Public perceptions of felon-juror exclusion: An exploratory study
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895819898518 |
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819898518
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2021, Vol. 21(5) 593 –613
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895819898518
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Public perceptions of
felon-juror exclusion:
An exploratory study
James M Binnall
California State University, Long Beach, USA
Nick Petersen
University of Miami, USA
Abstract
Despite the pervasiveness of felon-juror exclusion, this is the first study to systematically explore
public opinions about the exclusion of convicted felons from voting and jury service. While
results from 815 Californians revealed greater support for felon-voters than for felon-jurors, a
majority opposed felon-juror exclusion and rejected the rationales for doing so. Findings also
revealed stark ideological divides, as conservatives were less likely to support felon-voters or
felon-jurors, and were more likely to endorse the justifications for felon-juror exclusion. As
states debate legislation permitting felon-juror inclusion, our findings indicate that support for
such policies is likely greater than courts and policymakers had previously thought, suggesting
that officials might benefit from re-considering whether this form of civic marginalization actually
represents the will of the people.
Keywords
Convicted felons, felon-juror, felon-voter, political ideology, public opinion
Introduction
Nineteen million Americans have a felony conviction (Shannon et al., 2017). For those
with a felony record, a multitude of legal and regulatory measures curtail their rights and
freedoms in a variety of contexts (Ewald, 2012). Participation in democratic processes is
Corresponding author:
James M Binnall, School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Management, California State
University Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Engineering Technologies, Office 230, Long Beach,
CA 90840, USA.
Email: james.binnall@csulb.edu
898518CRJ0010.1177/1748895819898518Criminology & Criminal JusticeBinnall and Petersen
research-article2020
Article
594 Criminology & Criminal Justice 21(5)
no exception. An overwhelming majority of US jurisdictions limit, and in many instances
eliminate, convicted felons’ opportunities to vote or serve as a juror, statutorily restrict-
ing two essential elements of citizenship (Chung, 2013; Kalt, 2003).
Voting and jury service are pillars of American democracy (Breyer, 2005; De
Tocqueville, 1966). As expressions of shared sovereignty, they are inextricably linked
(Amar, 1995; Underwood, 1992; Young, 2006). The Founders contemplated voting and
jury service in much the same way, suggesting that both serve as vital checks against an
overreaching government (Herbert, 1981a, 1981b). Similarly, the Supreme Court has
long viewed voting and jury service as complementary forms of participatory democracy
(Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 1991; Powers v. Ohio, 1991). Still, while voting and
jury service share historical roots and are each indispensable to American governance,
felon-voter disenfranchisement and felon-juror exclusion receive disparate treatment
from scholars, policymakers, and the media.
Since the contested 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore, 2000), felon-voter dis-
enfranchisement has garnered considerable attention (Pettus, 2013). Multiple scholars
have exposed the racialized origins of the practice (Holloway, 2013), questioned the
professed rationales for excluding convicted felons from the electorate (Manza and
Uggen, 2008), and highlighted the lasting impact of felon-voter disenfranchisement stat-
utes by recalculating past election results to include excluded voters with felony criminal
convictions (Chambers, 2001; Miles, 2004; Uggen and Manza, 2002). In contrast, the
exclusion of convicted felons from jury service has received considerably less scholarly
attention (Binnall, 2009), with only a handful of studies examining the topic to date (for
a review, see Binnall, 2019). Those few studies demonstrate that, like felon-voter disen-
franchisement, felon-juror exclusion racially homogenizes a democratic institution
(Wheelock, 2011), rests on tenuous justifications (Binnall, 2014), might negatively influ-
ence the reintegration of former offenders (Binnall, 2018a; 2018b), and can promote the
“othering” of citizens with a felony criminal record (Binnall, 2018c). Given this lack of
attention, felon-juror exclusion stands as arguably “the last acceptable form of civic ban-
ishment” (Binnall, 2010, pp. 533–534).
To date, several public opinion polls illustrate that most Americans support the rein-
statement of felon-voter rights, especially liberals (Levine and Edwards-Levy, 2018;
Manza et al., 2004; Pinaire et al., 2002). Yet, no prior academic research has measured
public perceptions of felon-juror exclusion. Instead, the public’s view of the civic margin-
alization of convicted felons has largely been limited to the topic of felon-voter disenfran-
chisement. Drawing on a sample of 815 voting-age Californians, the present exploratory
study addresses this gap in the literature by focusing on the following three inquiries: (1)
What does the public think about felon-juror exclusion and how does that compare to their
views on felon-voter disenfranchisement?, (2) Does the public support the two proffered
rationales for felon-juror exclusion—that felon-jurors lack character and harbor inherent
biases?, and (3) Do respondent demographics, especially political ideology, influence
their perceptions of felon-voter disenfranchisement and/or felon-juror exclusion?
Our study begins with an overview of felon-voter disenfranchisement and felon-juror
exclusion, noting the scope of the restrictions, the professed purposes for their imposi-
tion, and the failed legal challenges to their enforcement. Next, we review prior public
opinion research on felon-voter disenfranchisement, paying particular attention to the
To continue reading
Request your trial