dakota	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	No Bulwark
Tennessee	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark*
Texas	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	No Bulwark
Utah	No Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark
Vermont	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Bulwark	No Barrier
Virginia	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	Bulwark*
Washington	No Bulwark	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	No Barrier
Washington, D.C.	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier⁷	No Barrier	No Barrier	No Barrier
West Virginia	No Barrier	No Barrier	Bulwark	Bulwark	Bulwark	No Barrier
Wisconsin	No Barrier	No Barrier	Barrier	Bulwark	Barrier	No Bulwark
Wyoming	No Barrier	No Bulwark	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier	Barrier*

Barriers that keep jailed voters from voting

Near people in jail are legally eligible to vote, just they are prevented from doing and then by numerous barriers.

Ane of the biggest barriers: confusion about eligibility

I of the biggest barriers to voting in jail is the fact that local election officials often don't know that most people in jail can vote, and information technology's not unusual for such officials to provide incorrect information in response to questions about the consequence.⁸ The spread of inaccurate eligibility data tin also occur when registration forms comprise incorrect, disruptive, or incomplete data about criminal disenfranchisement laws. Given that election officials and election materials tin can be incorrect, it should be no surprise that people working at and detained in jails are often confused about eligibility as well.

Registration-related barriers

Even when someone knows they are eligible to vote, numerous obstacles still stand up in the fashion of doing so, beginning with the myriad obstacles to registering to vote from jail:

Registration Deadlines: In 30 states, people wanting to vote must register days or weeks in advance of Election Day. A person who is incarcerated through the registration menstruation and cannot annals from jail may end up foreclosed from voting.
Voter ID Laws: Some states have strict voter ID laws requiring item forms of identification to register to vote. Not only are people in jail less likely to accept the required types of identification, but when people are arrested, their personal effects — including IDs — are typically confiscated. In addition, government-issued prison or jail ID cards exercise not typically qualify as accustomed forms of identification. Without appropriate identification, jailed voters wishing to register may not be able to do and then.
Limited Access to Registration Forms: Voter registration often requires completion of official forms that may be filled out either online or on paper. Because people in jails typically lack access to the internet and to paper election forms, it can be impossible to submit the required registration documents.
Express Access to Personal Information: Some states require beginning-time registrants to provide their social security number or driver'south license number,⁹ something that many people (especially young people, who may be more than likely to be first-time voters) practice non have memorized.
Jail Postal service Delays: Typically, registration forms must exist received by election offices past strict deadlines, which means that incarcerated people who rely on the jail'due south mail organisation or in-jail volunteers for submission of their forms must complete required registration paperwork even further in advance.
Common Safeguards Can't Be Accessed from Jail: Mechanisms that enable people to cheque their registration status and ensure that they accept been designated an eligible voter are essential to protecting against improper or illegal disenfranchisement (both within and outside of jails). Withal, utilization of such mechanisms can be difficult (or impossible) from jails, where people lack internet access and where the cost of phone calls may be prohibitively expensive.

Ballot-casting barriers

Many of the above-mentioned barriers to registration too ascend in the context of really casting ballots. These include early on deadlines (particularly with respect to absentee ballot procedures); requirements that IDs be presented or that absentee ballots be notarized; incarcerated people's limited access to voting forms, election resources, and their own personal data and/or documents; and the difficulty of confirming that a election has been received and/or accepted by ballot officials. Delays in jail postal service may as well impede the timely casting of ballots.

Barriers to obtaining and submitting ballots also include:

For-Cause Absentee Voting Policies: In 16 states,^ten voting by absentee ballot is only permitted when a voter claims one of a short list of recognized justifications. In almost of these states, detention in a jail is non a recognized justification, so in these states people in jail are de facto barred from casting a ballot.
Fright of Compromised Ballot Secrecy: Where "all non-privileged outgoing mail may be read by custody staff," incarcerated people may rightly worry about the secrecy of any ballots mailed from jails. Additionally, because about sheriffs are elected and will be on the ballot periodically, bug of election secrecy may too generate concerns nigh retaliation or ballot tampering that dampen turnout in jails.
Limited Access to Voter Guides: Many states (and some counties) publish voter guides that are sent to all residential addresses. However, these guides may not be distributed to jails, either considering policies exercise non require such distribution or because such policies are not enforced.

Population churn in jails

The average jail stay is between three and four weeks, with many people incarcerated for much shorter periods of time (leading to high population-turnover rates, a phenomenon known as jail churn). Consequently, some people may register to vote while free, but end up in jail on Election Day (or for the elapsing of the voting period). Conversely, some people may register to vote in jail, just end up released prior to casting a ballot. In either scenario, a person's registration data volition not lucifer their status on Election Twenty-four hour period, and these people often find that they are unable to vote.

Solutions

The specific piece of work that needs to be done to enable eligible voters to cast their ballots from jail depends on the state in which they are located and the laws of that country. Merely in all states, at that place are opportunities for a wide range of actors to contribute to enfranchisement efforts.

Strategies for advocates

Practice outreach to local election officials and sheriffs almost the voting rights of people in jail, as discussed in this helpful advocacy guide from the Campaign Legal Center.
Review election resources (east.thou. websites and official brochures) to ensure that articulate, authentic, and comprehensive information virtually all forms of criminal disenfranchisement laws is included; see this ACLU written report for a summary of common registration-form issues and potential solutions.
Bear voter registration drives in jails, and empower jailed people to vote in jail-based polling stations (equally in Chicago), or to access absentee ballots where in-person voting is not available (as this physician is doing in South Carolina and this California Public Defender's Office is doing in English and Spanish).
- Evidence shows that where people directly assist incarcerated voters with registration and voting, voter turnout far exceeds instances in which ballots are just dropped off at a jail; in addition, in-person drives can help to remove barriers related to literacy and language accessibility.
Because some states allow pre-registration of 16- and 17-yr-olds, and considering some juvenile facilities may agree people 18 and older, advocates may desire to include juvenile facilities in their efforts.
Provide training for any election workers or volunteers that will visit the jail to ensure compliance with jail rules and cultural competency in interacting with incarcerated people.
Monitor/provide outside support (eastward.k. hotlines) for jail-voting processes, as customs groups take done in several states (see the instructive examples discussed by the Sentencing Project's written report "Voting in Jails" for more detail).
Identify, publicize, and modify laws, policies and practices that impede jail voting, as advocates have done in places like Arizona, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts.
Utilize public records requests to collect information about existing jail-voting policies and procedures, as well equally most the number of ballots existence requested and bandage past people voting from jail.

Strategies for leaders of state legislative and executive branches

Designate jails to be formal voter registration agencies nether Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA),¹¹ as Rhode Island has washed with its Department of Corrections and Washington, D.C. has done with its jails.
Require coordination between jail and election officials to ensure that eligible jailed voters take an opportunity to register and vote (as Colorado has done).
In states where a voter must show ID to register or cast a ballot, states can abolish such ID requirements or add IDs provided by federal, state or local correctional facilities to the list of valid forms of identification.
In states that require voters to register days or weeks prior to Election Solar day, states can alter their laws to friction match those in 19 states and D.C. that currently allow same-day registration on Election Solar day.¹²
In the xvi states that require a specific reason to vote absentee, states tin change their laws to allow "whatsoever reason" absentee voting or add incarceration equally an accepted reason.
Permit jailed voters to request and submit absentee ballots up through Election Day.
Appropriate funds for postage, and so that registration forms, election applications, and ballots submitted by post (either from jails or from any address) may exist mailed without a postage.
Where a jailed person has requested that an absentee ballot exist sent to the jail, allow anyone released from jail prior to receiving their ballot to submit a "registration affidavit" at their local polling station and vote there. (Many states already permit people who requested, just did non receive, absentee ballots to vote in person using registration affidavits.)
Let unhoused people to apply the jail or a prior shelter as their registration address.

Strategies for election officials

Ensure all state and local ballot staff know the law then that they do not incorrectly discourage jailed individuals from voting by spreading misinformation.
Include articulate, authentic, and comprehensive information about felony- and misdemeanor-based disenfranchisement laws anywhere information almost eligibility is provided (eastward.k. on ballot websites and in registration pamphlets/brochures).
Include information most jail voting in election manuals.
Work with sheriffs to make jails polling stations (ideally voting machines/ballot boxes will be present and available at the jail on Election Day—rather than at a date beforehand—to maximize the number of people who can apply them).
Work with sheriffs to coordinate registration and voting via absentee ballots from jails; this should include providing opportunities for jailed voters to be notified of and to cure any deficiencies on their registration forms, election applications, ballot envelopes, etc.
Where cyberspace access is non available in jails or where online registration is non available generally, allow registration forms or requests for absentee ballots to exist submitted via scanned email or fax (or work with sheriffs to provide paper forms at the jail).
Consider operating from the presumption that people in jail can vote past providing voting materials to all incarcerated people, as has been washed in some prison contexts (while also being mindful that penalties may be for those who vote while ineligible and that confusion about eligibility can be widespread).
If a government bureau produces a voter guide, ensure distribution to jailed voters.

Strategies for sheriffs

In states where jails have not yet been designated as formal voter registration agencies nether Section 7 of the NVRA, local jails can provide voter registration materials within the jail and at various points during the admission and/or release process.
- This may include providing registration and election information on closed circuit televisions, bulletin boards, kiosks, or wherever general information is shared.
Work with ballot officials to brand jails polling stations (equally noted in a higher place: ideally voting machines/ballot boxes will exist available at the jail on Ballot Twenty-four hours—rather than on a appointment beforehand—to minimize the chance that someone arrested later on ballot boxes have been removed but prior to Election Day would be disenfranchised).
Work with election offices to coordinate registration and voting via absentee ballots from the jail; jails can also give election-related mail expedited handling to ensure compliance with ballot deadlines.
In places where anyone registering voters must be trained, sheriffs can ensure that their staff members are so trained.

Conclusion

The barriers facing incarcerated voters are numerous, and legislative and executive leaders have often been tedious to address them. In improver, the difficulties of voting from jail are compounded past the fact that jail voting falls within the purview of 2 distinct authorities: local sheriffs (who oversee and operate jails) and election officials (who behave responsibility for implementing voting procedures). A lack of cooperation (or downright obstruction) on the part of either of those actors tin—and often does—brand voting incommunicable for many jailed people who retain the right to cast a ballot.

Righting the wrong of jail-based voter disenfranchisement will not be a simple job, and the nature of the challenge will vary from state to state. However, advocates, policymakers, election officials, and sheriffs tin all play a office in protecting the rights of eligible voters by combatting confusion nigh voting rules, eliminating unnecessary voting restrictions, and addressing the myriad logistical difficulties that prevent people in jail from casting ballots. Successful reforms will enable thousands of eligible voters to brand their voices heard and will affirm that the voice of every voter matters.

Acknowledgements

Ginger and the Prison Policy Initiative give thanks the numerous experts who provided their insights during the preparation of this report, including Alec Ewald at the University of Vermont, Brenda Wright and Naila Awan at Demos, Leah Aden at NAACP LDF, Dana Paikowsky at the Campaign Legal Heart, Dr. Brenda Williams at Family Unit, Inc, and Jen Dean at Chicago Votes. The writer also thanks Peter Wagner, Emily Widra, Wanda Bertram, and Wendy Sawyer for their editorial guidance and technical support.

Rev. Dr. Yeary and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition give thanks the members of its boards of directors and the network of staff professionals, religion leaders, and community partners who stand up in solidarity in the fight for the franchise. We especially thank Rev. Jesse Fifty. Jackson, Sr. for the clarity of moral voice, conscience, and vision in advancing the crusade of equal access to the ballot box.

About the authors

Ginger Jackson-Gleich is Policy Counsel at the Prison house Policy Initiative, where she is primarily focused on advancing the Initiative's campaign to end prison gerrymandering. Ginger has been involved in criminal justice reform for over 15 years and joins us in the interim flow betwixt clerkships. As a Harvard Police force School student, Ginger interned at the Criminal Law Reform Project of the ACLU, the Civil Rights Partitioning of the Department of Justice, and the Alameda Canton Public Defender'due south Part. She too represented depression-income clients with the Harvard Defenders and the Criminal Justice Institute and served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

The Reverend Southward. Todd Yeary, J.D., Ph.D. is the Senior Vice-President and Chief of Global Policy of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Inc., and serves as Senior Pastor of the Douglas Memorial Customs Church in Baltimore. Dr. Yeary is also an offshoot professor in the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore, pedagogy courses on Race, American Government, American Politics, and Community Building Strategies. Dr. Yeary holds a Bachelor's Degree in Direction from National-Louis University, a Master of Divinity Caste from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, the Graduate Document in African Studies from Northwestern University, the Physician of Philosophy Degree (Ph.D.) in the area of Organized religion in Society and Personality from Northwestern, and the Doctor of Law (JD) from the Academy of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

About the Prison house Policy Initiative

The non-profit, non-partisan Prison house Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 to expose the broader damage of mass criminalization and spark advancement campaigns to create a more just society. Alongside reports like this that help the public more fully engage in criminal justice reform, the system leads the nation's fight to go along the prison system from exerting undue influence on the political procedure (known as prison gerrymandering) and plays a leading part in protecting the families of incarcerated people from the predatory prison and jail telephone industry and the video visitation industry.

About the Rainbow Push button Coalition, Inc.

The Rainbow PUSH Coalition (RPC) is a multi-racial, multi-outcome, progressive, international membership organization fighting for social change. RPC was formed in Dec 1996 by Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. through the merging of two organizations he founded earlier, People United to Serve Humanity (Push, 1971) and the Rainbow Coalition (1984). The organization works to protect, defend, and gain civil rights by leveling the economic and educational playing fields, and to promote peace and justice around the world.