Virginia GOP lawmakers to sue over felons’ voting rights

[jpak]

Source: Washington Post

RICHMOND, Va. — Republican lawmakers in Virginia will file a lawsuit challenging Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s decision to allow more than 200,000 convicted felons to vote in November, GOP leaders said Monday.

Republicans said that they have hired an attorney and plan to contest the governor’s executive order, which restored the rights of felons to vote, run for office and sit on a jury.

GOP lawmakers argue the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority with a clear political ploy designed to help his friend and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton get votes in the important swing state of Virginia this fall.

“Gov. McAuliffe’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution of Virginia and the rule of must not go unchecked,” Senate Republican Leader Thomas Norment said in a statement. He said his predecessors and previous attorneys general examined this issue and concluded Virginia’s governor does not have the power to issue blanket restorations.

<more>

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/virginia-gop-lawmakers-to-sue-over-felons-voting-rights/2016/05/02/725250a0-1075-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

[groundloop]

1. Meanwhile, in GOPer version of democracy, only select citizens are allowed to vote.

[Akicita]

3. Agreed. I've always thought that we don't have nearly enough rapists and murderers voting or

serving on juries.

[atreides1]

9. Really?

So, you agree with the Republicans?

Besides, how do you know that there aren't enough rapists and murderers serving on juries? Not all criminals are found guilty...

[Akicita]

11. A close loved one of mine had her life ruined by a brutal rape. It would be the height of hipocracy

for me if her torturer was allowed to serve on a jury. The scumbag shouldn't vote either.

Fine for non-violent criminals. Violent criminals no.

[LanternWaste]

13. No one arguing that criminals should vote. The argument is whether once the punishment is complete

No one arguing that criminals should vote. The argument is whether once the punishment is complete and the individual is no longer a criminal, that they should.

No doubt, many people believe ex-convicts should be prevented from all sorts of rights. It may allow you additional context to note that the United States is among the most punitive nations in the world when it comes to denying the vote to those who have been convicted of a felony offence (The Guardian, 2013-08-07).

In the United States, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect communities of color. As much as 10% of the population in some minority communities in the United States are unable to vote as a result of felony disenfranchisement (Social Science Quarterly 90).

In three states with the harshest laws – Florida, Kentucky and Virginia – more than one in five black Americans have been stripped of their vote (The Guardian, 2013-08-07).

[Akicita]

14. My loved one's rapist will always be a criminal for what he did to her and others whether he served

his sentence or not. I don't really care what the skin color of a violent criminal is(That seems to be a big deal with you). They should not serve on juries or vote.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. This requires elaboration. The headline leaves out some important information.

I know that you have to use the headline as it appears. A more accurate headline would have been:

"Virginia GOP lawmakers to sue over use of executive order to restore felons’ voting rights"

The objection is not so much to the restoration of voting rights to felons as it is to the manner in which this is being accomplished. Even Ken Cuccinelli is in favor of restoring voting rights to some felons.

I posted about this in the Virginia Group forum two weeks ago. As it is often said, God is in the details. Here you go:

About 200,000 convicted felons in Virginia will now have the right to vote in November

There is more to this story than meets the eye. The restoration of voting rights to convicted felons enjoys bipartisan support. Yes, Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli supported restoring voting rights to convicted felons. Where they drew the line, though, was that they favored restoring voting rights to felons convicted of non-violent crimes.

About 200,000 convicted felons in Virginia will now have the right to vote in November

By [link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/sari-horwitz|Sari Horwitz] and Jenna Portnoy

April 22 at 11:00 AM

Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) will make all ex-felons in Virginia eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential election, part of a years-long effort to restore full voting rights to former convicts.

McAuliffe’s announcement in Richmond on Friday will allow an estimated 180,000 to 210,000 former felons who are not in prison or on probation or parole to register to vote this year in Virginia, a battleground state, according to a coalition of civil rights groups that had pushed for the restoration of voting rights.
....

But McAuliffe’s April 22 proclamation will not automatically restore the voting rights of all felons going forward. In the future, the Virginia governor will review eligibility and restore voting rights to ex-offenders on an ongoing basis.
....

In 2013, then-Gov. McDonnell, a former prosecutor, made sweeping changes to the process felons had to complete to regain their rights, which in Virginia includes the ability to vote, run for and hold public office and serve on juries. His administration waived the requirement that nonviolent offenders who had completed their sentences had to wait two years before applying, and streamlined the process with an online form and a toll-free information hotline.

McDonnell to expedite rights restoration process for non-violent felons in Virginia

By Errin Whack

May 29, 2013

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell said Wednesday that he is waiving the waiting period and automatically restoring the voting rights of non-violent felons who have completed their sentences and satisfied certain conditions.

The decision by McDonnell, a former prosecutor who has supported restoring voting rights, underscores a long-held position. McDonnell (R) has granted the right to vote to more ex-felons than any of his predecessors at a time when other Republican across the country have adopted more strict voting requirements, including photo IDs and shortened early voting periods.
....

McDonnell’s announcement comes a day after a committee created by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) reported that the governor could do more to streamline the process. Cuccinelli, who is running to succeed McDonnell this year, formed the committee after legislation to create a constitutional amendment to automatically restore voting rights for non-violent felons failed again in the General Assembly.
....

During McDonnell’s administration, more than 4,800 felons have been put back on the voting rolls during his administration. Cuccinelli came to support restoring voting rights for non-violent felons more recently, after repeatedly voting as a state senator against efforts to put a constitutional amendment addressing the issue on the ballot.

Cuccinelli U-turns on restoring voting rights to non-violent felons

By Sean Gorman on Monday, June 3rd, 2013 at 6:05 a.m.

For years, Virginia Democrats have been trying to make it easier for non-violent felons to regain their civil rights after they’ve paid their debts to society. But Democrats cried foul last week when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican nominee for governor, endorsed the cause.
....

... On Jan. 14, the attorney general testified in favor of a constitutional amendment for automatic voting restoration that was subsequently killed by a House subcommittee. ... On May 28, Cuccinelli called on Virginia to make it easier for non-violent felons to regain voting rights and released a report, put together by an advisory group he appointed, on ways to do that.
....

Cuccinelli acknowledged, "When I was in the Senate, I wasn’t very supportive of the restoration of rights. I thought of it as a part of the punishment for being a felon." ... But the attorney general said he has grown increasingly concerned about what he called "felony creep" -- the trend of state politicians passing laws that elevate to felonies non-violent crimes that should remain as misdemeanors.

He questioned, for example, whether someone stealing $200 should be charged with a felony as mandated in Virginia. Brian Gottstein, spokesman for the attorney general, said while in the Senate, Cuccinelli voted for two unsuccessful bills that would have raised the dollar amount at which a theft becomes a felony.

[Lurks Often]

6. Right & wrong and facts don't matter to some here if there is a D behind the politician's name.

[sofa king]

8. Yeah, except Republicans lied and didn't do anything.

The Republican Assembly lied about restoring felon voting rights three years ago. They control the Assembly. Did they produce a bill so that more felons could vote in 2014, as Gov. McDonnell requested? Of course not.

What about last year? No.

This year? Oh god, no! It's a general election year, for crying out loud! We can't have them voting now.

Which means that whatever bullshit they said, what Republicans did was make sure that most felons couldn't vote in this election year.

Now, they'll pay out of the Republican fund to fight against voting rights, instead of bullshitting everyone and pretending to care while they run out the clock. Note that they were perfectly okay with the Republican governor changing the regulations, but now, it's lawsuit-worthy.

[Democat]

4. Republicans Are Against Voting Rights

Should be the headline.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. The restoration of voting rights to convicted felons enjoys bipartisan support in Virginia.

Not, however, the use of an executive order to accomplish that end.

A better headline would be "Virginia GOP lawmakers to sue over use of executive order to restore felons’ voting rights"

Please see post #3.

[valerief]

7. I thought they were ex-felons. nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. Good point.

The words "felon" and "ex-felon" seem to be thrown about interchangeably in news accounts. The people they're talking about have served their time and have paid (or are paying) their restitution.

A distinction is made between ex-offenders who had been convicted of violent crimes and ex-offenders who had been convicted of non-violent crimes.

Cuccinelli was concerned by "penalty creep" - the situation in which many misdemeanors, particularly drug-related ones, were elevated to felonies.

Thank you for writing.

[vkkv]

10. The GOP would like to allow ex-Felons to have GUNS though... nt

[procon]

15. Taken at face value, why shouldnt felons have their right to vote restored?

Now, I'm not discounting the Republicans blatantly obvious tactic of voter suppression to prevent this new bloc of potential Democratic leaning voters from ever getting access to a ballot. But, to continue punishing someone after their incarceration seems more like retaliatory vengeance. If these felons have served their time, and demonstrated that they are capable of safely returning to the community through a lengthy period of supervised probation. Why doesn't all that serve to pay their debt to society in full?

[whatthehey]

16. I just don't get the problem here

I'm certainly less of a law and order "bleeding heart" than much of DU. I am more in line with the Dem party platform in that I am fine with both the death penalty and rigorous sentencing for violent criminals.

But I'm that way out of a desire to reduce the negative impact of recidivism. I have no particular desire to exclude criminals from all aspects of the body politic, certainly not for life. Isn't that counterintuitive? To address people who act inimically against society's general wellbeing by making them even more disconnected from that general wellbeing? I'm not sure we should even stop them from voting in prison let alone out of it. They are still citizens, just not free ones. They are still bound by the laws politicians enact, just bound by more regulations in prisons too. They still have a vested interest in the benefit of the nation, which will be there when they get out or even for lifers which will be where their family and friends mostly reside. What, either ethically or politically, is the benefit to disenfranchising them to begin with? It's not like even our prison population is large enough to elect, say, a president promising plenary pardons.