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

An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less
Muslim woman in headscarf and hijab prays with her hands up in air while holding prayer beads in mosque.Religion praying concept

What the fight over The Meadow, formerly EPIC City, reveals about pluralism, Pew data on Muslim Americans, and the duties of both sides.

magical_light/Getty Images

Freedom Without Friction: Navigating Identity and Public Life in Pluralistic America

America runs on a deal nobody signed but everyone is expected to honor. Host communities open their schools, their courts, and their markets. Newcomers, in turn, fold into the civic mainstream instead of asking their new country to rearrange itself around them. It isn’t written into any statute, yet it has been the quiet engine behind two and a half centuries of messy, mostly successful assimilation.

That deal is being argued out right now on a stretch of prairie forty minutes northeast of Dallas.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large dollar sign surrounded by code, number sequences in green ink.

As Congress weighs AI risk after researcher Jacob Coxon's viral warning, an opinion piece argues fear of 'losing control' can entrench Big Tech's power.

Anton Petrus/Getty Images

The Business Value of Losing Control of AI

A warning that artificial intelligence may escape human control can make its developers look more important, not less. For companies trying to establish AI as the defining technology of the century, even the possibility of catastrophe can increase the perceived significance of what they are building.

That possibility is now moving rapidly from Silicon Valley into Washington. On Sept. 16, senators were scheduled to gather for a private bipartisan briefing organized by Sen. Bernie Sanders on what he called the “extraordinary dangers” of advanced AI. The meeting followed the resignation of Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, whose warning that people building frontier AI genuinely believe the technology could kill humanity drew more than 100 million views. Coxon had spent three years working on pretraining at OpenAI and Anthropic.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump on a large TV screen behind a woman wearing a statue of liberty inspired crown.

President Donald Trump speaks at the RNC midterm convention in Dallas on Sept. 9, 2026.

How Anti-Bribery Laws Apply to Trump’s Promise of $5,000 Payments if Republicans Keep Control of Congress

In his keynote address to the Republican midterm convention on Sept. 9, 2026, President Donald Trump promised that if Republicans retain control of Congress in November, he would authorize a US$5,000 payment to every American adult.

Trump’s offer seems to run afoul of federal laws, which make it a crime to pay for votes.

Keep ReadingShow less