This commentary argues that community organizing among citizens with felony convictions may, combined with other factors, reduce the civic degradation of custodial populations in the future. It summarizes a critical case of the restoration of voting rights for probationers and parolees in Rhode Island via a state referendum to identify implications for engaging and sustaining felons in political activity.
BarkerVanessa. 2009. The politics of imprisonment: How the democratic process shapes the way America punishes offenders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
BowersMelaniePreuhsRobert R.2009. Collateral consequences of a collateral penalty: The negative effect of felon disenfranchisement laws on the political participation of nonfelons. Social Science Quarterly90 (3): 722–43.
3.
BruchSarah K.FerreeMyra MarxSossJoe. 2010. From policy to polity: Democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens. American Sociological Review75 (2): 205–26.
4.
BurchTraci. 2014. Mass imprisonment and political participation: Evidence from North Carolina. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
5.
CampbellMichael C.2007. Criminal disenfranchisement reform in California: A deviant case study. Punishment & Society9 (2): 177–99.
6.
CohenCathy. 1999. The boundaries of blackness: AIDS and the breakdown of black politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
CohenCathy. 2004. Deviance as resistance: A new research agenda for the study of black politics. Du Bois Review1 (1): 27–45.
8.
ConnJason Belmont. 2005. Felon disenfranchisement laws: Partisan politics in the legislatures. Michigan Journal of Race & Law10 (2): 495–539.
9.
CoyleMichael. 2003. State-based advocacy on felony disenfranchisement. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
10.
DaganDavidTelesSteven M.2014. Locked in? Conservative reform and the future of mass incarceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
11.
JusticeBenjaminMearesTracey L.2014. How the criminal justice system educates citizens. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
12.
KatzensteinMary FainsodIbrahimLeila MohsenRubinKatherine D.2010. The dark side of American liberalism and felony disenfranchisement. Perspectives on Politics8 (4): 1035–54.
13.
KutateladzeBesiki. 2009. Is America really so punitive? Exploring a continuum of U.S. state criminal justice policies. El Paso, TX: LBF Scholarly Publishing.
14.
LeeHedwigPorterLauren C.ComfortMegan. 2014. Consequences of family member incarceration: Impact on civic participation and perceptions of legitimacy and fairness of government. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
15.
ListwanShelley JohnsonJonsonCheryl LeroCullenFrancis T.LatessaEdward J.2008. Cracks in the penal harm movement: Evidence from the field. Criminology & Public Policy7 (3): 423–64.
16.
ManzaJeffUggenChristopher. 2006. Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
MarwellNicole. 2004. Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review69 (2): 265–91.
18.
MeredithMarcMorseMichael. 2014. Do voting rights notification laws increase ex-felon turnout?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
19.
MettlerSuzanneSossJoe. 2004. The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics2 (1): 55–73.
20.
MullerChristopherSchrageDaniel. 2014. Mass imprisonment and trust in the law. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
21.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 2006. Attitudes of U.S. voters toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry policies. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
22.
OwensMichael LeoSmithAdrienne R.2012. “Deviants” and democracy: Punitive policy designs and the social rights of felons as citizens. American Politics Research40 (3): 531–67.
23.
PorterNicole. 2010. Expanding the vote: State felony disenfranchisement reform, 1997–2010. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
24.
Public Opinion Strategies/Mellman Group. 2012. Public opinion on sentencing and corrections policy in America. Washington, DC: Public Opinion Strategies/Mellman Group.
25.
RubinsteinGwenMukamalDebbie. 2002. Welfare and housing—Denial of benefits to drug offenders. In Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment, eds. MauerMarcChesney-LindMeda. New York, NY: New Press.
26.
SchnittkerJason. 2014. The psychological dimensions and the social consequences of incarceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
27.
ShklarJudith N.1991. American citizenship: The quest for inclusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
StolzBarbara Ann. 2002. The roles of interest groups in U.S. criminal justice policy making: Who, when, and how. Criminal Justice2 (1): 51–69.
29.
The Sentencing Project. 2011. Felony disenfranchisement laws in the U.S. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
30.
WacquantLoic. 2009. Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
WeaverVeslaLermanAmy. 2010. Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review104:817–33.
32.
WildemanChristopher. 2014. Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, this volume.
