Did Texas restore voting rights five years after a felony discharge issued by the prison system, federal authorities, or another state?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ask about yours and see what current Texas law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Texas AG Opinion JM-202: Voting After Felony Discharge
Plain-English summary
JM-202 concluded that House Bill No. 718 restored voting rights on the fifth anniversary of a felony discharge issued by the Texas Department of Corrections, a federal or sister-state prison or parole board, or the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
"House Bill No. 718 of the Sixty-eighth Legislature, codified as article 5.01 of the Election Code, restores the vote to persons convicted of a felony on the fifth anniversary of their discharge by the Texas Department of Corrections or by a federal or sister state prison or parole board, just like those discharged by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
The request focused on people sentenced before August 29, 1977, when Texas law did not yet provide mandatory supervision. Those prisoners could receive a discharge from the Department of Corrections rather than the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
"Prior to August 29, 1977, article 42.12 did not provide for mandatory supervision."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf"Thus, someone sentenced for an offense committed prior to August 29, 1977 and not paroled has received or will receive a discharge only from the Department of Corrections."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
The opinion treated the type of agency performing the discharge as an insufficient basis for different voting treatment. It read the statute to avoid a distinction it described as arbitrary.
"The only distinction between the groups is 'wholly arbitrary' -- a difference in the official ministerial act granting discharge."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Did a Texas Department of Corrections discharge count like a Board of Pardons and Paroles discharge?
Yes. JM-202 read article 5.01 to include the corrections-department discharge and restore the vote five years after that event.
"Felons discharged by either a federal or a sister state's correctional institution or parole board, as well as by the Texas Department of Corrections, are reenfranchised five years after that event."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Did the opinion also cover federal and other-state felony discharges?
Yes. The conclusion included discharge by a federal or sister-state prison or parole board.
"House Bill No. 718 ... restores the vote ... on the fifth anniversary of their discharge by the Texas Department of Corrections or by a federal or sister state prison or parole board."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Why did the opinion include those other discharge authorities?
JM-202 relied on equal-protection concerns and the principle that laws regulating voting rights should be read liberally in favor of the right to vote.
"Generally, courts have said that statutes regulating the right to vote should be liberally interpreted in favor of that right."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf"To conclude otherwise could subject the Act to possible invalidation under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
What did article 5.01 say about the waiting period?
The quoted amendment disqualified a person convicted of a felony for a period ending on the fifth anniversary of the relevant discharge or completion of probation.
"Persons who have been convicted of a felony, for a period ending on the fifth anniversary of the date on which the person: (A) received a certificate of discharge by the Board of Pardons and Paroles; or (B) completed a period of probation ordered by a court."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Why did the law distinguish people sentenced before and after August 29, 1977?
The opinion explained that applying the new mandatory-supervision system to an earlier offense would keep a person under state supervision when prior law required discharge and would raise an ex post facto problem.
"Section 7 prevents the unconstitutional imposition on an offender of a punishment which did not exist when he committed the crime."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Background and statutory framework
Article VI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution disqualified people convicted of felonies from voting but allowed the legislature to create exceptions.
"Article VI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution disqualifies all felons from voting, subject to exceptions made by the legislature."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
The opinion compared a discharge from the prison system with certificates issued after parole or mandatory supervision under article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
"Persons paroled at any time receive their certificate of discharge from the Board of Pardons and Paroles."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
The AG framed the legal issue as whether the statute covered every person who completed a felony sentence or excluded those who could not receive a Board of Pardons and Paroles certificate because they had not been paroled or placed on mandatory supervision.
"Does article 5.01 now enfranchise all convicted felons five years after completing their sentences or does it exclude any felon who could not be discharged by the Board of Pardons and Paroles because he was not paroled and not subject to mandatory supervision?"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Citations and references
- House Bill No. 718 amended article 5.01 of the Election Code and supplied the five-year rule interpreted by JM-202.
"You request an interpretation of House Bill No. 718 of the Sixty-eighth Legislature which amended article 5.01 of the Election Code."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
- Article 42.12 supplied the discharge provisions for parole and mandatory supervision.
"Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides in sections 23 and 24."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0202
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0202.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MAlTOX Aug;cst 31, 1984
Attorney General
Supreme Couri Building Eoaorable El Franccb Lee Opinion No. JM-202 P. 0. Box 12545 Austin. TX. 78711. 2545
Chairman
51214752501 Committee on Electicns Re: Construction of House Bill Telex 91olS74-1357 Texas House of Repro sentatives No. 718 which amends article Telecopier 512/475-0258 P. 0. Box 2910 5.01 of the Election Code
Austin, Texas 78;‘t 9
714 Jackson, Suite 700
Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 Dear Representative! Lee: 2141742.9944
You request a% interpretation of House
Bill No. 718 of the
Sixty-eighth Legislnture which amended article 5.01 of the Election 4824 Alb-artr Ave.. Suite 180
El Pap, TX. 799052793
Code to read in pertinent part:
915/533-34S4 .
The foll.cwing classes of persons shall not be
allowed i:o vote in this
state:
‘001 Texas. Suite 700
wstc.“, TX. 77002.3111
. . .
I 13/2255995
3. Pwsons while incarcerated, on parole,
905 Broadway. Suits 312 mandatory supervision. or probation as a result of
Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479
a felony conviction.
808/747-5239
4. P,v:sons who have been convicted
of a
4309 N. Tenth. Suite S felony, for a period ending on the fifth
McAllen. TX. 79501-1685
annivers,iry of the date on which the person:
5121992.4547
(A) received a certificate of discharge by the
200 Main Plaza. Suite 4W Board ofr?ardons and Paroles; or
San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797
51212254191 (B) completed a period of probation ordered by
a court. (Emphasis added).
An Equal Opportunilyl
Affirmative Action Employer Article VI. sectf,cn 1 of the Texas Constitution disqualifies all
felons from voting, subject to exceptions made by the legislature.
You seek an :lnterpretation of the underlined language. You ask whether a certifiwte of discharge issued by the Texas Department of Corrections for persons sentenced prior to August 29, 1977 is the legal equivalent of discharge from the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Article 616621, V.T.C.S.,
provides in part:
n
Ronorable El France Lee - Page 2
(JM-202)
When a convict is entitled to a discharge from the State penitentially . . . the Director of the Department of Ccmrections or his Fxecut ive Assistant shall prepare and deliver to him a written discharge. . . .
Article 42.12
of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides in
sections 23 and 24:
Sec. 23.
. . . .
When any parol,sd prisoner has fulfilled the obligations of his parole and has served out his term as conditiomd in the preceding paragraph, the Board shall lutke a final order of discharge and issue to the parolee a certificate of such discharge.
Sec. 24. When any prisoner who has been paroled or released to mandatory supervision has complied with the rules and conditions governing his release until the end of the term to which he was sentenced, mci without a revocation of his parole or mandatcry supervision, the Board shall make a final order of discharge and issue the prisoner a certif:lcate of discharge.
Prior to August 29, 1977, article 42.12 did not provide for
mandatory supervision. This procedure was added by a 1977 amendment. Acts 1977. 65th Leg.. ch. 3ai’r, 12, at 925. A prisoner under maodatory supervision, like a parolel!, is released from imprisonment, but not from the legal custody of the state, for rehabilitation outside the prison walls. Code Grim. IYoc. art. 42.12, 52~. d. The eligibility requirements are different for each form of supervision. Moreover, parole is not automaticall:r granted to eligible prisoners; it is discretionary with the Bomd of Pardons and Paroles subject to statutory guidelines. -Id. I15 (e-i).
In contrast, a prisoner not on parole “shall be released to
mandatory supervision” by !:he board when his actual time served plus good conduct time equal the maximum sentence. Id. 115(c). See V.T.C.S. art. 6181-1 (accrual of good conduct time).The good conduct time law existing before August 29, 1977, actually commuted the sentence so that the prisoner was discharged from the Department of Corrections when good conduct time plus time served equaled the term of the sentence. See Acts 1927, 40th Leg., ch. 212, 023 (former V.T.C.S. art. 6166vrActs 1943. 48th Leg., ch. 361, at 635 (former V.T.C.S. art. 61841). Tke 1977 amendment to article 42.12 also
L
Honorable El France Lee - Page 3 (m-202)
repealed the former good coduct time statutes. Acts 1977. 65th Leg., ch. 347. 16. at 933.
The 1977 amendment to r,rticle 42.12 provides in section 7 that
[t]his Act applieE only to inmates sentenced to the Texas Departmc!rX of Corrections for an Offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
If the mandatory supervis:lon law were imposed. on a prisoner who coamritted his crime before the August 29, 1977 effective date, he would remain under state su~lczvision at a time when prior law required his discharge from his sent,tnce. Section 7 prevents the unconstitu- tional imposition on an off’r,nder of a punishment which did not exist when he committed the trim?. -See Tex. Const. art. I, 516 (ex post facto law).
Thus, someone sentencei for an offense committed prior to August
29, 1977 and not paroled ha:; received or will receive a discharge only from the Department of Corrkctions. Persons sentenced for offenses committed after August 29, L977 and subsequently placed on mandatory supervision were or will be discharged by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Persons paroled at any time receive their certificate of discharge from the Board of ‘?ardons and Paroles. The board informs us that the Department of Corl,c,ctions issues a discharge certificate for every person who completes his sentence, and the board performs its duty to issue a discharge certificate by stamping the department’s certificate.
Your question about the, “legal equivalent” of a certificate from
the Board of Pardons and Psroles raises the issue of the class of persons enfranchised by ;Irticle 5.01. Does article 5.01 now enfranchise all convicted felons five years after completing their sentences or does it exclude! any felon who could not be discharged by the Board of Pardons and I,zroles because he was not paroled and not subject to mandatory supervision? You in effect ask whether section 4 of article 5.01 should be read as follows:
4. Persons rrt,o have been convicted
of a
felony, for a period ending on the fifth anniversary of the date on which the person:
(A) received a certificate of discharge by the Board of Pardcas and Paroles [or the equivalent of such a certificate of discharge]. . . .
Support for the view :hat felons discharged by the Department of Corrections are reenfranchl:;ed on the fifth anniversary of that date is to be found in the legl,elative history of House Bill No. 718. As, first introduced it did not include a section 4, but only section 3, Bonorable El France Lee - Page 3 (a-202)
repealed the former good conduct time statutes. Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 347, 56. at 933.
The 1977 amendment to article 42.12 provides in section 7 that
[t]his Act applies only to inmates sentenced to the Texas Department of Corrections for an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
If the mandatory supervisi,cn law were imposed on a prisoner who committed his crime before the August 29, 1977 effective date, he would remain under state supervision at a time when prior law required his discharge from his sentence. Section 7 prevents the unconstitu- tional imposition on an offender of a punishment which did not exist when he committed the crime!. -See Tex. Const. art. I, 516 (ex post facto law).
Thus, someone sentenced for an offense committed prior to August
-
1977 and not paroled hat received or will receive a discharge only
from the Department of Cor::octions. Persons sentenced for offenses committed after August 29, 1977 and subsequently placed on mandatory supervision were or will blr discharged by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Persons paroled al: any time receive their certificate of discharge from the Board of Iardons and Paroles. The board informs us that the Department of Corre:tions issues a discharge certificate for every person who completes his sentence, and the board performs its duty to issue a discharge certificate by stamping the department’s certificate.Your question about th,r “legal equivalent” of a certificate from
the Board of Pardons and I’rroles raises the issue of the class of persons enfranchised by article 5.01. Does article 5.01 now enfranchise all convicted Lslons five years after completing their sentences or does it excludr any felon who could not, be discharged by the Board of Pardons and Pit::oles because he was not paroled and not subject to mandatory supervir:ion? You in effect ask whether section 4 of article 5.01 should be rc!c,d as follows:4. Persons who have been convicted of a felony, for 8 period ending on the fifth anniversary of thti! date on which the person: (A) received 21 certificate of discharge by the Board of Pardonr; end Paroles [or the equivalent of such a cert:.f’icate of discharge]. . . .Support for the view thnt felons discharged by the Department of
Corrections are reenfranchissd on the fifth anniversary of that date is to be found in the legi~~3.ative history of House Bill No. 718. As first introduced it did not include a section 4. but only section 3,
.Rcmorable El France Lee - Page 5 (JM-202)
rational basis. The only d:Lstinction between the groups is “wholly
arbitrary” -- a difference Ln the official ministerial act granting
discharge. There is no constitutionally justifiable basis for
granting or withdrawing the franchise on this purely insubstantfal
difference. Thus, the s!:r.tute must be construed to omit this
difference if it is to be sil\,ed from invalidity.You also ask whether a certificate of discharge from otherinstitutions such as a federal or sister state prison or parole board
is the legal equivalent of e certificate of discharge from the Board
of Pardons and Paroles. C:fnerally , courts have said that statutes
regulating the right to vote should be liberally interpreted in favor
of- that right. Thomas v. i?m. 212 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. 1948); Walker
v. Thetford, 418 S.W.Zd 276 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1967, writ ref’d
n.r.e.1; Wooley v. Sterrett,, 387 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas
1965, no writ); Mitchell v. -- Jones, 361 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. Civ. App. -
Texarkana 1962. no writ). Moreover, relevant cases have concluded
that the Texas law barring convicted felons from voting applies to
persons convicted in fedeial as well as state court. -Shipherd v.
See also II;lyes v. Williams, 341 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.
Genera:rOpinion V-278 (1947) (prohibition against
convicted felons voting applies to persons convicted in federal
court). See also Hughes v. --State, 284 S.W. 952 (Tex. Grim. App. 1926)
(person convicted of felony in federal court disqualified from jury
service). Ilence, we conclude that felons discharged by either a
federal or a sister state’s correctional institution or parole board,
as well as by the Texas DeTs&rtmentof Corrections, are reenfranchised
five years after that event. To conclude otherwise could subject the
Act to possible invalidation under the Equal Protection Clause of the
United States Constitution.SUMMARY House Bill !I.>. 718 of the Sixty-eighth Legislature, codiEied as article 5.01 of the Election Code, restores the vote to persons convicted of a fe:l,ony on the fifth anniversary of their discharge by the Texas Department of Corrections or by 3 federal or sister state prison or parole board, just like those discharged by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas i nRoaorablc El Franc0 Lee - Page 6 (m-202)
TON GREEN
First Assistant Attorney Gererel
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney, General
Prepared by Colin Carl
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMWTT.EE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
p. 893
What does Texas law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1984. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace