VA Supreme Court Will Hear GOP Lawsuit Against Guv Over Right To Vote For Felons

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe speaks about a new program for veterans to receive health care closer to home during an event at the Appomattox Area Health and Wellness Center in Petersburg, Va. Friday, Jan. 23, 2015. ... Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe speaks about a new program for veterans to receive health care closer to home during an event at the Appomattox Area Health and Wellness Center in Petersburg, Va. Friday, Jan. 23, 2015. This was one of his first public events since a four-day hospitalization at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center for treatment of an injury sustained when he was thrown from a horse during a vacation. (AP Photo/The Progress-Index, Patrick Kane) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Virginia’s Supreme Court announced it will hold a special session in July to hear the lawsuit brought by Republican state legislators challenging Gov. Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s (D) move to restore the voting rights of convicted felons in the state. The court will hear the case July 19, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported, after Republicans urged the justices in court filings for a decision by August 25 ahead of November’s election.

Republicans in the state were infuriated by McAuliffe’s April executive order to give some 200,000 convicted felons their voting rights back, dismissing it as a gambit to help get Hillary Clinton elected.

Days later they announced they would be filing a lawsuit challenging the governor’s constitutional authority to sign such an order. The lawsuit — filed at the end of May by state House Speaker William Howell (R) and state Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment (R) along with four other Virginia voters — claimed the governor can only restore voting rights to felons on a case-by-case basis, instead of en masse, as McAuliffe’s order does.

In a response to Wednesday’s announcement of a special court session, Howell said in a statement,“We are pleased the Supreme Court recognizes the urgency of our challenge to Governor McAuliffe’s unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of executive power.”

Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), who is defending the governor’s actions, was not against holding a special session, but argued in court filings that the case should not be heard in June, since Republicans had a month to pull their lawsuit together, the Richmond Times-Dispatch said.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Didn’t the previous VA Governor restore voting rights to felons? As much as I disliked Gov. McDouchebag, he did the same thing…only it was 100.000 by executive order instead of 200,000. How partisan can it be when two different Governors in VA from two different parties do the same action under their authority?

    Ah yes…here it is:

  2. Avatar for pshah pshah says:

    The lawsuit – filed at the end of May by state House Speaker William Howell ® and state Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment ® along with four other Virginia voters – claimed the governor can only restore voting rights to felons on a case-by-case basis, instead of en masse, as McAuliffe’s order does.

    How do they even have standing? I understand they may not like giving likely Democratic voters the right to vote, but this in no way affects their civil rights.

  3. It must be one of those IOIYAR situations. As a Virginian, I fully support Governor McAuliffe in restoring voting rights to these folks. If what Gov. McDonnell did was constitutional (as it relates to Virginia’s Constitution), then what Gov. McAuliffe did is constitutional.

  4. Oh, but I’m sure McDonnell personally signed each one of those 100,000 documents, so that was OK.

  5. I suppose the argument is that any voter would have standing, since allowing an otherwise ineligible person to vote “dilutes” the vote of the eligible voter.

    The suit, I’m afraid, actually has merit. The VA Constitution, Article V, Section 12, says:

    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.

    That second paragraph is the problem.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

7 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for pshah Avatar for beattycat Avatar for misterneutron Avatar for rickk

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: