In this op-ed, Phillip Henry explains why people with felonies, both incarcerated and not, should retain their constitutional right to vote.

In the United States, voting rights have had a long and turbulent history. From the women’s suffrage movement to the march on Selma, the right to vote has been something many Americans have had to fight for at great expense. But, according to the basic principles of what it means to be a democracy, this shouldn't be the case. The right to vote should be irrevocable. In a democratic society, it should be an immutable right granted to all citizens.

But currently in the U.S., too many states restrict voting rights for those on parole and probation. And while most states have processes to restore voting rights to ex-offenders, in many states the process can be quite difficult, which can lead ex-offenders to avoid going through the process. This fall, Florida will vote on a referendum that would restore the voting rights of most people with felonies after they fully completed their sentences, including parole or probation, according to the Orlando Sentinel. (People convicted of murder or sexual offenses would still be barred from voting, the Sentinal reported.)

Most prisoners are citizens, and in a democracy, the right to vote is not earned but given to you by your citizenship. It should never be revoked, not under any circumstances. Someone's freedom can be revoked by the committing of a crime, but that should be the extent of the punishment. Prisoners are counted in the census, and they still retain most other rights granted, as provided in amendments to the Constitution. The right to vote should be no different.

Only two states, Maine and Vermont, currently allow prisoners to vote. But the rest of the country should follow suit, because serving a sentence for a crime shouldn’t remove people from voting for policies that may affect their lives when they are released.

Passed in 2016, California's Prop 64 has legalized recreational pot use in the state, and it also allows for the retroactive expungement of most marijuana-related crimes from someone's record. But, according to the Los Angeles Times, the process can "be difficult and expensive." So new legislation was proposed by Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) in January that would "make it easier to have criminal convictions removed from the records of marijuana users, potentially opening more doors to employment and housing," according to the Times.

With the humanity of current and formerly incarcerated people at stake, it’s important to look at the true purpose of our penal system. Is it containment, rehabilitation, or simply unrelenting punishment? While the U.S. makes up only about 5% of global population, U.S. prisoners represent nearly 25% of the world’s incarcerated. Many have blamed the current incarceration situation on the "war on drugs," which began when President Richard Nixon launched it in the early 1970s. It then escalated under President Ronald Reagan and with the Clinton administration's 1994 crime bill. This legislation was marketed and made popular by promising “law and order,” but in actuality, it did very little to reduce crime and instead has been viewed by many as a tactic to incarcerate men of color — particularly African-American boys and men — en masse.

By establishing harsh sentencing guidelines for nonviolent felonies like selling marijuana, which is being decriminalized in many states, legislation like the Clinton crime bill stripped many of their voting rights. This speaks to the unrelenting punishment of our prison system, which apparently tends not to seek rehabilitation, but makes the lives of formerly incarcerated people difficult indefinitely. Many people with felonies lose the right to travel abroad, to purchase firearms, to access public social benefits, and they even may be discriminated against by employers.