Felon disenfranchisement: The legal paradox of an elected felon.

President Trump’s election into office in 2024 emphasized the legal paradox that exists when a country that strips most felons of their right to vote yet votes to elect a felon. In 2024, 170 million Americans were of voting age, yet four million of those Americans were unable to vote. As of 2025, 48 states have laws that bar at least some felons from voting, the exceptions being  Maine and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia. The denial of voting rights is known as felon disenfranchisement. Felon disenfranchisement laws range from only denying voting rights to currently incarcerated individuals to denying voting rights to every felon, including those who are in prison, on parole, on probation, or have completed their sentence.

Luckily, for President Trump, he escaped Florida’s restrictive disenfranchisement law. Florida law provides that a felon who is convicted in a state other than Florida is subject to the voting laws of that state. In President Trump’s case, that would be New York, but New York law only disenfranchises a felon while they are incarcerated for that felony. Since President Trump was unconditionally discharged, he has not been incarcerated, and therefore, was permitted to vote in the 2024 election.

While there is no constitutional provision that explicitly prohibits a felon from holding office, there is also no provision explicitly prohibiting felons from voting. The Fifteenth Amendment, generally known as the “Right to Vote Clause,” provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This Amendment begs the question of whether felon disenfranchisement laws, in a criminal legal system that disproportionately affects people of color, deny and abridge the rights of its citizens to vote.

While President Trump was fortunate, many others are not. Felon disenfranchisement disproportionately affects Black and Latino populations. For example, one out of 22 Black Americans of voting age are disenfranchised, which is three times the rate of disenfranchisement of non-Black people. Furthermore, 1.5% of the voting-eligible Latino population, or approximately 495,000 people, is disenfranchised, a number that is likely underestimated due to unreported or uncounted ethnicity identification. These numbers highlight the shortcomings of the criminal legal system as well as an infringement upon something that most Americans consider to be a core part of democracy.

Felon disenfranchisement laws are justified as a solution to the general distrust of those who commit crimes of a certain turpitude or severity to effectively and responsibly participate in the democratic process. However, these laws mostly find their roots in the post-Civil War era where lawmakers and states acted to pass laws that disproportionately affected Black citizens and their ability to vote.

Interestingly, the United States finds itself in the unique position of having its first president who is also a felon. The irony of President Trump’s election should not be lost on this country. If we can vote a felon into office, we must also advocate for the fair treatment of other less prominent and marginalized felons. If we permit a felon to hold the highest position in our country, should we not at least allow them to vote for such?