Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Disenfranchising people in prison cannot be justified

Opinion

disenfranchising people in prison
Marcia Straub/Getty Images

Boutros is the community organizing manager at Chicago Votes Action Fund. Desrosiers, a first-generation Haitian American, is the organization's policy associate.

It was late May in Springfield, and the Illinois Capitol saw more action than it had in the previous five months. Lawmakers and advocates alike rushed to tie up loose ends and pass crucial legislation before the May 31 deadline. Among the scene of suits, middle-aged lawmakers and an array of advocates were two 20-something Black and Brown lobbyists for Chicago Votes. If our identities themselves didn’t set us apart, our Gen Z interpretation of professional attire did.

We were just 20 votes away from advancing, from the House to the Senate, a bill that would restore voting rights to people currently in Illinois prisons. Between conversations with lawmakers and staffers, we spotted a representative who had yet to confirm his stance on the bill. We approached him and asked for his support, to which he replied, “I believe if you break the social contract, you should not have the right to vote.”

Hearing that justification immediately struck a chord within us. Disenfranchising people in prison on the basis of the social contract theory is a flawed argument that assumes the state is upholding its end of the deal. It’s not.


Social contract theory argues that the government guarantees certain rights and privileges in exchange for people obeying the government’s laws. It is an imaginary contract we all “signed” the moment we were born or stepped foot on U.S. soil.

But the state never provided these things to begin with and we have all been gaslighted and fooled into believing it is providing all these magnificent things for us. This is because if you are poor, of color, from an immigrant community, not a cis-white male, you probably are not receiving equal protection of the laws.

Let’s use incarceration as an example. According to the Bill of Rights, the state must guarantee several protections, including freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to a jury of one’s peers, freedom from excessive bail, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments. The government must guarantee these protections regardless of race.

Yet, in the United States, the average bail for someone charged with a felony is $10,000, costing the average incarcerated person eight months of income. That’s excessive bail. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, Black people are more likely than white or Latinx people to be the target of a traffic stop. Furthermore, while drug usage and distribution is consistent among races, Black people are roughly 2.6 times more likely to get arrested for drug crimes. Black and Latinx people are more likely to be excluded from a jury due to the disproportionate incarceration of people of color.

At every stage of the American legal system, the poor and people of color are harmed by the unequal protection and enforcement of laws. Simply put, the social contract is already broken and depriving people the right to vote based on that construct is unjust and racist.

People directly impacted by incarceration already know that they are not and have never been equally protected by the law. For lawmakers to stand on the social contract as a reason to disenfranchise citizens is morally flawed and factually incorrect.


Read More

child reading a book
silhouette of child sitting behind tree during sunset
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

The Future Of Puerto Rico: Consider Needs of The Children

When I entered my second-grade classroom in 1982 at Chicago’s Moos Elementary School, in the heart of the Puerto Rican community of Humboldt Park, I was greeted with “Mirelsie, que nombre bello, de donde tu eres?”

“Mirelsie, what a beautiful name, where are you from?”

Keep ReadingShow less
A solemn portrait of a woman looking down, bathed in dramatic light and shadow from window blinds, emphasizing solitude and deep thought in monochrome.

After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we must confront postpartum mental illness and ask how to better support mothers before tragedy strikes.

Viktoriya Skorikova/Getty Images

The Questions We Should Be Asking About the Lindsay Clancy Case

Three children are dead.

Nothing that follows should ever diminish that heartbreaking reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Flag
People holding an american flag with 1776-2026
Photo by TROY ALLEN on Unsplash

Americans Stay Committed to Democracy as Confidence Declines

The Democracy for All Project, a multiyear collaboration between Gallup and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, continues its effort to understand how Americans experience democracy and how those experiences differ across communities, generations, and political identities. Its September 2026 report, Frustration Rises, Commitment Endures, draws on a survey of 23,683 U.S. adults conducted between April 24 and June 10, 2026, with a maximum margin of sampling error of ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. It is the most extensive annual study of how Americans participate in and perceive the democratic system.

A Public Still Committed to Democracy—But Increasingly Disillusioned

The report finds that Americans remain committed to democracy as an ideal even as their confidence in its performance continues to erode. Two‑thirds (66%) still say democracy is the best form of government, essentially unchanged from last year. Yet assessments of how democracy is functioning have worsened: 56% now say democracy is performing poorly, up from 51% in 2025, while the share who say it is performing well has fallen to 19%. Much of this shift comes from Republicans and Republican‑leaning independents, whose views have moved closer to the more critical assessments long held by Democrats and other independents.

Keep ReadingShow less
Classsroom
empty classroom with desks and chalkboard
Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash

Who Gets a Seat?: Florida’s New Bans on Undocumented Students in Public Higher Education

Each year, roughly 8,000 undocumented students graduate from Florida high schools. In 2026, Florida became the newest state to pass a regulation prohibiting this population from enrolling in state public colleges and selective universities. In June 2026, Florida State Board of Education passed Rule 6A-10.0240, which requires all 28 Florida College System institutions to certify admitted students as citizens of the United States or have lawful presence. In September 2026, a separate state board extended a similar ban to Florida’s most selective public universities.

Throughout the United States, there are three states that have historically upheld similar barring policies: Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from all public colleges and universities, while Georgia bars them only from its most selective public universities. Florida’s restrictions are administrative rules and regulations, not state laws passed by the Legislature. Similar bills died in committee during Florida’s 2026 legislative session.

Keep ReadingShow less