HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Va. Supreme Court strikes...

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:24 PM

Va. Supreme Court strikes down McAuliffe’s felon voting rights restoration in 4-3 decision

RICHMOND, Va. – The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down Governor McAuliffe’s executive order to restore the voting rights of more than 206,000 convicted felons.

Charles Cooper, who represented the four GOP lawmakers who brought the suit, argued McAuliffe had overstepped his constitutional authority. Cooper said the language of the Virginia Constitution prevents the Governor from making an “en masse” restoration order.

The court was sharply divided, with 4-3 in favor of ruling it unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Donald Lemons issued the opinion, which said that McAuliffe’s order essentially reframed a section of the state constitution.




http://wtvr.com/2016/07/22/va-supreme-court-rules-gov-mcauliffes-restoration-of-felon-voting-rights-unconstitutional/

46 replies, 3130 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Va. Supreme Court strikes down McAuliffe’s felon voting rights restoration in 4-3 decision (Original post)
SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 OP
scscholar Jul 2016 #1
L. Coyote Jul 2016 #2
loyalsister Jul 2016 #6
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #10
loyalsister Jul 2016 #11
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #12
Qutzupalotl Jul 2016 #3
bigwillq Jul 2016 #4
Calculating Jul 2016 #5
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #9
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #7
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #8
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #13
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #14
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #15
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #17
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #19
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #20
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #22
Nevernose Jul 2016 #16
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #18
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #21
Nevernose Jul 2016 #23
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #24
L. Coyote Jul 2016 #25
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #26
L. Coyote Jul 2016 #27
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #28
L. Coyote Jul 2016 #29
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #30
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #32
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #33
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #34
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #36
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #39
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #40
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #41
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #42
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #43
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #44
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2016 #45
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #46
MH1 Jul 2016 #35
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #37
MH1 Jul 2016 #38
napi21 Jul 2016 #31

Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:25 PM

1. This is sad

 

You should get all rights back except for those gun things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:28 PM

2. We need a national law protecting everyone's voting rights. Or a better legal case to

throw out felon disenfranchisement on Constitutional grounds. The state assumes all convictions are valid. That is wrong and denies representation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L. Coyote (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:49 PM

6. A starting point would be a Constitutionally enumerated affirmative right to vote

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 08:14 PM

10. Those rights are stripped upon a felony conviction

 

they can be reinstated via a petition to the governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 09:32 PM

11. Is there an affirmative right to vote in the VA constitution?

There is in MO and people can vote after they have completed their sentence. If it were a part of the US constitution, it is my understanding that would make it more difficult for states to take it away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 09:42 PM

12. There's an affirmative right to own guns and felons don't get those rights back

 

Because, as a felon, you lose that enumerated right.

There would need to be a change in the constitution that restores rights to felons....including gun rights to the non violent felons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:37 PM

3. He needs to go through the legislature.

Okay. But it needs to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:42 PM

4. Terrible.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:46 PM

5. What a joke

If you've served your time you should get your rights back. If they're not trustable enough to vote, I don't want them out of prison anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 08:12 PM

9. There would need to be a ballot initiative to change

 

the constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 07:53 PM

7. Why not do it on a case by case basis?

What is case by case anyway?

Im sure a computer program can spit out the names. And the Governor can sprain his wrist playing tennis so his auto signature can be used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 08:11 PM

8. He has to present the particulars of each case

 

to the legislature.
He waited until the legislature adjourned for the term and then issued his proclamation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:02 PM

13. He's now saying he will sign all 220k individually if need be. Or at least the 13k who registered

Does he need to present to the legislature for pardons or clemency?

Is this a pardon/clemency issue or some other law? I would think he doesn't need the legislature. He, obviously, just can't do it en masse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:02 PM

14. He needs to present them to the legislature individually

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:17 PM

15. For what? Approval? Or just submit them?

I've been trying to look up the law.

The local ACLU says they hope he follows through individually. At least on the 13k.

Not sure what the legislature can do or what level of involvement is required????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:21 PM

17. From the va constitution

 

Section 12. Executive clemency
The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.

He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:23 PM

19. So he just has to "communicate" the "particulars"

He doesn't need their approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:26 PM

20. No. But he is required to provide reasons and particulars

 

neither of which he did. He also didn't present them during the regular session as required

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:37 PM

22. It's pretty black and white.

Not sure how he thought the other way would fly.

But his authority is still there. It will just mean more ink and paper.

I guess he thought he was doing a Jimmy Carter with a blanket pardon. But the US Constitution doesn't require reports presented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:18 PM

16. I don't think that's accurate

He has the power to issue clemency, without the VA legislature. The ruling was that he had to grant clemency individually, by name, and not en masse.

He really could theoretically sit down and sign 206000 letters of clemency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:21 PM

18. That's what I've gotten out of the local ACLU statement.

They say at the very least he should sign for the 13kish who registered to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:26 PM

21. Not according to the constitution

 

Section 12. Executive clemency
The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.

He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:42 PM

23. But informing them wasn't the issue decided

It's just that he has to do them all individually. The legislature's not involved in any meaningful way, but thanks for the info. I guess it's in there to keep governors accountable.

McAuliffe btw, already said he'd sign all 206000 of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:44 PM

24. He has to do it during regular sessions. He waited

 

until the legislature adjourned and then issued a blanket proclamation.

It has to be individual, with the particulars of the case with the reasons for the action
AND
Must be presented during regular sessions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:00 AM

25. I don't think so, he just needs to send them something that complyies with the law.

For each individual. It is a lot of work, but computers can handle inserting names from a database, printers can even handle the signature, ... done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L. Coyote (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:06 AM

26. It's the plain text of the VA constitution

 

It requires the specifics of each case and the reason for granting relief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #26)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:13 AM

27. Same reason for each, to restore voting rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L. Coyote (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:15 AM

28. That's the act of relief not the reason for granting it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:16 AM

29. So, grant it for that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L. Coyote (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:19 AM

30. The reason for the relief can't be the relief itself.

 

you don't make a left turn because you made a left turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 03:32 PM

32. How about "they served their time" . Done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 03:38 PM

33. Some of them were found to be serving life sentences in other states

 

or awaiting sentencing on new felonies. One was found to be legally insane

Things that might have come to the governors attention had he done things the right way the first time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 05:05 PM

34. Honestly. Big fucking deal.

Ooooh a crazy person might vote (see: trump voters).

Someone awaiting sentencing. So I guess they lose their voting rights again. And the people awaiting sentencing in other states shouldn't be voting in-state anyway - who do they think they are? Ann Coulter?

The media and the repigs are going to make a big deal out of any unintended extra voter. Big deal. There are still over 200,000 people that served their time and should be allowed to vote.

This is and was a rascist policy meant to disenfranchise minorities. It needs to end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 05:23 PM

36. How many of those 200,000 are currently serving a prison sentence out of that

 

in a county jail awaiting sentencing on a felony conviction?
They guy is legally insane, in a state mental hospital.

Restoration of rights, in Virginia, is for those who deserve it not just because they've served their sentence but because they've actually worked to become productive, law abiding citizens of the state and earned the rights that they lost because of their conviction. That's why it's a case by case basis.

Should they also get their gun rights back upon serving their sentence? Surely stripping blacks of their right to self defense is just as racist as taking their right to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 08:08 PM

39. It's a rascist bigoted policy meant to disenfranchise minorities.

The fact the repigs are defending it should tell you all you need to know.

Like I said, I couldn't give a dusty fuck about a handful of people who "aren't supposed to vote" voting. Not when it means 200,000 other people who paid their debt to society get to vote.

The idea people need to spend time and money to restore voting rights is redicoulous and only meant to keep a thumb on the election scales. We saw how the repigs in Florida 2000 leveraged this rascist policy to put their thumb on the scale to disenfranchise minorities.

For every worse case scenario the repigs come up with, there are likely literally thousands of otherwise worthy people that will be allowed to vote.

What's the worse case here? Someone casts a ballot? Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 08:12 PM

40. There is a means to change the VA constitution, executive decree isn't it

 

illegal votes disenfranchise the legal voters.

Tim Kaine rejected doing this in 2010 because the governor didn't have the authority under the constitution. The court has affirmed his belief as the correct one. Was he a racist or merely literate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #40)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 08:27 PM

41. He had better lawyers. Lol.

Yeah, the State Constitution grants the Governor authority to restore voting rights. It looks like that is what he is going to do.

Just goes to show electing Democrats makes a difference. Elect repigs and get southern strategy disenfranchising Jim Crow rascist bull shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #41)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 08:35 PM

42. i think you should learn about Jim Crow and which party controlled the South at the time

 

The constitution does not allow the governor to issue blanket clemency. It didn't in 2010 when Tim Kaine was governor and looked into doing it and, as we've learned, it still doesn't.

On a case by case basis, absolutely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #42)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 08:47 PM

43. Lol. Yeah, I figured as much. This explains a lot.

I very aware of the rascist bigot's migration to the repig party after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Pigs couldn't stand the fact black people could vote and attend schools and eat in their restaurants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #43)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 08:50 PM

44. There's no debate on the Southern Strategy and shift in party

 

Ideologies but if you're going to invoke Jim Crow, it's best to know which party was actually responsible for it.

The purge of the party after 64 was much needed but it doesn't erase the sad history of the party prior to that point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #44)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 09:09 PM

45. The History forum is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1166

Repiglickers are currently disenfranchising millions of American minorities TODAY.

I'm more worried about today. Maybe we can invent a time machine and go back to fix the Democratic Party before I was born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #45)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 09:38 PM

46. SCOTUS already decided this issue in the 70's. The States are not illegally disenfranchising anyone

 

Last edited Sat Jul 23, 2016, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

They have stripped rights as punishment for a crime, through due process. And with equal application of the penalty. All Felons are treated equally under the law

I notice everyone crying about disenfranchisement isn't also looking to have gun rights reinstated. Why is it racist to strip minorities of the right to vote but not racist to also strip them of the enumerated right to own a gun?

Shouldn't we be pushing for the restoration of ALL rights lost as a result of their conviction instead of limiting it to just the one that we need to win elections?

TM exceeded his authority and was rightly reigned in by the courts. I doubt his attempt to work around the decision will fare much better given what the WaPo learned about some of the people whose rights would have been restored are currently residing in prisons, one in a mental hospital and the unknown number awaiting sentencing for felony convictions in and outside the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 05:21 PM

35. Interesting - if someone is found legally insane, do they lose their right to vote

for that reason?

I never thought about it before. But I don't think I've heard of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 05:25 PM

37. He lost the right to vote because of his conviction. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity

 

in another case.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 05:31 PM

38. Okay, it sounded different in your previous post.

So in this case, you think he should not be allowed to vote because he only got out of another conviction on an insanity plea. If it was just a matter of him being declared legally insane, but not that he'd committed another crime, the insanity itself wouldn't matter, right?

I'm just wondering how it works if someone is declared insane but not convicted of a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Original post)

Sat Jul 23, 2016, 01:21 AM

31. just heard on Norman Goldman's show that Terry said "That's fine. If you're

going to rule that way, then I'll just do them one at a time!"

I don't know if that's possible, but Norm seems to think it is and that's exactly what Terry's going to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread