Va. high court invalidates McAuliffe’s order restoring felon voting rights

anatta

100% recycled karma
Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s decision to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 felons violates Virginia’s constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday, dealing a major blow to the Democratic governor with implications for the November presidential race in the crucial swing state.

In a 4-to-3 decision, the court ruled that McAuliffe overstepped his clemency powers by issuing a sweeping order in April restoring rights to all ex-offenders who are no longer incarcerated or on probation or parole.

The court agreed with state Republicans who challenged McAuliffe’s order, arguing that the governor can only restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis and not en masse.

But a defiant McAuliffe released a statement late Friday saying that he would pick up his executive pen and restore the rights of those felons on an individual basis, even if it means signing more than 200,000 orders.

McAuliffe said in his statement that he would “expeditiously” sign individual orders for those 13,000 felons and then keep on signing.

“Once again, the Virginia Supreme Court has placed Virginia as an outlier in the struggle for civil and human rights,” McAuliffe said. “It is a disgrace that the Republican leadership of Virginia would file a lawsuit to deny more than 200,000 of their own citizens the right to vote. And I cannot accept that this overtly political action could succeed in suppressing the voices of many thousands of men and women who had rejoiced with their families earlier this year when their rights were restored.”

Republicans saw it as a partisan move to swell the numbers of Democratic voters heading into the November election, when McAuliffe’s good friend, Hillary Clinton, will be battling to win the swing state and its 13 electoral votes in her presidential race against Republican Donald Trump.

Lemons noted in his opinion that Virginia’s last Democratic governor, Timothy M. Kaine, declined in 2010 to issue a blanket voting rights restoration order on advice from a senior adviser who said such a move would be an improper “rewrite” of the law and constitution. A spokeswoman for Kaine, now a senator who was announced as Clinton’s running mate Friday evening, did not return a request for comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...more-top-stories_vafelon-640pm:homepage/story
 
gotta follow the law. Clintonistas like McAuliffe aren't exempt. Ifyou wanna change the procedure -change the law on restoration.

It's like Obama on DAPPA - he legislates an entire class of people as exempt from immigration laws.

It's obviously alot of politicking going on - but that doesn't mean process can be short-circuited
 
Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s decision to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 felons violates Virginia’s constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday, dealing a major blow to the Democratic governor with implications for the November presidential race in the crucial swing state.

In a 4-to-3 decision, the court ruled that McAuliffe overstepped his clemency powers by issuing a sweeping order in April restoring rights to all ex-offenders who are no longer incarcerated or on probation or parole.

The court agreed with state Republicans who challenged McAuliffe’s order, arguing that the governor can only restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis and not en masse.

But a defiant McAuliffe released a statement late Friday saying that he would pick up his executive pen and restore the rights of those felons on an individual basis, even if it means signing more than 200,000 orders.

McAuliffe said in his statement that he would “expeditiously” sign individual orders for those 13,000 felons and then keep on signing.

“Once again, the Virginia Supreme Court has placed Virginia as an outlier in the struggle for civil and human rights,” McAuliffe said. “It is a disgrace that the Republican leadership of Virginia would file a lawsuit to deny more than 200,000 of their own citizens the right to vote. And I cannot accept that this overtly political action could succeed in suppressing the voices of many thousands of men and women who had rejoiced with their families earlier this year when their rights were restored.”

Republicans saw it as a partisan move to swell the numbers of Democratic voters heading into the November election, when McAuliffe’s good friend, Hillary Clinton, will be battling to win the swing state and its 13 electoral votes in her presidential race against Republican Donald Trump.

Lemons noted in his opinion that Virginia’s last Democratic governor, Timothy M. Kaine, declined in 2010 to issue a blanket voting rights restoration order on advice from a senior adviser who said such a move would be an improper “rewrite” of the law and constitution. A spokeswoman for Kaine, now a senator who was announced as Clinton’s running mate Friday evening, did not return a request for comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...more-top-stories_vafelon-640pm:homepage/story

He sounds just like Obama. Doesn't get what he wants so he whines.

It's nice to know that Virginia has so few problems the governor can take time to specifically review that many cases in 3 1/2 months. That's right. He isn't going to review them just rubber stamp it without looking at them because he doesn't being told he violated the Constitution.
 
gotta follow the law. Clintonistas like McAuliffe aren't exempt. Ifyou wanna change the procedure -change the law on restoration.

It's like Obama on DAPPA - he legislates an entire class of people as exempt from immigration laws.

It's obviously alot of politicking going on - but that doesn't mean process can be short-circuited

Cry harder bitch.
Good luck stopping him.
 
gotta follow the law. Clintonistas like McAuliffe aren't exempt. Ifyou wanna change the procedure -change the law on restoration.

It's like Obama on DAPPA - he legislates an entire class of people as exempt from immigration laws.

It's obviously alot of politicking going on - but that doesn't mean process can be short-circuited

Auto pens etc he should be able to knock off quite a few......

Do you agree w/ this jim crow impediment to voting??

Does it say somewhere in the konsititution that ppl that commit crime XYZ should not be able to vote??
 
Auto pens etc he should be able to knock off quite a few......

Do you agree w/ this jim crow impediment to voting??

Does it say somewhere in the konsititution that ppl that commit crime XYZ should not be able to vote??

The problem is he won't be reviewing any of them just "signing" them.

Jim Crow impediment? Not hardly.

Federal law and the Constitution say very little about requirements when it comes to voting. STATES make those laws. With the exception of setting dates, the frequency of, and things for which states can't use to deny someone the right to vote (age 18, gender, race), the federal government says very little about voting.
 
Worst governor we've ever had. And that's saying something considering he came after Tim Kaine.
Glad he keeps getting his nose rubbed in it.
 
Auto pens etc he should be able to knock off quite a few......

Do you agree w/ this jim crow impediment to voting??

Does it say somewhere in the konsititution that ppl that commit crime XYZ should not be able to vote??
no I don't agree. I do think everyone needs to complete their sentence however, and that includes parole and probation..

But like I mentioned a governor cannot pardon a class of people, any more then Obama could not enforce immigration law
even with his DAPA executive order (legislating a class of people, not "prosecutorial discretion")

I hope I do not need to reason why SCOTUS and Va. Supreme courts ruling went the way they did?
 
Nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote.


Four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – use the same language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.

Poor Blabo.



http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/1621/yes-there-right-vote-constitution
 
Auto pens etc he should be able to knock off quite a few......

Do you agree w/ this jim crow impediment to voting??

Does it say somewhere in the konsititution that ppl that commit crime XYZ should not be able to vote??

That's what I was wondering. They've paid their debt to society.
 
Nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote.

In that case there shouldn't be any reason why people who paid their debt to society can't vote. I thinks it's a crazy law or rule, whatever you call it. No universal suffrage.

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.[SUP][5][/SUP]
 
In that case there shouldn't be any reason why people who paid their debt to society can't vote. I thinks it's a crazy law or rule, whatever you call it. No universal suffrage.

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.[SUP][5][/SUP]

It's state controlled. Don't like how your state does it then talk to your representative.
 
Back
Top