Voting rights after a felony conviction are restored on four different schedules in the United States: two states — Maine and Vermont — never take the vote away, even from people serving prison sentences; a group of states restores it automatically on release from prison; more require completion of the full sentence, including parole and probation; and a small set imposes additional steps such as repayment of fines or an executive pardon for certain offenses. There is no federal restoration law, and as of 2026 the difference between neighboring states can be the difference between voting in March and waiting years — which is why state law, not federal statute, is the operative text.
Where does the constitutional authority come from?
From Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reduces a state's congressional representation when it denies the vote to male inhabitants "except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." Courts have read that exception as constitutional permission for felony disenfranchisement, and the Supreme Court upheld the practice against racial discrimination claims in Richardson v. Ramirez in 1974, holding that felony disenfranchisement does not violate equal protection merely because it removes voters. That permission is broad but not unlimited: laws enacted or administered with discriminatory intent remain challengeable, and the form of the question in modern litigation is whether a state's restoration scheme — especially its fines-and-fees conditions — functions as an unconstitutional wealth barrier or a discriminatory device. The result is a patchwork, administered mostly by county election offices that verify status case by case.
What are the four approaches?
- Never disenfranchise. Maine and Vermont allow voting from prison by absentee ballot, a policy dating to their founding-era constitutions. The District of Columbia joined this approach for local elections under a 2020 law.
- Automatic restoration on release. States including California — after Proposition 17, approved by voters in November 2020 — Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and others restore the vote when a person leaves prison, regardless of remaining parole or probation. In practice restoration is supposed to be automatic, but re-registration is not: the person must register again, and many never learn they are eligible.
- Restoration after full sentence completion. A larger group, including Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Washington, restores rights once prison, parole, and probation are all complete. Registration afterward is ordinary, though records coordination between corrections agencies and election offices is a documented weak point.
- Additional conditions or case-by-case review. A few states keep waiting periods, require satisfaction of legal financial obligations, or reserve restoration for certain offenses to an executive act. Florida is the prominent case: Amendment 4 in 2018 restored rights on sentence completion for most offenses, and a 2019 state law conditioned restoration on payment of court-ordered fines, fees, and restitution — a combination that produced years of litigation over which obligations trigger the condition.
- Limited permanent disenfranchisement. Mississippi and a small number of others disenfranchise people convicted of specified offenses for life absent a pardon or legislative vote, a scheme that has drawn sustained federal court challenges over its origins and scope.
Related stories: Redistricting After the Census: Who Draws the Lines and When · Who Sets the Primary Calendar, and Why It Keeps Shuffling.
Who counts as having "completed the sentence"?
The answer decides the registration date, and it is less obvious than it sounds. Completion generally includes incarceration, parole, and probation — but not obligations courts increasingly attach separately: victim restitution held by a clerk, court costs that accrue interest, or municipal fines unrelated to the sentence. States split on whether those count. Post-release supervision also ends in different ways — early termination, conversion to unpaid status, or quiet expiry — and a person who believes supervision ended may be wrong in agency records even when right in fact. Election offices handle the uncertainty unevenly: some verify status directly with corrections databases, others put the burden on the applicant's sworn statement, which is why a registration accepted at the counter is not always proof the status question is closed.
How do people actually get restored?
The process is unglamorous and local. In automatic-restoration states, the sequence is: finish the sentence or leave prison, confirm status with the corrections agency or a reentry legal service, then register — online, by mail, or at the DMV under the National Voter Registration Act. No ceremony exists; rights revive in law the day the qualifying event occurs, and the practical barrier is information. National reentry surveys consistently find large shares of eligible people who believe they remain disenfranchised, and election offices in several states now publish eligibility guides for returning citizens. In conditional states the sequence adds documentation: proof of completed supervision from probation or parole, receipts or court records showing obligations satisfied where that is the state's rule, or — in executive-restoration systems — an individual act of the governor or a pardon board that may take months or years.
What about federal and out-of-state convictions?
State law governs, and residency decides. A federal felony conviction carries no federal disenfranchisement — Congress sets none — so the question is which state the person resides in and what that state’s rule says about convictions generally, whether state or federal. Out-of-state convictions work the same way: most states apply their own restoration standard to any felony conviction, though several key off the law of the convicting state, which produces genuinely confusing outcomes — a person restored in one state may remain ineligible after moving until the new state’s rule is satisfied. Misdemeanor convictions almost never remove the vote anywhere; people serving misdemeanor jail sentences remain eligible and can vote by absentee ballot. For anyone with a mixed record, the practical answer comes from the election office of the current state of residence, in writing where possible.
What does this change in practice?
The map keeps moving, and movement runs in both directions. The two-decade trend through 2020 expanded automatic restoration — Florida's Amendment 4 passed with nearly 65 percent of the vote, California's Proposition 17 passed in 2020, and Washington and Minnesota moved to automatic models in 2023 — while court fights over fines-and-fees conditions continue in the states that imposed them. The near-term consequence for voters is procedural, not theoretical: eligibility turns on the current text of one state's code, the completion status of one person's sentence, and correct registration. A returning citizen's checklist is short — confirm the state's current rule, get the completion documentation, register — and the failure mode is almost never a hostile official; it is not knowing that the rule changed.