Didnāt the previous VA Governor restore voting rights to felons? As much as I disliked Gov. McDouchebag, he did the same thingā¦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 yesā¦here it is:
The lawsuit ā 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 ā claimed the governor can only restore voting rights to felons on a case-by-case basis, instead of en masse, as McAuliffeās 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.
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 Virginiaās Constitution), then what Gov. McAuliffe did is constitutional.
Oh, but Iām sure McDonnell personally signed each one of those 100,000 documents, so that was OK.
I suppose the argument is that any voter would have standing, since allowing an otherwise ineligible person to vote ādilutesā the vote of the eligible voter.
The suit, Iām 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.
If the issue is personally signing the damn thingsā¦I suggest a big rubber stamp.
There really are so many types to choose fromā¦or that autopen idea that Presidents have used is also a good idea.
Alas, the signature isnāt really the problem. Itās ācommunicating the particulars of every caseā thatās the problem.
But the obvious fix for that would be to require him to communicate a document with 20,0000 lines of " [insert name here], voting rights restored, finished sentence and parole without subsequent conviction." In fact, itās quite possible he already has.
I agree - with a little creative database work, it should be possible to crank out what the opponents claim is needed. Could be sort of fun, too, like paying your real estate taxes with pennies.
I donāt see the problem based on the quoted language because the plain language of these passages doesnāt require the communication of the particulars of each case of removal of political disabilities.
Specifically, the Governor is granted four (4) powers in the first paragraph. The third of these powers is the power to remove political disabilities consequent upon convictions. The second paragraph then imposes upon the Governor the duty to communicate the particulars of each case in which the Governor exercises the first, second and fourth powers that are granted in the first paragraph. Notably, the second paragraph does not impose upon the Governor a corresponding duty to communicate the particulars of each case of the removal of political disabilities as it does for the other three (3) powers:
"The Governor shall have power
[1] to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law;
[2] to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates;
[3] to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and
[4] to commute capital punishment.
āHe shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case
[corresponds to 1 above] of fine or penalty remitted,
[corresponds to 2 above] of reprieve or pardon granted, and
[corresponds to 4 above] of punishment commuted,
with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.ā
FWIW. Iām not licensed in Virginia - Iām a FL attorney - and the reading the above quote from the VA Constitution is the entirety of my study of VA law.
Detailed parsing of the language aside, I think the intent of the section is fairly clear, i.e., that the Governor may exercise clemency, and when he does, he has to inform the legislature about what heās done, and why, for each case. Thereās no mention of blanket pardons - I would maintain that the Governorās powers are those enumerated, and not some other powers which arenāt discussed.
Detailed parsing is what lawyers do. Itās what they do every day when they review statutes, contracts, constitutions, etc.
Parsing again in detail, I note that the exercise of clemency and issuance of blanket pardons are also not expressly included in either of those 2 paragraphs. Although not specifically mentioned, those actions - to me - would not be the remittitur of a fine or penalty, a reprieve or pardon granted or the commutation of a punishment. Accordingly, if the Governor has the power to issue pardons (which the Plaintiffs admit in their complaint that he does in fact have the power to pardon), that power necessarily - again, to me - comes from the third enumerated power, i.e., the power to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction.
Since all parties to the litigation admit that the Governor has the power to pardon, the issue seems limited to whether he has the duty to communicate the particulars of each case when uses this power.
In this case, there are 3 specifically-expressed requirements to communicate when the Governor exercises 3 of the 4 specifically-expressed powers. While you see fairly clear intent of an unstated duty, I see clear intent that a duty to communicate is not required for that enumerated power. [Thereās a Latin phrase for this rule, and for many other rules, of construction but (my) lifeās too short to learn legal phrases in Latin.] So, to me, the plain language clearly grants the power to pardon and clearly does not require communication of the particulars.
However, in the real world, this case is more a political battle than a legal battle and my lay opinion on VA law is no better than any other lay personās opinion in predicting the outcome of this case.
[Edit to change āisā to āseemsā and ā?ā to ā.ā in the third paragraph.]