Felons have not proven that they should be allowed to vote

The argument

The argument treats voting as a privilege that is forfeited by conduct rather than as a right that attaches to citizenship regardless of it. Its premise is evidentiary: by committing a crime, felons have shown something about themselves that was not known before, namely that they are not responsible enough to be trusted with a share in collective decisions. The offence is read as a demonstration of extremely poor moral character, and the claim is that society does not benefit by then allowing a person who has demonstrated it to help determine how everyone else is governed. The second step addresses the obvious objection, that a sentence served is a debt discharged. Proponents answer that a custodial term is a punishment imposed by the state and completed by the passage of time, not an achievement by the person undergoing it. Simply serving a government-mandated sentence does not prove that a person has become morally responsible; it proves only that the sentence has ended. Since what disqualified them was a failure of character rather than an unpaid penalty, the disqualification is not lifted by the penalty being paid. What follows is a requirement of affirmative proof. In order to regain their voting rights, felons should have to prove that they deserve this privilege, and the demonstration has to be of the same kind as the disqualification: evidence about character rather than the mere elapse of time. Proponents suggest the forms such a demonstration might take, including performing community service, maintaining a clean criminal record for a specified period, or presenting character references to the State. The position is therefore not that a felon can never vote again by any route, but that restoration should be earned and individually assessed rather than automatic, with the person who forfeited the privilege bearing the burden of showing that the judgement which removed it no longer holds.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There is no moral character requirement for voting. Many members of society may have poor moral character without being convicted of felonies, and their right to vote is never in question. Judging someone by their past actions, which they have paid for in the eyes of the law, is undemocratic. Additionally, there is no proof that every felon has poor moral character. People may be convicted for any number of reasons: due to poverty or self-defence, or even being wrongly convicted. The criminal justice system is not perfect, and should not be used as an excuse to continually disenfranchise felons.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] There is no 'moral character' test for voting, and to judge felons on this basis is unfair.