VA Supreme Court strikes down expanded voting rights for felons

[RI]

https://twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/756626045638410240

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Sounds about right. This kind of sweeping criminal justice reform has to go through the legislature. I agree with McAuliffe's intentions, but he overreached.

[Lief 🗽]

T-Mac has announced he will sign individual executive orders for every person who the Supreme Court disenfranchised today.

HUGE FF!!

[Ebsy]

So they agree that he can restore voting right for individuals by executive order?

[IceSpear]

Disgusting! Good thing T-Mac is being brave and fighting against these fascist thug activist judges!

[Mr. Reactionary]

activist judges!

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1160784.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SUCH ACTIVISM!

[rob in cal]

 I find the assumption that the ruling hurts the Dems offensive, patronizing and insulting.

[136or142]

activist judges!

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1160784.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SUCH ACTIVISM!

Any reading of the Constitutional Amendment that protects voting rights makes it clear that only those who are presently incarcerated may have their voting rights infringed upon.  Though this case was decided under Commonwealth law and the Virginia Constitution, the U.S Constitution supersedes any State or Commonwealth Constitution.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I find the assumption that the ruling hurts the Dems offensive, patronizing and insulting.

If it's objectively true (that is likely but remains to be seen for sure), who cares if it's offensive, patronizing, or insulting?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Some god I don't believe in D*** it!

[SillyAmerican]

I find the assumption that the ruling hurts the Dems offensive, patronizing and insulting.

You know what I find offensive, patronizing, and insulting? The realization that the people to which this ruling applies represent a target constituency for one named Hillary Clinton.

[SWE]

I find the assumption that the ruling hurts the Dems offensive, patronizing and insulting.

Why?

[MK]

Great, stops dems from trying to manufacture fraudulent votes.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Great, stops dems from trying to manufacture fraudulent votes.

Restoration of voting rights is explicitly provided for in Virginia law.  So how exactly would this be fraudulent?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Any reading of the Constitutional Amendment that protects voting rights makes it clear that only those who are presently incarcerated may have their voting rights infringed upon.  Though this case was decided under Commonwealth law and the Virginia Constitution, the U.S Constitution supersedes any State or Commonwealth Constitution.

You have an odd interpretation of the Fifteenth, one not supported by either case law or the plain language of the amendment. It's mention of prior servitude is referring to slavery, not incarceration. Plus the Fourteenth explicitly allows denial of voting rights for a crime.

[Virginiá]

Virginia State Constitution clauses regarding voting rights and clemency:

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article5/section12/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article2/section1/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now considering "ultra vires" is basically using powers beyond what was given to you, where are the restrictions above? There are none. We aren't talking about complex legalese here. It's very clear that there are no restrictions on this power. The 4 concurring judges flat out made that restriction up.

Isn't this what conservatives always say? Follow the letter of the Constitution? So where are the letters that specifically state that voting rights have to be restored on an individual basis? This entire ruling was as partisan as McAuliffe's executive action. Just because one doesn't like what McAuliffe did doesn't mean you can just make up passages/restrictions that don't exist. I hate that our federal Constitution has no official right to vote, but I'm not sitting here acting like it does have one.

But, while it was the State Supreme Court and the ruling will just have to stand for now, let's not act like it was based on anything the state constitution said. Because it wasn't. It's not even remotely supported by the text, hence why numerous law professors in Virginia told McAuliffe the EO was constitutional.