I'm very ignorant of history and law, and this information is from Wikipedia,
But,
"As the Civil War was still raging, no electoral votes were counted from any of the eleven southern states that had joined the Confederate States of America.[1] Lincoln's re-election ensured that he would preside over the successful conclusion of the Civil War."
It makes sense that a person breaking the law as it is currently understood by one side, not be able to vote during an election.
Same would apply to a terrorist, I imagine.
Many states, though not 'all I think, have laws that limit or cease individuals right to vote, during prison time, and parole.
Which again, makes sense,
As their suitability is being assessed.
Same reasoning people use for assessing individuals before selling them various items of potential harm.
"Voting restrictions on former Confederates varied by state during the rest of the Reconstruction era. Few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance but allowed them to vote if they took an oath for Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than that required by the Ironclad Oath.[14] In states with disenfranchisement, the maximum was 10–20% of otherwise-eligible white voters; most states had much smaller proportions disenfranchised.[15] In the South, the most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the Hill Counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities.[16]"
I imagine countries that experience civil war, might see equal voting rights, if it comes back together on equal peace treaty terms,
But South lost.
I'd suppose it 'is a concern, that groups might be focused on, their right to vote removed,
Jews in WW2 Germany for instance,
Or Communists during the Cold War,
But 'active terrorists, criminals, even 'past terrorists and criminals, would be a concern, I'd think.
There's a difference between refusing someone equal rights for being a 'bit different from you,
And an individual who's a proven past or active threat.
Though. . . And I hate to be Devil's Advocate, to certain people's mind, even those people a 'bit different, 'are an active threat.
And what's more, according to their values, truly 'are an active threat.
Though not everyone 'holds said people's minds.
Also,
