Know the research, know the survey data, know the legal landscape and know the history: Those were the big takeaways for reporters covering felony disenfranchisement from an hourlong webinar on Oct. 29, co-hosted by The Marshall Project and The Journalist’s Resource at Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
Nicole Lewis, engagement editor at The Marshall Project, talked about the history of disenfranchisement, and the difficulties people who have been disenfranchised for felony convictions have in becoming re-enfranchised.
Lewis also discussed topline findings from the third round of The Marshall Project’s first-of-its kind political survey of incarcerated people, which reached more than 54,000 people behind bars from 45 states and the District of Columbia. Incarcerated people lean Independent, the survey found, and support for former president Donald Trump is strong inside prisons and jails, despite his party attempting to roll back voting rights for people with felony convictions.
“People are always a little shocked to find that Trump is a big hit for our respondents,” Lewis said. “Many people said, particularly white men, that they would vote for Trump if given the chance. I think the Trump factor represents one of the most interesting things to try and get our heads around to report out.”
As senior editor for economics and legal systems at The Journalist’s Resource, which aims to bridge the gap between academia and the news media, I discussed recent research on felony disenfranchisement and why it’s important for reporters to include academic researchers in their source lists.
And Marshall Project data editor David Eads gave a walkthrough of the survey data and showed reporters how to use the analysis to write local stories. Local reporters can easily search the data for state-level results, and The Marshall Project is also providing the Investigate This! story toolkit, a free resource for reporters to dive into the politics of people who are incarcerated.
Keep reading for more insights from Lewis, Eads and me on those four takeaways — and check out the full video below if you weren’t able to attend.
1. Know the research
States in recent years have increasingly offered opportunities to those convicted of felonies to vote again, and academic researchers have begun studying the real world outcomes of disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement. For journalists covering felony disenfranchisement, peer-reviewed academic papers can provide context, story ideas and researchers are often more than happy to talk to reporters on the record.
Here are brief summaries of the three papers discussed during the webinar and why journalists should know about them. Learn more about the research in our explainer.
A 2022 study in Health Affairs finds that felony disenfranchisement is relatively higher in states where older Black populations also exhibit higher rates of depressive symptoms and difficulty performing everyday tasks, such as using a telephone, shopping, bathing, dressing and getting in and out of bed. This paper is a good reminder of the unforeseen consequences of policy decisions. Namely, that two seemingly unrelated things — in this case, felony disenfranchisement and health outcomes later in life — can be linked.
Another study, published in 2022 in The Journal of Politics, looks at state-level elections held in 2018 across 17 states and finds it unlikely that if everyone incarcerated for felonies could vote and did vote, it would have swayed elections that year. This may not hold true for every election, but it’s an example of research journalists can use to inform their reporting on claims about felony disenfranchisement — such as that allowing people convicted of felonies to vote while in prison would change election outcomes.
Finally, a 2019 paper in Policy Studies examines political efficacy among people disenfranchised for felony convictions who have their voting rights restored. Political efficacy refers to “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process,” according to foundational research. The author surveyed 98 people in Virginia who had been disenfranchised and found restoration of voting rights made them feel their “vote makes a difference” and that they were qualified to serve on a jury.
“Regardless as to whether citizens choose to exercise their voting rights, the act of restoring rights alone causes citizens to feel more empowered, more capable, and to be more likely to seek out opportunities for participatory engagement in the future,” the author concludes.
Need help interpreting academic research or coming up with questions for researchers? Reach out to Clark Merrefield at The Journalist’s Resource.
2. Know (and use!) the survey data
The Marshall Project’s 2024 survey provides previously unseen insight into the political leanings of incarcerated people across the U.S. Journalists at several news outlets have already used the data to do local stories. The Houston Chronicle published a piece that digs into the data, reporting that a “strong majority of almost 1,300 prison and jail inmates across Texas said they supported former President Donald Trump in the upcoming election,” writes staff writer Matt deGrood.
Wisconsin Examiner reporter Frank Zufall also recently used the survey results to explore the political leanings of incarcerated people in that state. West Virginia Watch investigative reporter Amelia Ferrell Knisely cited the data in a piece about many people in West Virginia in jails being unaware that they’re eligible to vote. The Oklahoman reporter Jordan Gerard covered the survey results from people incarcerated in Oklahoma, and Lewis was interviewed on WBEZ Chicago about the findings broadly.
Get to know the data in your coverage area with the Investigate This! story toolkit, which includes a free header image, expert sources and ready-to-use quotes from incarcerated people surveyed by request.
Need more help using or understanding the data? Reach out to Marshall Project data editor David Eads.
“You can pop on the horn with us or you could interview me or Anna Flagg, the other analyst on the project, Nicole Lewis, we’re all available to talk to you through your story,” Eads said.
The survey data can also be used after the 2024 election to tell local stories about what efforts were made — or not — to provide access to voting in jails. In general, people held in jail prior to their trial are eligible to vote. The Marshall Project is hosting a training session in mid-November for local journalists interested in covering the experience of incarcerated voters in jails. Email them if you want to join!
3. Know the legal landscape
As with many topics related to the law, individual experiences will vary depending on the state someone is in. The National Conference of State Legislature offers an updated collection of state laws on felony disenfranchisement.
Some of the strictest states indefinitely deny the right to vote to people convicted of certain felonies, and nearly every state curtails voting rights for people who are incarcerated for a felony. States tend to vary in how and when they allow people convicted of felonies to regain the right to vote.
Since the 1990s, about 2 million people with felony convictions have regained the right to vote and most of the legislative changes and ballot initiatives that restored those voting rights have had bipartisan support, Lewis explained. But simply being eligible to vote doesn’t mean people do vote.
“Barriers exist everywhere,” Lewis said. “Just because you are legally eligible does not mean that people do register, and there are so many reasons for this — from simply not being notified to the actual election paperwork not having the correct information to probation and parole officers not having correct information.”
In some states, Republican lawmakers have created additional obstacles. Take Florida, for example. After voters decided to restore voting rights for some people with felony convictions after their release from prison, lawmakers instituted an additional hurdle, deciding that people can’t vote until they’ve paid their fines and fees to the courts.
But there’s no centralized system in Florida for finding out what those fines and fees are, Lewis said, meaning it can be a huge lift for those who have served their time to pay what they owe and then exercise their voting rights as citizens.
4. Know the history
The roots of disenfranchisement extend to ancient Greece, Lewis explained.
“If you violated social norms it was common to be able to take away some of your right to participate in society,” in Greece, she said.
During the pre-Revolutionary period in the U.S., “felons were disenfranchised by the web of laws and practices that limited voting to those viewed as making positive contributions to society, whether through property holding or wealth, or expressions of moral virtue,” according to a 2024 paper in the journal Studies in American Political Development.
Post-Civil War, felony disenfranchisement began to take on a markedly racial aspect, with some state lawmakers openly debating how to limit Black political power, Lewis said.
Knowing the history of disenfranchisement matters because its effects are felt today.
“The criminal justice system disproportionately affects people of color and Black people in particular,” she added. “So Black people are disenfranchised at much, much higher rates than white folks in this country.”
Expert Commentary