YOUR TURN: Allowing prisoners to vote could make NJ safer

Laws that take away the voting rights of people who have been convicted of crimes — also known as felony disenfranchisement laws — prevent nearly 100,000 New Jersey residents from political participation. The majority of these people are under probation or parole supervision, and the remainder are incarcerated.

Dating to the 19th century, laws like these have been used to limit the African American vote, and they have certainly left their mark on communities of color in this state. Despite making up only 14 percent of the state’s population, about half of the those barred from voting are African American. Recently, New Jersey Democrats introduced a bill to change these laws, extending the vote not only to those on probation or parole, but to incarcerated citizens as well. So far, only Maine and Vermont have achieved this. If this bill passes, it will further establish New Jersey as a leader in criminal justice reform. There are many lenses through which felony disenfranchisement can be critiqued; among the most important is that it could be making our communities less safe.

Civic engagement through voting is the kind of conduct we should encourage in people who have run afoul of the law. Ron Pierce, a 59-year-old military veteran and New Jersey resident, argues that voting and other civic behavior has the potential to change people for the better, because it helps them see and care for their communities. In 1986, Mr. Pierce was convicted of a felony, went to prison and lost the right to vote. Now — over 30 years later and after having served his punishment — he’s back in his community and slated to graduate from Rutgers University this year. Still, New Jersey law signals to him that we — his neighbors and fellow residents — don’t trust, accept or approve of him as a participant in our democracy.

Mr. Pierce’s intuition is on to something.

Research shows that nearly all criminals “desist” — that is, stop committing crimes — at some point, and that it is often linked with a change in how they perceive themselves. When those who have stopped offending reflect on their life stories, they often point to and underscore the importance of certain activities that helped facilitate and signal a change in identity from criminal to noncriminal, anti-social to pro-social. Political participation via voting is part of a package of symbolic and consequential activities that helps a person to redefine himself or herself as a contributing, law-abiding citizen.

Although the scientific question of whether voting causes desistance from crime is difficult to study, at least two studies have found that former prisoners who had the chance to vote were significantly less likely to reoffend. The public, of course, benefits greatly when people — especially those who have been violent in the past — stop offending, and to permit voting is perhaps the simplest and least expensive way we can provide an opportunity for positive character change.

But even if voting behavior did not cause desistance, there is no good argument that it does any harm. Is there any plausible scenario in which recently enfranchised voters could have exercised “bad judgment” and used their voting power in a sinister way, say, in the last gubernatorial election?

In the past few years, New Jersey has fundamentally overhauled its bail system and improved evidence-based practices in drug courts, all while our jail and prison populations fell simultaneously with crime rates. We should be proud of these cutting-edge, data-driven policies and the fact that we stand out as a model for other states in the fight to tame mass incarceration and to make criminal justice more fair and effective. Let’s keep up this momentum and encourage voting among those who need a second chance and the opportunity to redefine themselves.

Nathan Link resides in Collingswood and is an assistant professor of criminology at Rutgers University in Camden.