The editors of the New York Times are critical of Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s recent veto of a law that would have allowed anyone with a felony conviction to vote if they are living in the free community. See “A Bad Voting Ban,” June 1, 2015. Maryland’s law now disenfranchises anyone convicted of a “felony and . . . actually serving a court-ordered sentence of imprisonment, including any term of parole or probation, for the conviction.” The Times editorial points out that Maryland changed its law to restore voting rights automatically upon completion of sentence in 2007, and that disenfranchisement based upon conviction is generally a punitive relic of slavery. So if felony disenfranchisement laws are punitive relics, why should they be applied to anyone, even people who are still in prison? The logic of the Times editors’ position would seem to support voting by prisoners, as happens in Vermont and Maine and in many parts of Europe. An argument against voting by prisoners based on disenfranchisement as an integral part of court-imposed punishment would apply equally to probationers and parolees. The notion that prisoners no longer have a connection to their communities is a self-fulfilling prophecy that runs […]
Read moreTag: Hillary Clinton
Restoration of Rights Project (RRP)
- Loss & restoration of civil/firearms rights
- Pardon policy & practice
- Expungement, sealing & other record relief
- Criminal record in employment, licensing & housing
RRP: State-By-State Guides
RRP: 50-State Comparisons
Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Recommendations for Reform (Dec. 2025)

50-state comparisons
About the Restoration of Rights Project
The Restoration of Rights Project (RRP) is a project of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center in partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, National HIRE Network, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and Paper Prisons Initiative. Launched in 2017, the RRP is an online resource containing detailed state-by-state analyses of the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights and status following arrest or conviction. Jurisdictional “profiles” cover areas such as loss and restoration of civil rights and firearms rights, judicial and executive mechanisms for avoiding or mitigating collateral consequences, and provisions addressing non-discrimination in employment, licensing, and housing. In addition to the jurisdictional profiles, RRP materials include a set of 50-state comparison charts that make it possible to see national patterns in restoration laws and policies. Short “postcard” summaries of the law in each state serve as a gateway to the more detailed information in the profiles, and provide a snapshot of applicable law in each state.
Originally published in 2006 by CCRC Executive Director Margaret Love, the research in the RRP has been kept up to date and substantially expanded over the years, and it is summarized in an appendix to the treatise on collateral consequences published jointly by NACDL and Thompson Reuters (West). It is intended as a resource for practitioners in all phases of the criminal justice system, for courts, for civil practitioners assisting clients whose court-imposed sentence has exposed them to additional civil penalties, for policymakers and advocates interested in reentry and reintegration of convicted persons, and for the millions of Americans with a criminal record who are seeking to put their past behind them.
These resources may be republished as long as appropriate attribution is given to the RRP as its source.




