Well, well. Someone got it right. Here is a nice little quote...
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-13-Fri-2001/opinion/15846227.html
"" What is the justification for denying people who have paid their debt to society the right to vote? The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are equal, inseparable and take precedence over any subsequent enactments; they are the highest law of the land. Would anyone assert a felon, once released from prison and having successfully completed parole or probation, has no right to attend a church or temple -- to exercise his freedom of religion -- until those specific rights are restored in writing by some executive order? Of course not.
Likewise, no one would consider barring former prisoners from writing books or letters-to-the-editor after their release pending issuance of some document formally "restoring" this First Amendment right.
This notion that Americans become second class citizens -- some of their constitutional rights selectively and permanently impaired -- even after they have "done their time," is anathema in a free country, because it accustoms us to a dangerous precedent under which government bureaucrats are empowered to decide which rights shall be "restored," and when. ""(no author found...)
What if my conviction was for a federal crime? If you were convicted of a federal crime, your right to vote is restored once you have been fully discharged from the terms of your sentence or once you have received a pardon. In other words, the "hang-`em-high" crowd is in for a big disappointment, the entire argument is probably the opposite of what they thought, federal felons already automatically regain their right to vote. There are a few states that restrict voting in federal elections, if the person moves to a state that does not, then the laws of that state apply.
TLI