Mass. hearing features widespread testimony supporting amendment to restore incarcerated voting rights

Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws heard more than three hours of testimony from incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, legislators and advocacy groups pressing the committee to report favorably on S7 and H63, a proposed legislative amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would restore the right to vote to people who are incarcerated for felony convictions.

Sen. Liz Miranda (Second Suffolk) urged the committee to advance S7, saying that more than 7,000 Massachusetts residents are currently disenfranchised and that the burden falls disproportionately on Black and Latino people. "Voting is not a privilege, it is a right," Miranda said. Rep. Bridal Eiderhoven, a co-sponsor, told the committee the change would require a constitutional amendment and said, "the soonest that this issue would be voted on by the public is 02/19/28." Both urged the committee to send the question to voters.

The testimony combined personal accounts from people serving long sentences with legal and policy arguments. Multiple speakers described how civic education behind bars — including work with the African American Coalition Committee and the Democracy Behind Bars Coalition — fostered rehabilitation and civic ties. "The AACC taught me civic education and engagement," said Corey Al Amin Patterson, who identified himself as incarcerated at MCI Norfolk. Several witnesses said participation in civic life can strengthen reentry and reduce recidivism.

Advocacy and research groups framed the proposal as both a democratic-rights and racial-equity issue. Andrea James of Families for Justice is Healing and Nicole Porter of the Sentencing Project said felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts is recent and has a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Porter emphasized research linking civic engagement and voting access with lower rates of reoffending. Jonathan Cohen of Progressive Massachusetts and Emma Chinman of Partners in Democracy urged the committee to view the amendment as consistent with recent reforms to make voting more accessible.

Committee members asked practical questions about implementation. Rep. Frost asked whether people convicted of violent crimes should be eligible to vote while incarcerated; advocates and formerly incarcerated speakers replied that civic participation supports rehabilitation and that punishment alone is not served by disenfranchisement. Witnesses and some legislators noted precedent and operational work already performed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Department of Correction on "jail-based" voting and registration. One legal reference cited during questioning was Dane v. Board of Registrars and Voters of Concord on domicile and voting eligibility for people housed in correctional facilities.

Speakers who testified from correctional institutions described how voting while incarcerated previously functioned in Massachusetts: many voters cast absentee ballots through the towns where they were counted as residents. Several witnesses reminded the committee that Massachusetts removed the right to vote for incarcerated people in 2000 and urged a reversal. Testimony included multiple personal statements about civic connection and the effects of civil disenfranchisement.

No formal committee vote on S7 or H63 was recorded during the hearing; the session concluded after testimony and routine adjournment motions.

The hearing brought a broad mix of voices to the committee: people currently incarcerated at MCI Norfolk, MCI Shirley, MCI Framingham and other facilities; advocacy groups such as Democracy Behind Bars, Families for Justice as Healing, the ACLU of Massachusetts, Campaign Legal Center and Partners in Democracy; and statewide policy organizations including Progressive Massachusetts and the Sentencing Project.

Supporters asked the committee to move the bills out favorably so the amendment could go before voters. Opposing testimony was not a substantive part of the record for this hearing.

If the committee advances a constitutional amendment, advocates and legislators said implementation details — including where ballots are cast and how domicile is established for incarcerated voters — would be handled by follow-on statutory work and by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office.

The hearing record and written testimony are available through the committee; committee staff said written testimony would be accepted through April 8.