Why are the rights of convicted felons still abridged even after their sentence is served?

Because Americans believe in punishment, not rehabilitation. It doesn’t matter to most people that once they’re out they’ve served their time, because it’s never enough. Too many Americans want blood.

Felons in Oregon can now vote after they’re released, thankfully. People can’t expect felons to reintegrate into society if no one allows it to happen. Common sense.

I don’t know the history or official reasoning behind it. Maybe they figured people who commit felonies lack judgement? We are punishment oriented in America, that’s true, but I’m not sure losing voting rights was considered part of the “punishment?” I really don’t know. Punishment treats people like animals in a sense. You commit a crime, you get punished so hopefully you don’t commit a crime again. The hope is the person would want to avoid punishment and stay on the straight and narrow. That’s a different type of learning and judgement than deciding who to vote for. People will avoid punishment even when they don’t really have the moral compass inherent within them. I’m not talking about sociopathic killers and child abusers who really probably can’t be rehabilitated in any way, but some criminals can be straightened out (at least somewhat) based on the threat of punishment I think.

Rehab would be a much better solution, especially for young people.

Because colonials believe in revenge, not justice.

That would be due to sheer bloody mindedness.

I wonder if their sentence is technically served or if they are on parole so technically still serving their sentence?

One theory I heard was that at the time the laws were made, a felony conviction was dire act, universally reviled, and the person was to be marked for life.
Felony = Heinous, or “utterly odious or wicked.”

A little research:
“The word originates from English common law (from the French medieval word “félonie”), where felonies were originally crimes that involved confiscation of a convicted person’s land and goods.”
At that time only the land owners were allowed certain privileges (like voting), so when a felony stripped you of your land, you also lost other privileges.

Voting rights have expanded and modernized, the rights of felons have not.

Felony disenfranchisement dates back to Graeco-Roman law, where a felony could result in the loss of privilege of land ownership. Here’s an interesting article on the history and morality of the practice.

It’s part of the the new Jim Crow laws.

Actually, the concept predates Jim Crow by about 1800 years; but its implementation as part of the 14th amendment sure seems to complement the idea

Modern times have expanded the list of things that are now considered felonies to the point that all felonies can hardly be considered heinous crimes against humanity.
Considering you can have a felony conviction over marijuana.

Exactly, ibstubro.

It’s hard for me to imagine a good argument for suspending any citizen’s right to vote in modern society.
Do we imagine that we’ll eventually have so many prison inmates that they’ll be able to legally take control of the government through the election process?

It has the effect of reducing voter rolls among racial minorities more than anything.
Minorities are far more likely to be arrested and convicted of all sorts of crimes (especially victimless crimes like marijuana possession). And when they get out they are kept off the voting rolls, isn’t that handy? (NOT)