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

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less