Editing Disfranchisement (section)

== Based on residence or ethnicity ==
{{Globalize|section|date=September 2007}}
{{More citations needed section|date=September 2007}}

===Australia===
Voting in Australia is compulsory for resident citizens. Australian citizens who have been outside Australia for more than one but fewer than six years may excuse themselves from the requirement to vote in [[Australian electoral system|Australian elections]] while they remain outside Australia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Overseas.htm |title=Australian Electoral Commission, "Voting Overseas – Frequently Asked Questions", 20 November 2007 |publisher=Aec.gov.au |date=10 January 2011 |access-date=21 June 2013}}</ref>

===Canada===
Residency requirements for Canadian citizens were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2019. All Canadian citizens can vote in Canadian elections.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://factcheck.afp.com/who-can-vote-canadian-electoral-reform-facts-vs-fears | title = Who can vote? Canadian electoral reform facts vs. fears | last = BAUDOIN-LAARMAN | first = Louis | date = January 17, 2019 | website = AFP Fact Check | publisher = Agence France-Presse | access-date = July 17, 2024 | quote = A Supreme Court of Canada judgment rendered on January 11, 2019, further cemented the electoral reform in Canadian law by finding that voting is a constitutional right for all Canadian citizens.}}</ref>

===Chile===
Chileans living abroad may vote in presidential elections and presidential primaries, but not in elections to the national legislature or for regional government officials.<ref name = leychile>{{cite web |url=http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1061853 |title=LEY 20748 REGULA EL EJERCICIO DEL SUFRAGIO DE LOS CIUDADANOS QUE SE ENCUENTRAN FUERA DEL PAÍS |author =Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia |date = 2015-05-03 | access-date = 2022-04-01| website = LeyChile }}</ref> The right to vote was extended to Chileans abroad in 2014 by Law No. 20.748; the bill was sponsored by Senators [[Isabel Allende Bussi]], [[Soledad Alvear]], Hernán Larraían Fernández and Patricio Walker Prieto.<ref name = leychile/> The law also allowed Chileans residing abroad to vote in the [[2020 Chilean national plebiscite|2020 national plebiscite]].<ref name = overseas-cl>{{cite web | title = Overseas voting process implemented successfully during Chilean referendum | website = Gobierno de Chile | url = https://www.gob.cl/en/news/overseas-voting-process-implemented-successfully-during-chilean-referendum/ | date = 2022-10-14}}</ref> Of nearly 60,000 registered overseas voters, 30,912 Chileans from 65 countries participated in the referendum.<ref name = overseas-cl/>

===Denmark===
Citizens of [[Denmark]] are in general not allowed to vote in Danish elections if they reside outside the country for more than two years.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://valg.oim.dk/Vaelgere/Udlandsdanskeres-valgret.aspx |title=Udlandsdanskeres Valgret (økonomi- og indenrigsministeriet) |access-date=2014-07-23 |archive-date=2014-07-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723131530/http://valg.oim.dk/vaelgere/udlandsdanskeres-valgret.aspx |url-status=dead }}</ref> Danish citizens that reside permanently outside Denmark lose their right to vote.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/R0710.aspx?id=162511#Kap1 |title=Lov om valg til Folketinget – Valgret og valgbarhed", 10 April 2014 |access-date=24 October 2015}}</ref>

===India===
Non-resident Indian citizens may vote from abroad by applying to be registered as non-resident electors as long as they have not obtained citizenship in another country. They must be "absent from the country owing to employment, education etc, [have] not acquired citizenship of any other country and are otherwise eligible to be registered as a voter in the address mentioned in your passport."<ref name = india-abroad>{{cite web | title = Overseas Electors | date = 2018-04-03 | website = Election Commission of India | url = https://eci.gov.in/faqs/ | access-date = 2022-10-14}}</ref>

===Norway===
The Norwegian constitution of 1814, paragraph 53, stated that anyone being in service of another power, buying or selling votes, or being convicted to forced labor would be disfranchised.<ref>{{Cite web | url = https://www.norgeshistorie.no/kilder/grunnlov-og-ny-union/K1310-Norges-Grunnlov-av-17-mai.html | title=Norges Grunnlov av 17. mai | access-date=2023-06-12}}</ref> Paragraph 53 was repealed by the parliament ([[Storting]]) in June 2022.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/forskrift/2022-06-22-1133|title=Kunngjøring av Stortingets vedtak 1. juni 2022 om endringer i Grunnloven - Lovdata| access-date=2023-06-12}}</ref> Citizens residing outside [[Norway]] for more than 10 years may not vote unless they make an application.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2002-06-28-57/KAPITTEL_2#%C2%A72-2 | title=Lov om valg til Stortinget, fylkesting og kommunestyrer (Valgloven) - Kapittel 2. Stemmerett og manntall - Lovdata }}</ref>

====Svalbard====
The 2023 election for the [[Longyearbyen Community Council]] was held under new rules imposed by the [[Politics of Norway|Norwegian government]], wherein voters had to have [[Norwegian nationality law|Norwegian citizenship]] or have lived in mainland Norway for 3 years. These rules disenfranchised an estimated one-third of the voter roll compared to the previous election in 2019, including almost the entire community of non-Norwegians living in the town.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/valg-pa-svalbard_-utenlandske-statsborgere-far-ikke-stemme-1.16587214|date=8 October 2023|access-date=10 October 2023|language=nb|website=[[NRK]]|title=Tine er bekymret for lokaldemokratiet: – Ungdommer som har bodd her hele livet får ikke stemt}}</ref> The previous rules allowed anyone who had resided on [[Svalbard]] itself for 3 years to vote.

===United Kingdom===
{{main |Right of expatriates to vote in their country of origin#United Kingdom}} 
British citizens are allowed to vote at home with no time limit. Until 2024, they were not allowed to vote in UK General Elections or referendums if they had resided outside the country for more than 15 years.<ref name="japan-times-uk-vote">{{Cite web| url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2024/02/26/issues/uk-expats-voting/ | title=As more U.K. expats get the vote, Japan's ballot box stays closed | date=2024-02-26 | first=Jordan | last=Allen | publisher=[[The Japan Times]] | access-date=2024-05-07}}</ref>

In February 2018, the Overseas Electors Bill was presented to Parliament, with a view to abolishing the 15-year limit and the requirement to have registered to vote before leaving the UK. The Bill, which ran out of time due to the [[2019 United Kingdom general election|2019 general election]], would have granted all British expatriates the unlimited right to vote, as long as they have lived in the UK at some point in their lives.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-delivering-on-pledge-to-give-back-british-expats-the-right-to-vote|title=Government delivering on pledge to give back British expats the right to vote – GOV.UK|website=www.gov.uk|language=en|access-date=2018-03-07}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chloe-smith-writes-about-votes-for-life-for-british-expats|title=Chloe Smith writes about votes for life for British expats – GOV.UK|website=www.gov.uk|date=23 February 2018 |language=en|access-date=2018-03-07}}</ref> The issue became a hotly debated topic among British expatriates who have lived in other EU Member States for more than 15 years and were thus barred from voting in the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|referendum on European Union membership]], despite arguably being more affected by the result than British people living in the UK.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thelocal.fr/20180209/uk-again-vows-to-give-brits-in-france-votes-for-life-but-is-it-too-late|title=UK again vows to give Brits in France 'votes for life' but is it all too late?|date=2018-02-09|access-date=2018-03-07|language=en}}</ref>

The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] pledged to abolish what the called the "arbitrary 15-year limit" in their manifesto for the 2019 general election, in which they were subsequently elected.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative%202019%20Manifesto.pdf|title=The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2019|page=48|access-date=22 August 2023}}</ref> The change was implemented in 2024.{{R|japan-times-uk-vote}}

===United States===
{{main |Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era}} 
Efforts made by [[Southern United States]] to prevent black citizens voting began after the end of the [[Reconstruction Era]] in 1877. They were enacted by Southern states at the turn of the 20th century. Their actions were designed to thwart the objective of the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], enacted in 1870 to protect the [[Voting rights in the United States|suffrage]] of [[freedmen]].<ref>Michael Perman, ''Struggle for mastery: Disfranchisement in the South, 1888-1908'' (U of North Carolina Press, 2003.</ref>

Democrats were alarmed by a late 19th-century alliance between Republicans and Populists that cost them some elections in North Carolina. Democrats added to previous efforts and achieved widespread disfranchisement by law: from 1890 to 1908, Southern state legislatures passed new constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws that made voter registration and voting more difficult, especially when administered by white staff in a discriminatory way. They succeeded in disenfranchising most of the black citizens, as well as many [[Poor White|poor whites]] in the South, and voter rolls dropped dramatically in each state. The Republican Party was nearly eliminated in the region for decades, and the Democrats established one-party control throughout the southern states.<ref>Richard M. Valelly, ''The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement'' (U of Chicago Press, 2009), pp. 134-139</ref>

In 1912, the Republican Party was split when [[Theodore Roosevelt]] ran against the party nominee, Taft. In the South by this time, the Republican Party had been hollowed out by the disfranchisement of African Americans, who were largely excluded from voting. Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] was elected as the first southern [[President of the United States|president]] since 1856. He was re-elected in 1916, in a much closer presidential contest. During his first term, Wilson satisfied the request of Southerners in his cabinet and instituted overt [[Racial segregation in the United States|racial segregation]] throughout federal government workplaces, as well as [[racial discrimination]] in hiring. During [[World War I]], American military forces were segregated, with black soldiers poorly trained and equipped.

Disfranchisement had far-reaching effects in Congress, where the Democratic [[Solid South]] enjoyed "about 25 extra seats in Congress for each decade between 1903 and 1953".{{refn|Despite the South's excessive representation relative to voting population, the [[Great Migration (African American)|Great Migration]] resulted in [[Mississippi's congressional districts|Mississippi]] losing seats in Congress due to reapportionment following the [[1930 United States census|1930]] and [[1950 United States census|1950 Censuses]], while [[South Carolina's congressional districts|South Carolina]] and [[Alabama's congressional districts|Alabama]] also lost Congressional seats after the former census and [[Arkansas's congressional districts|Arkansas]] following the latter.|group="nb"}}<ref name="valelly146-147">Valelly; ''The Two Reconstructions''; pp. 146-147</ref> Also, the Democratic dominance in the South meant that southern [[U.S. Senate|Senators]] and [[U.S. House of Representatives|Representatives]] became entrenched in Congress. They favored seniority privileges in Congress, which became the standard by 1920, and Southerners controlled chairmanships of important [[Congressional committee|committees]], as well as leadership of the national Democratic Party.<ref name="valelly146-147"/> During the [[Great Depression]], legislation establishing numerous national social programs were passed without the representation of [[African Americans]], leading to gaps in program coverage and discrimination against them in operations. In addition, because black Southerners were not listed on local voter rolls, they were automatically excluded from [[jury duty|serving in local courts]]. Juries were [[all-white jury|all white]] across the South.

Political enfranchisement expanded with passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], which authorized the federal government to monitor voter registration practices and elections where populations were historically underrepresented, and to enforce constitutional voting rights. The challenge to voting rights has continued into the 21st century, as shown by numerous court cases in 2016 alone, though attempts to restrict voting rights for political advantage have not been confined to the Southern states. Another method of seeking political advantage through the voting system is the [[Gerrymandering in the United States|gerrymandering of electoral boundaries]], as was the case of North Carolina, which in January 2018 was declared by a federal court to be unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news |title=North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Congressional Map (Published 2018) |work=The New York Times |date=9 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230525062233/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/north-carolina-gerrymander.html |archive-date=2023-05-25 |url-status=live |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/north-carolina-gerrymander.html}}</ref> Such cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/gerrymander-court-north-carolina-pennsylvania.html Is Partisan Gerrymandering Legal? Why the Courts Are Divided.]</ref>

====Recent====
{{see also|Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States}}
State governments have had the right to establish requirements for voters, voter registration, and conduct of elections. Since the founding of the nation, legislatures have gradually expanded the franchise (sometimes following federal constitutional amendments), from certain propertied white men to almost universal adult suffrage of age 18 and over, with the notable exclusion of people convicted of some crimes.<ref>{{Cite web|title=State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org|url=https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/|access-date=2020-12-29|website=Felon Voting|language=en-US}}</ref> Expansion of suffrage was made on the basis of lowering property requirements, granting suffrage to [[freedmen]] and restoring suffrage in some states to [[free people of color]] following the [[American Civil War]], to women (except Native American women) in 1920, all Native Americans in 1924, and people over the age of 18 in the 1970s. Public interest groups focus on fighting disfranchisement in the United States amid rising concerns that new restrictions on voting are become more common.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/07/is-america-a-democracy-if-so-why-does-it-deny-millions-the-vote|title=Is America a democracy? If so, why does it deny millions the vote?|last1=Rao|first1=Ankita|date=2019-11-07|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-11-16|last2=Kelly|first2=Kim|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|last3=Dillon|first3=Pat|last4=Bennett|first4=Zak}}</ref>

====Washington, D.C.====
{{Main|District of Columbia voting rights}}
When the District of Columbia was established as the national capital, with lands contributed by Maryland and Virginia, its residents were not allowed to vote for local or federal representatives, in an effort to prevent the district from endangering the national government. Congress had a committee, appointed from among representatives elected to the House, that administered the city and district in lieu of local or state government. Residents did not vote for federal representatives who were appointed to oversee them.

In 1804, US Congress cancelled holding US presidential elections in Washington, D.C. or allowing residents to vote in them. Amendment 23 was passed by Congress and ratified in 1964 to restore the ability of District residents to vote in presidential elections.

In 1846, the portion of Washington, D.C. contributed from Virginia was "[[District of Columbia retrocession|retrocessioned]]" (returned) to Virginia to protect slavery. People residing there (in what is now Alexandria), vote in local, Virginia and US elections.

Congress uses the same portion of the US Constitution to exclusively manage local and State level law for the citizens of Washington, D.C. and US military bases in the US. Until 1986, military personnel living on bases were considered to have special status as national representatives and prohibited from voting in elections where their bases were located. In 1986, Congress passed a law to enable US military personnel living on bases in the US to vote in local and state elections.

The position of non-voting delegate to Congress from the District was reestablished in 1971. The delegate cannot vote for bills before the House, nor floor votes, but may vote for some procedural and committee matters. In 1973, the [[District of Columbia Home Rule Act]] reestablished local government after a hundred-year gap, with regular local elections for mayor and other posts. They do not elect a US senator. People seeking standard representation for the 600,000 District of Columbia residents describe their status as being disfranchised in relation to the federal government. They do vote in presidential elections.

Until 2009, no other [[NATO]] (US military allies) or [[OECD]] country (US industrialized allies) had disfranchised citizens of their respective national capitals for national legislature elections. No US state prohibits residents of capitals from voting in state elections either, and their cities are contained within regular representative state and congressional districts.{{citation needed|date=January 2017}}

====Puerto Rico====
{{main|Status of Puerto Rico}}
U.S. federal law applies to [[Puerto Rico]], although Puerto Rico is not a state. Due to the Federal Relations Act of 1950, all federal laws that are "not locally inapplicable" are automatically the law of the land in Puerto Rico (39 Stat. 954, 48 USCA 734).<ref>Since 1917 they have been considered American citizens.

39 Stat. 954, 48 USCA 734 "The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in the United States...."</ref> According to ex-Chief of the [[Puerto Rico Supreme Court]] [[Jose Trias Monge]], "no federal law has ever been found to be locally inapplicable to Puerto Rico.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=IjaRKo2XUsEC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10 José Trías Monge, ''Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World''], p. 43</ref> Puerto Ricans were conscripted into the U.S. armed forces; they have fought in every war since they became U.S. citizens in 1917.<ref>[http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol4n41/PRSeekVote-en.html ''Puerto Rico Herald''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090719094636/http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol4n41/PRSeekVote-en.html |date=July 19, 2009 }}</ref> Puerto Rico residents are subject to most U.S. taxes.

Contrary to common misconception, residents of Puerto Rico pay some U.S. federal taxes<ref>[http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/prpage.htm Dept of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120610225702/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/prpage.htm |date=June 10, 2012 }}</ref> and contribute to Social Security, Medicare and other programs through payroll taxes. But, these American citizens have no Congressional representation nor do they vote in U.S. presidential elections.

Juan Torruella and other scholars <!--who?--> argue that the U.S. national-electoral process is not a democracy due to issues related to lack of [[voting rights in Puerto Rico]] and representation.<ref>Torruella, Juan R. (1985). ''The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal''.</ref> Both the [[Puerto Rican Independence Party]] and the [[New Progressive Party (Puerto Rico)|New Progressive Party]] reject Commonwealth status. The remaining political organization, the [[Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)|Popular Democratic Party]] has officially stated that it favors fixing the remaining "deficits of democracy" that the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] and [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administrations publicly recognized through Presidential Task Force Reports.