Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Jail presents special challenges for a half-million voters

voting in jail

Inmates at Illinois' Cook County Jail cast ballots in the March primary. A county ordnance requires more access to voting in jails.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The vast majority of states allow those serving misdemeanor sentences in jails to vote. And the Supreme Court ruled back in 1974 that eligible voters being held in jails — those who have been arrested but not yet convicted — could not be denied their right to vote because they were incarcerated.

On any given day, the number of eligible voters locked up by cities and counties ranges from half a million to 700,000, numbers big enough to tip the outcome of close legislative or congressional contests — or even a presidential battleground state.

But in a year in which the coronavirus pandemic has made everything about elections more difficult, this particularly hard-to-reach segment of the electorate is even tougher to reach.


Recently, for example, when a voting rights group sent postcards with election registration and voting information to some incarcerated voters in Arizona for a July primary, officials confiscated the mailings with little explanation, according to Dana Paikowsky, a jail voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for voting rights.

Voting while incarcerated is hard, and the turnout rate among jailed voters is already low. During a pandemic that has further cut off outside visits into jails and prisons — including, in many cases, voter registration drives — the situation has only worsened.

"Jail-based disenfranchisement is a complex system of conditions and factors and laws that make it incredibly difficult for incarcerated people to cast their ballots," Paikowsky said. "Covid-19 has exacerbated all of those problems."

Even in normal times, Paikowsky said there are a variety of hurdles incarcerated voters must overcome to cast largely absentee ballots.

Few jailed voters know they remain eligible to vote from behind bars. Neither do many officials, who Paikowsky said often don't know what obligations they have to facilitate that process. There's little oversight from the states. Nor are there many policies from jail administrators or election officials that clearly explain how to vote from the inside.

And for those jailed after their state's deadline for obtaining an absentee ballot, there may not be another way of voting. This reportedly happened to some Black Lives Matter protesters who were arrested during the wave of demonstrations early this summer, when many states were holding primaries.

"If the state doesn't provide them with an alternative means of exercising that right," Paikowsky said, "then they're just disenfranchised."

Among other solutions to combat this, jails often rely on groups such as the League of Women Voters and the NAACPto run voter registration drives.

"Those efforts are severely hampered if not entirely halted as a result of a pandemic," said Sean Morales-Doyle, senior counsel for democracy issues at the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights group. "You can't go into a jail to register people to vote when you've got a pandemic that hits incarcerated people particularly hard."

Both Morales-Doyle and Paikowsky said the onus to make sure jailed voters can exercise their political rights is on local election and jail officials. They say polling stations should be set up inside the lockups and election officials should work with sheriff's offices, which run most jails, to get jailed people vote-by-mail ballots in time.

"The state takes responsibility for all kinds of things for them because the person is locked up," Morales-Doyle said. "They take responsibility for their health care and their meals, and all the other things that they're constitutionally entitled to. This is another one of the things that they're constitutionally entitled to."

Morales-Doyle pointed to places such as Chicago, where a Cook County ordinance mandates more access to voting in jails, as an example of how the system can improve. The County Jail set up multiple polling centers for the primary in March. Other states have taken additional measures.

To minimize the risk of Covid-19 exposure for presidential election voters, Vermont — one of only two states, with Maine, that allows prison inmates to vote — is also among the handful of states that have decided to send all registered voters a mail-in ballot this fall. And that will include incarcerated registered voters with a prison address. Emily Tredeau, an attorney for the Vermont Prisoners' Rights Office, predicted that because the ballots will be sent out with a postage-paid return envelope, prison turnout will increase this year.

But while some jurisdictions are taking steps to make voting more accessible for pre-trial detainees during the pandemic, Morales-Doyle said many counties and states still have much work to do. He notes how the pandemic has put a spotlight on voting by mail and the hurdles that come with it — especially for people who are effectively quarantined because they're ill or have been in close contact with infected people.

"That's always been the case for people in jail that they face all those obstacles and then some," Morales-Doyle said. "We should use this renewed focus to shine a light on and pay more attention to the people who are both experiencing the brunt of the pandemic from a public health perspective and the highest obstacles when it comes to casting a ballot. Those are people who are currently in custody."

After the Arizona voting postcards were confiscated, one jailed person was connected with the Campaign Legal Center, which arranged for him to get an absentee ballot. But after the confiscation, which meant he didn't have the information from the postcard about voting, he said he felt intimidated. He didn't end up voting in the July primary.

"That situation shows, in order to even get a ballot, you might have to be an agitator," Paikowsky said. "In order to be able to use that ballot, you need access to lots of information and resources. It's something that can be incredibly difficult for people who are incarcerated."


Read More

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs at a rally, one reads, "Trump is not above the law."

Protesters gather at a Nobody Is Above the Law rally protesting President Trump's interference in the Mueller investigation on November 08, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Larry French/Getty Images

The Double Standard Presidency: When We Watch Leaders Act Above the Law

Americans are told that no one is above the law. Yet every day, they watch a president behave in ways that would get any ordinary citizen fired, disciplined, confronted, or held accountable — and they watch some Americans excuse it. What makes this moment even more striking is that critics across the political spectrum, including conservatives, now warn that the presidency is operating on a dangerous double standard. This is not a partisan concern. It is a constitutional one. And it is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

For generations, the Constitution has provided guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, oversight mechanisms, and limits on executive authority — designed to prevent any leader from functioning above the law. The framers feared concentrated power more than anything else. They believed that the presidency must be constrained not only by written law but by norms of restraint, dignity, and respect for institutions. Those norms held for centuries because presidents understood that the office was larger than any individual, and Congress understood that oversight was not optional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos differ sharply in how much their identity shapes their daily lives, according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center’s 2025 National Survey of Latinos. The survey shows that Latino immigrants are far more likely than U.S.-born Latinos to say their identity is central to who they are, and that it influences their experiences in the United States. Pew researchers Gabriel Piña, Mark Hugo Lopez, Sahana Mukherjee, Dalia Fahmy, and Alexandra Cahn report that the divide reflects differences in cultural connection, lived experience, and generational distance from immigrant roots.

Pew’s analysis finds that Latino immigrants are significantly more likely to say their origins are central to their identity, while U.S.-born Latinos — especially those in the third generation or higher — are less likely to feel that connection. The report notes that “U.S. Hispanics are divided on whether their identity helps or hurts them in America,” with some respondents describing their Latino identity as a source of pride and connection, and others saying it is tied to discrimination or barriers.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.

Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

Keep ReadingShow less