latest
Effort underway in Massachusetts to reinstate voting rights of incarcerated felons

By Chris Lisinski
More than a quarter-century after voters revoked the right to vote from Bay Staters incarcerated on felonies, the Massachusetts body politic might be asked to revisit the topic.
Criminal justice and voting rights advocates are beginning the work required to potentially put a question on the 2028 ballot that would once again allow thousands of people serving prison time on felony convictions to vote in state elections while behind bars.
It’s the latest effort in a series of so-far unsuccessful attempts to reverse a constitutional amendment adopted by voters in 2000, which eliminated that voting right. Organizers are optimistic public sentiment has changed enough in the past two-plus decades for the new proposal to pass.
“The real push behind this effort is definitely coming from folks who are currently incarcerated, who want to be able to participate fully in what exists of our democracy,” said K. Melchor Quick Hall, a Women’s Studies Research Center scholar at Brandeis University who is the campaign’s universal voting restoration co-coordinator.
Ahead of an Aug. 6 deadline, backers have filed the initial paperwork with 10 voter signatures signaling their intent to pursue a constitutional amendment. New laws proposed at this point would go before voters in 2026, while the runway for constitutional amendments is longer and the earliest voters could weigh in is 2028.
Melchor said about 7,700 people in Massachusetts correctional facilities are not able to vote in state elections because of a section of the state Constitution revoking those rights during felony incarceration. More than half of those individuals are Black or Latino, according to Chrissy Cassa, legislative director for the Empowering Descendant Communities to Unlock Democracy project working to collect signatures.
Reform supporters say allowing incarcerated individuals to participate in elections for governor and other state offices would better position them for life after prison.
“It’s very important for incarcerated individuals to feel connected to their communities, so when they do get released back into society — and so many of them will and do — to have been playing a role in having that connection with their community and having a say is a huge part of, one, being a citizen, but also their rehabilitation and helping the reentry into society,” Cassa said.
Organizers have several major steps to complete before the proposal can secure a spot on the ballot.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell reviews ballot proposals to determine whether they deal with “excluded matters” and are eligible to appear on the ballot. If the question clears that hurdle, proponents must then collect at least 74,574 signatures from registered voters, file the signatures for certification with local elections officials by Nov. 19, and then file the certified signatures with the secretary of state’s office by Dec. 3.
Unlike ballot questions proposing new laws, which then undergo additional signature-gathering, campaigns for constitutional amendments only need a single round of signatures. An amendment must then secure support from 50 or more lawmakers meeting in a joint House-Senate session, often known as a Constitutional Convention, in two subsequent two-year lawmaking terms before it can go to voters for a final decision.
The Legislature’s joint session would need to take up any proposed constitutional amendment ballot questions by May 13, 2026.
Massachusetts used to allow incarcerated felons to vote in state elections, but eliminated that right in 2000.
Republican Gov. Paul Cellucci in 1997 kicked off the process by filing a constitutional amendment, saying “those who can’t obey the most basic laws should and will have no say at the ballot box.” After heated debate, the Legislature voted to advance the proposal 154-34 during a joint session in 1998, then voted 144-45 in 2000 to put the question on the ballot.
Voters approved the measure in November 2000 by a margin of 64% to 36%.
Debate about reversing the constitutional amendment has swirled around Beacon Hill in recent years. In 2023, the Election Laws Committee favorably recommended a constitutional amendment from Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven and Sen. Liz Miranda. The amendment died after it was not considered at a Constitutional Convention during the 2023-2024 term. The Senate President, Karen Spilka, presides at conventions.
The Election Laws Committee heard testimony from incarcerated individuals who support the same proposal, refiled for the current term, at an April 1 hearing but took no action on whether to recommend or oppose the measure.
The Uyterhoeven-Miranda proposal was a legislative amendment to the constitution. Such proposals do not require signature-collecting, but need to secure 101 votes during a Constitutional Convention to advance.
“If lawmakers are truly serious about protecting us in a meaningful way, they must fully include us in the democratic process,” said Al-Ameen Patterson, who is incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk and is organizing in support of the measure with the Democracy Behind Bars Coalition and the African American Coalition Committee.
Cassa said supporters are advancing the latest ballot question as a way of “covering all the bases” while continuing to press lawmakers to act.
In the previous cycle, a seemingly different campaign filed paperwork to tee up a potential 2026 ballot question that similarly would have restored the right to vote to incarcerated felons. That proposal secured certification from the attorney general’s office, but its sponsors did not clear the signature-gathering hurdle.