Thread: Virginia Restores Right to Vote to Thousands of Felons

AUG 22 2016, 2:03 PM ET

Virginia Restores Right to Vote to Thousands of Ex-Felons

by ZACHARY ROTH

Nearly 13,000 former felons in Virginia had their right to vote restored Monday—and more could be re-enfranchised in time for the November election.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced the rights restoration at a civil-rights memorial in Richmond.

"Restoring the rights of Virginians who have served their time and live, work and pay taxes in our communities is one of the pressing civil rights issues of our day," McAuliffe said in a statement. "I have met these men and women and know how sincerely they want to contribute to our society as full citizens again."

Related: Voting Fight Shifts to Local Level In North Carolina

Monday's announcement was the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between McAuliffe, a Democrat, and Republican lawmakers over felon voting rights in the Old Dominion.



How voter ID laws will affect Election Day7:58


In April, McAuliffe announced a sweeping executive order which restored voting rights to all Virginians who had completed their prison sentences and any parole or probation—a total of around 206,000 people. State Republicans sued, calling the move a partisan effort to boost McAuliffe's longtime ally, Hillary Clinton, in a key state. Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled McAuliffe's order unconstitutional, saying he lacked the authority to issue a blanket rights restoration order.

Virginia's ex-felon population, like in most states, is disproportionately African-American, and likely leans Democratic.

Related: Trump Poll-Watching Plan Stirs Voter Intimidation Fears

McAuliffe responded to the ruling by saying he would embark on the time-consuming process of restoring rights individually to all eligible Virginians. He said at that time that he would complete the first 13,000—all those who registered to vote after having their rights restored by the original order—within a week. Since then, his office has admitted that the process is taking longer than anticipated.

The nearly 13,000 re-enfranchised Monday will now need to register to vote a second time. That's because in its ruling striking down McAuliffe's executive action, the Supreme Court ordered that local election boards remove the newly registered ex-felons from the rolls. McAuliffe said Monday the state would mail personalized rights restoration notifications, along with voter registration applications, to all 13,000 people affected.

McAuliffe's office also released a memo Monday that outlines a process for considering rights restoration for the roughly 193,000 remaining former felons. The process will involve a review by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, prioritizing those who have requested rights restoration, and those who have been released from supervision for the longest. The governor will then make a final decision, the memo said.

Related: The Fight Against Strict Voting Laws Pushes On

The deadline to register to vote in the November election is October 17. How many more Virginians might be re-enfranchised in time to vote this fall?

"We can't put a number on that at this time given that we are engaging in an individualized review of these cases," Brian Coy, a McAuliffe aide, said via email. "The Governor hopes to restore as many Virginians' rights as expeditiously as possible."

Virginia has been a swing state in the last two presidential elections. But with polls suggesting Clinton currently has a solid lead in the state over GOP nominee Donald Trump, her campaign has said it won't run local ads there, allowing it to focus resources on states that appear closer.

Virginia is one of several states that has seen efforts to loosen rules on voting by former felons, which disenfranchise nearly 6 million Americans, disproportionately African-Americans. Maryland this year restored voting rights to all felons no longer in prison.

Kentucky made it somewhat easier for former felons to have their records expunged and regain the franchise. And Iowa's Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit aimed at weakening the state's ban on voting by former felons.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elec...felons-n635956

I don't really have a problem with this. That is assuming it only goes for those that have paid their just dues to society. That means no felony prisoners or those serving on probation. The individual must have fully paid for their crime.

I totally support this. I never supported taking their voting rights away to begin with. Not even when they're in prison. When I was growing up it was always a big deal waiting for the ballots to come back from the prisons. That's when everyone had jobs, our borders were secure, there were no terrorists, and life was good in the United States. Convicts vote pretty much the same as everyone else. They are still citizens and personally I don't know how courts have ever been able to justify taking their vote away. Maybe the Supreme Court has never ruled on it. I don't know, I just know that it is wrong. So as much as I differ with McAuliffe on a lot of issues, most I would say, this was the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by Judy

I totally support this. I never supported taking their voting rights away to begin with. Not even when they're in prison. When I was growing up it was always a big deal waiting for the ballots to come back from the prisons. That's when everyone had jobs, our borders were secure, there were no terrorists, and life was good in the United States. Convicts vote pretty much the same as everyone else. They are still citizens and personally I don't know how courts have ever been able to justify taking their vote away. Maybe the Supreme Court has never ruled on it. I don't know, I just know that it is wrong. So as much as I differ with McAuliffe on a lot of issues, most I would say, this was the right thing to do.

I totally disagree with the concept of allowing those in prison to vote. I fully support the forfeiture of their right to be an active part of society the minute the judge pronounced sentence. I also disagree that prisoners vote pretty much the same as everyone else, especially those facing a long sentence. Those folks would typically vote for whoever they think will give them the best opportunity to get out sooner. They are also in a position to be easily manipulated and intimidated by prison guards, wardens, and parole boards. pay raises, prison funding, etc. can be big motivators for those in positions of authority over prison inmates. Nope, prison inmates should not have the right to participate in society until they actually become a part of it again (IMO).

Prisoners who are citizens are part of our society.

Are you suggesting that our prison guards, wardens and parole boards are crooks and criminals who would bribe prisoners for votes??!!!

You really do have quite an imagination.

Originally Posted by Judy

Prisoners who are citizens are part of our society.

Are you suggesting that our prison guards, wardens and parole boards are crooks and criminals who would bribe prisoners for votes??!!!

You really do have quite an imagination.

What I'm suggesting is prisoners are in a position to be easily influenced, intimidated, and coerced. Furthermore, it is also simple logic that they will vote on any candidate that will potentially shorten their stay behind bars. No need to spin what I'm saying because there is absolutely no doubt to the meaning. I'm sure most 'thinking' people comprehend exactly where I'm coming from.

You mean like teachers who vote for people who will guarantee them tenure no matter how bad a job they do?

You mean like poor voters who will vote for people who want to increase welfare spending?

You mean like taxpayers who will vote for people who will lower their taxes?

You mean like farmers who will vote for people who will let illegals roam free in the US and increase taxpayer farm subsidies?

You mean like people who work for companies who benefit from free trade treason will vote for people who want to pass more bad trade deals?

All voters vote at least to some degree for their own self-interest. Prisoner are no different. When they vote for shorter prison sentences, that may benefit from them in some cases, but in most cases it helps us too because it reduces the cost of incarcerations. Some sentences are far too long for the crime, so we're just wasting our taxpayer money ruining someone's life for no real purpose, like the mandatory sentencing for nonviolent drug offenses. What a scam that is!!

And if you're insinuating that I'm not a "thinking" person, then I consider that an insult and you are on notice I consider that a violation of the rules of this forum.

Click for more info

Puerto Rico inmates cast early ballots in Democratic primary


6/5/16

More than 7,000 prisoners across Puerto Rico are expected to cast early ballots for this weekend's Democratic primary in the U.S. territory...


How Florida's 1 million Puerto Ricans could influence the presidential race

Originally Posted by Judy

. . . And if you're insinuating that I'm not a "thinking" person, then I consider that an insult and you are on notice I consider that a violation of the rules of this forum.

LOL

Judy wrote (excerpt):

And if you're insinuating that I'm not a "thinking" person, then I consider that an insult and you are on notice I consider that a violation of the rules of this forum.

I didn't insinuate anything. Perhaps you should read what I said again. I said "most thinking people". If you want to include yourself in the "most", I have no problem with that. Now if I would have said "all thinking people", then you possibly would have had reason to cry wolf because the word "all" could have inferred you're not a thinking person.