In Virginia, when a person is convicted of a felony, they lose their right to vote. Left unclear is whether their voting rights will ever be restored. This is quite different from the situation in most of the country. For example, voting rights are never lost in Maine and Vermont and prisoners may vote by absentee ballot. Thirty-eight states restore voting rights automatically once out of prison, or after completion of an entire sentence (i.e., including parole). Only 10 states, including Virginia, do not routinely restore voting rights. In these states, some government action is required before voting rights are restored – these include such things as a pardon, a court petition, or a waiting period. Virginia is the only one of these 10 states that makes it the governor’s responsibility to decide when and if voting rights will be restored.
Leaving this decision up to the governor has resulted in very different treatment of felons. Going back in history a bit, Governor Allen (1994 – 1998), followed by Governor Gilmore, restored voting rights to only several hundred felons, and at varying times after their release. The next several governors restored voting rights to several thousand felons.
Governor McAuliffe then changed past practices by restoring voting rights to almost everyone who had completed their prison term and supervised release – about 200,000 people. Governor Northam largely continued this practice as sentences were completed.
Governor Youngkin then reverted to a more restricted outcome and restored rights to only a fraction of the felons who had completed their sentences. Governor Spanberger now is routinely restoring rights to felons after their sentences are complete and following a legally required review of their cases.
What this has meant is that the right to vote after completing a prison sentence is quite uncertain, as it is highly dependent on who is the governor. People with the same criminal sentence, but completing their prison time at different times, have been treated unequally. It all has depended on who happens to be in office. It is hard to see how this treatment is fair.
Virginia’s constitutional amendment on the ballot next month would have us join most other states in having convicted criminals know about restoration of their ability to vote. It is easy to understand the argument why a criminal should have their voting rights restored – after they have completed their sentence they no longer need to be punished. On the other hand, it is easy to understand the argument (although not followed in most states) why voting rights should never be restored – that felons will never become respectable enough to make a decision affecting society. Almost impossible to understand is why felons should not know if they will be allowed to vote in the future – that it will be left up to the whim of whomever is in power.
Voting “yes” on Amendment 3 supports felons becoming able to vote after serving out their sentence. Voting “no” supports requiring a lot of bureaucratic hurdles and uncertain outcomes as governors come and go. Throughout the U.S. though, people are strongly supporting the idea that once a debt to society has been paid, voting rights should be restored.
