Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 510Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and Democracy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States

Uggen, Christopher, Manza, Jeff·2002·American Sociological Review
DOI 10.1177/000312240206700601
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Universal suffrage is a cornerstone of democratic governance. As levels of criminal punishment have risen in the United States, however, an ever-larger number of citizens have lost the right to vote. The authors ask whether felon disenfranchisement constitutes a meaningful reversal of the extension of voting rights by considering its political impact. Data from legal sources, election studies, and inmate surveys are examined to consider two counterfactual conditions: (1) whether removing disenfranchisement restrictions alters the outcomes of past U.S. Senate and presidential elections, and (2) whether applying contemporary rates of disenfranchisement to prior elections affects their outcomes. Because felons are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor, disenfranchisement laws tend to take more votes from Democratic than from Republican candidates. Analysis shows that felon disenfranchisement played a decisive role in U.S. Senate elections in recent years. Moreover, at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote, and at least one Democratic presidential victory would have been jeopardized had contemporary rates of disenfranchisement prevailed during that time.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/000312240206700601

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Allard Patricia, 1999, Regaining the Vote: An Assessment of Activity Relating to Felon Disenfranchisement Laws.
  2. Australian Electoral Commission, 2001, Frequently Asked Questions.
  3. Beckett Katherine, 1997, Making Crime Pay: The Politics of Law and Order in the Contemporary United States.
  4. Beckett Katherine, 2000, The Politics of Injustice.
  5. Burton Velmer S., 1986, Federal Probation, 51, 52
  6. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1960, America Votes.
  7. Dahl Robert, 1998, On Democracy.
  8. Demleitner Nora V., 2000, Minnesota Law Review, 84, 753
  9. Ewald Alec C., 2002, The Ideological Paradox of Criminal Disenfranchisement Law in the United States
  10. Fellner Jamie, 1998, Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States.
  11. Kousser J. Morgan, 1974, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South.
  12. Lin Ann Chih, 1988, The Social Divide: Political Parties and the Future of Activist Government, 312
  13. Lynch James, 1995, Crime, 11
  14. Manza Jeff, 2002, ‘Civil Death’ or Civil Liberties: Public Attitudes towards Felon Disenfranchise-ment in the United States
  15. Manza Jeff, Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy.
  16. Martinson Robert, 1974, The Public Interest, 35, 22
  17. Mauer Marc, 1997, Americans Behind Bars: U.S. and International Use of Incarceration, 1995.
  18. Mauer Marc, 1997, Intended and Unintended Consequences: State Racial Disparities in Imprisonment.
  19. McMillan Malcolm C., 1955, Constitutional Development in Alabama, 1798–1901.
  20. Miles Thomas J., 2000, Electoral Participation and the Disenfranchisement of Convicted Felons?”
  21. National Commission on Federal Election Reform, 2001, To Ensure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process.
  22. Olivares Kathleen M., 1996, Federal Probation, 60, 10
  23. Page Josh, 2000, Eliminating the Enemy: A Cultural Analysis of the Exclusion of Prisoners from Higher Education
  24. Stuart Guy, 2002, Databases, Felons, and Voting: Bias and Partisanship of the Florida Felon's List in the 2002 Election
  25. Therborn Goran, 1977, New Left Review, 103, 3
  26. U.S. Bureau of the Census., 1948, Statistical Abstract.
  27. U.S. Bureau of the Census., 1986, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 1984 (1992, 1996, 2000).
  28. U.S. Department of Justice., 1989, Correctional Populations in the United States.
  29. U.S. Department of Justice., 1991, Race of Prisoners Admitted to State and Federal Institutions, 1926–1986.
  30. U.S. Department of Justice., 1992, Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986–1989.
  31. U.S. Department of Justice., 1993, Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991.
  32. U.S. Department of Justice., 1996, Civil Disabilities of Convicted Felons: A State-by-State Survey.
  33. U.S. Department of Justice., 1998, Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1998.
  34. U.S. Department of Justice., 2000, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1999.
  35. U.S. Department of Justice., 2000, Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities Series, 1974–1997 [MRDF]
  36. U.S. Department of Justice., 2001, Prisoners in 2000.
  37. U.S. Department of Justice., 2001, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2000.
  38. U.S. Department of Justice., 2002, Prison and Jail Inmates at Mid-year 2001.
  39. U.S. Senate., 2002, Party Division in the Senate, 1789–Present.
  40. Walmsley Roy, 2002, World Prison Population List. No. 116, Research Findings.
  41. Wolfinger Raymond E., 1980, Who Votes?

Cited by

See all 510

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Uggen, C., & Manza, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Uggen, Christopher
ORCID
Venue
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-12
Volume
67
Issue
6
Pages
777-803
ISSN
  • 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-8271
DOI
10.1177/000312240206700601
OpenAlex
W2154084559
Cited by
497
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
63.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
felony disenfranchisement, voting rights, universal suffrage, criminal sanctions, U.S. Senate elections, presidential elections, election results, racial minorities, counterfactual analysis, criminal justice policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/000312240206700601
The paper
Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240206700601

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.