It all started with men, next women, then blacks, and now it’s the time of the convicted felons. Each group has fought enormous political, cultural and socio-economic battles to become integrated into a democratic community. Now, in the era of the ultimate liberal definition of the word ‘democracy,’ people are talking about a new group of individuals that are denied the very right that is at its heart: the right to vote. So, the question stands unanswered and is to be discussed by all members of this nation: Should we allow criminals to vote? The answer remains ambiguous and highly philosophical. Currently, 48 states restrict felons the right to vote. Most states forbid current inmates to vote, others extend such bans to parolees and still others restrict felons for life. Eleven states in the South, not including Louisiana, ban anyone with a criminal conviction from voting, even after the sentence has been completed. According to “State Felon Voting Disenfranchisement Laws,” 2.42 percent of the eligible voting population is disenfranchised. But such laws are ridiculous in the sense that taking away someone’s right to vote, especially after their punishment has been fulfilled, is punishing the criminal disproportionately for the same crime, and are unconstitutional.The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “succinctly prohibits” “excessive sanctions,” and demands “punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.” Punishing someone after their sentence is completed is punishing them twice for a single crime.Most states have “voting restoration” processes that enable rehabilitated ex-cons to regain their voting rights. But because all states do not offer this opportunity, the nation as a whole suffers in the message it sends about democracy. Individuals who re-enter society ought to participate in it as freely as they did before committing the crime. The right to vote, an inherent right of every individual within a democracy, cannot be denied to anyone, especially after retribution. If ex-cons ought to be allowed to vote, what about incarcerated felons and parolees?National legislation has abandoned the idea of reaching a universal agreement between the states and has abdicated the role to individual states, causing more ambiguity. As of July 2007, only Maine and Vermont allow incarcerated criminals to vote. Washington prohibits anyone convicted of an “infamous crime” or “a crime punishable by death” the right to vote. In Louisiana, incarcerated criminals and parolees are not allowed to vote. Other states vary in their restrictions.Anti-felon-voting activists argue because criminals are removed from society, they ought not participate in it until the end of their punishment. While being punished, it is only morally correct that criminals ought to not be allowed to vote. Criminals should practice total isolation from the very principles of the governing body that they chose to disobey. But no universal law exists that dictates the matter with absoluteness.  Just as we have amendments to allow everyone’s suffrage regardless of race, sex or religion, we should have a sweeping national amendment answering the convertible question of felon voting rights. Instead of the inconsistency in state-to-state policies, national law would mitigate confusion. Although bills have been proposed to create laws, legislators have shot them down one by one indicating states’ rights in the matter.Sen. Barack Obama has started advocating the importance of voting rights for felons on a national level, and Sen. John McCain has left it up to the states. As the end of the presidential election looms closer, the suffrage of felons in a democracy waits to be answered.—-Contact Dimi Parayitam at [email protected]