Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to give the client in-depth insight into the various processes we went through while creating this project. This report will cover our purpose for this research project, the methods we used, what we did with the data, the data analysis, key findings, figures, and what we’ve concluded from all the data we’ve compiled. With our findings, we will be able to help many with the task of combating disenfranchisement.

Introduction

An estimated 450,000 to 470,000 individuals in TN are being denied their right to vote due to incarceration (Uggen, Larson, Shannon, and Stewart, 2022), disproportionately affecting African American voters (King and Erickson, 2016; Daniels, 2020; Betts-Gaston, 2022; Manza and Uggen, 2004; Blain, 2003). Research on felony disenfranchisement frequently explores who is affected, the reasons why people are affected, and the implications of disenfranchisement laws regarding discussions on legislature, policy, race and marginalization, historical context, incarceration, and violations of rights. However, there are many gaps in related literature that fail to quantify how felony disenfranchisement impacts elections, especially by location. This project seeks to fill in some of these gaps by investigating how many individuals are disenfranchised, specifically in each county in the state of Tennessee.

Methods

Key Observations

We built the Tennessee county map (see Figure 1) to illustrate the patterns in the voter turnout and compare with the demographics of each county. Then, we charted the incarceration rate by felony type (see Figure 2) to get an estimate of the ratio of individuals who have the possibility of restoring their rights upon release versus those who do not.

Figure 1. Voter Turnout Percentages

In Figure 1, we used ACS US Census data from 2022. This plot shows voter turnout rates by county. As you can see, the percentage never exceeds to 50%. Tennessee has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the U.S. ().

Figure 2. Incarceration Rates by Felony Type

To obtain Figure 2, we used data from the 2022 Tennessee Department of Corrections on the currently incarcerated population by felony type. One of the most immediately apparent observations from Figure 2 is that 101,666 people convicted of a felony are not due to violent crimes. Therefore, 101,666 could have their rights restored upon release were it not for the convoluted rights restoration process, which includes paying off one’s legal financial obligations (LFOs) and restoring one’s gun rights (according to the recent Falls v. Goins case).

Figure 3. Estimate of Potential Voters Based on the offense type of currently incarcerated individuals with felony convictions, Figure 3 estimates which counties would gain the most potential votes. As a reminder, the actual number of potential votes to be gained is much greater due to the fact that about 3/4 of disenfranchised individuals have already served their time.

Figure 4. Estimate of Released Individuals by Felony Type Using the data from the 2022 Tennessee Department of Corrections and building off of Uggen, Larson, Shannon, and Stewart’s (2022) approximation of individuals across Tennessee who are currently post-release, we also estimated the statewide number of individuals who have already been released from incarceration but are still disenfranchised. Figure 4 shows the estimated amount of disenfranchised people across the state either due to violent crimes () or non-violent crimes ().

Figures 5 & 6. African American Population & Voter Turnout

	Logistic Regression
Predictors	Odds Ratios	Conf. Int (95%)	P-Value
(Intercept)	0.67	0.67 – 0.68	<0.001
black pop	1.00	1.00 – 1.00	<0.001
highest income cat [middle income]	1.01	1.01 – 1.02	<0.001
Observations	95

Figures 5 & 6 show through logistic regression that in the state of Tennessee, voter turnout by county varies from 29.3% to 48.4% and does not depend in a statistically significant way on the African American population or income level. On the other hand, it is important to note that very few counties have an African American population over ~20%. This is notable because, although the African American Tennesseans make up only 17% of the state’s population, 40% of them are state prisoners. Additionally, the bar chart above visualizes that there are currently around 100,000 people incarcerated for felonies in the state of TN; the rest of the disenfranchised population have already served their time and have been released.

Figure 7. Income Categories This map shows all Tennessee Counties and color codes them by income category (teal being low income, yellow being middle, no high income counties). The category is determined by taking the income group that takes up the highest proportion of the county.

Figure 8. People of Color in Population & Incarceration Rate In Figure 8, each dot is equivalent to a county. POC stands for ‘person of color’ and is determined via ACS Census Bureau tracts– African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Other. This shows a slightly positively correlated relationship between the number people incarcerated and proportion of people of color in TN counties. In other words, as the number of people of color in a county increases, so does the rate of incarceration. This correlation is not inherently causal, but is worth exploring further.

Figure 9. Poverty in Population & Incarceration Rate In Figure 9, each dot is equivalent to a county. Poverty income levels is determined via ACS Census Bureau tracts– The number of households that make an income below poverty level over the course of 12 months. This shows a slightly positively correlated relationship between the number people incarcerated and the number of households that classify as under the poverty line over the course of the year in TN counties. In other words, as the number of households under the poverty line increases, so does the rate of incarceration. This correlation is not inherently causal, but is worth exploring further.

Figure 10. Percent of Population by Income Category What percent of population is of each income type (low, middle, high) in each county.

Figure 11. Voter Turnout Rates by Percentage, Detailed More detailed percent voter turnout by county.

Figure 12. Incarceration Rates Number of people incarcerated in each county.

Conclusion

We found that there are 101,666 individuals currently incarcerated, and an estimated 330,706 individuals have been released from prison, who may be eligible to regain their right to vote. There is a direct relationship between counties with high incarceration rates and low voter turnout. Counties with high incarceration rates have never exceeded 50 percent in voter turnout, contributing to Tennessee having the lowest voter turnout in the country. Although the data on disenfranchisement is bare, the impact of our research is substantial because it fills the gap in the literature on disenfranchisement.

Admittedly, there are limitations to any argument. Due to the lack of systemic tracking of data on formerly and contemporarily incarcerated individuals, our research has a few caveats. First, we do not know if the Tennessee Department of Corrections data on felon incarceration by county is categorized by the location one is convicted, their street address, or where they are imprisoned. Second, to determine the estimate of possible voters by county, we took a state-wide proportion and generalized it to all counties, which is a rough estimate not necessarily true to reality. Even so, we found that voter disenfranchisement is not discussed enough nor tracked enough. The findings will aid in raising awareness of the issue and the importance of thorough data collection. Additionally, our study highlights the disproportionate impact of disfranchisement on minority communities due to lack of representation by elected officials.

Our work will be used to aid Dr. Franklin, Free Hearts, and the Free the Vote Coalition in their efforts to combat voter disenfranchisement in Tennessee. Our findings will be used in legislative proposals and provided to county governments to underscore the political significance of this issue. Finally, our research serves as academically informed advocacy for legislation to be put in place that leverages votes in support of a new voter enfranchisement/restoration law.

Bibliography

Betts-Gaston, Avalon, Christopher Uggen, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Robert Stewart. 2022. “Disenfranchisement In 2022.” In Locked Out 2022: Estimates Of People Denied Voting Rights Due To A Felony Conviction, 6–10. The Sentencing Project.

Blain, Ludovic. 2003. “One Person, No Vote: Felony Disenfranchisement Strips People Of Color Of Political Power.” In Race, Poverty & the Environment, 10(2): 49–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41554399 (June 20, 2024).

Blessett, Brandi. 2015. “Disenfranchisement: Historical Underpinnings And Contemporary Manifestations.” In Public Administration Quarterly, 39(1): 3–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24372042 (June 19, 2024).

Budd, Kristen, Emma Stammen, and Whitney Threadcraft. 2022. “Tennessee Denies Voting Rights to 450,000 Citizens.” 1–4, The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2023/01/Tennessee-Voting-Rights-for-People-with-Felony-Convictions.pdf (June 19, 2024).

Burm, Pierce. 2023. “How Much Longer Will African Americans Be Disenfranchised?” SUNY Cortland. https://digitalcommons.cortland.edu/rhetdragonsresearchinquiry/14/ (June 19, 2024).

Cottrell, David, Michael C. Herron , Javier M. Rodriguez, and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “Mortality, Incarceration, and African American Disenfranchisement in the Contemporary United States.” In Journal of African American Studies, 23(4): 567-582. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X18754555 (June 19, 2024).

Daniels, Gilda R. 2020. “Felon Disenfranchisement.” In Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America, 146–171. NYU Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1jk0hnr.9 (June 20, 2024).

Goldman, Daniel S. 2004. “The Modern-Day Literacy Test?: Felon Disenfranchisement and Race Discrimination.” In Stanford Law Review, 57(2): 611–655. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40040212 (June 20, 2024).

King, Bridgett A. and Laura Erickson. 2016. “Disenfranchising the Enfranchised: Exploring the Relationship Between Felony Disenfranchisement and African American Voter Turnout.” In Journal of Black Studies, 47(8): 799–821. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26174229 (June 19, 2024).

Manza, Jeff, & Christopher Uggen. 2004. “Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States.” In Perspectives on Politics, 2(3): 491–505. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3688812 (June 19, 2024).

Middlemass, Keesha M. 2006. “Rehabilitated But Not Fit to Vote: A Comparative Racial Analysis of Disenfranchisement Laws.” In Souls, 8(2): 22–39. doi: 10.1080/10999940600680424 (June 19, 2024).

Miles, Thomas J. 2004. “Felon Disenfranchisement and Voter Turnout”. In University of Chicago Press Journals, 33(1): 85-129. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/381290 (June 19, 2024).

Okechukwu, Teddy. 2022. “Disenfranchisement, Democracy, And Incarceration: A Legislative End To Felony Disenfranchisement in United States Prisons.” In University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, 170(5): 1303+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A725120994/AONE?u=tel_a_uots&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=10878735 (June 19, 2024).

Selin, Jennifer L. 2019. “The Best Laid Plans: How Administrative Burden Complicates Voting Rights Restoration Law And Policy.” In Missouri Law Review, 84(4): 999-1036. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/molr84&i=102 (June 20, 2024).

Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Robert Stewart. 2022. “Summary.” In Locked Out 2022: Estimates Of People Denied Voting Rights Due To A Felony Conviction, 15–18. The Sentencing Project.

Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Robert Stewart. 2023. “The Denial of Voting Rights To People With Criminal Records.” In Beyond Bars: A Path Forward from 50 Years of Mass Incarceration in the United States, 1st edition, eds. Kristen M. Budd, David C. Lane, Glenn W. Muschert, and Jason A. Smith, 73–85. Bristol University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.5590542.14 (June 19, 2024).