Senator Norment’s Felon Voting Rights Restoration Amendment is Flawed, But a Step in the Right Direction
The General Assembly and the Governor remain locked in a bitter dispute over the Governor’s attempts to issue blanket restoration of voting rights for felons in Virginia. Even after being taken to task by the Virginia Supreme Court, the Governor has continued to battle, leading the General Assembly to take him to court, yet again. At the same time, the General Assembly has begun working on corrective legislation to solve the problem permanently.
Senator Tommy Norment, the Senate Majority Leader, put one of the first proposals on the table, drafting a Constitutional amendment that purports to give both sides something they want – non-violent felons are automatically reenfranchised after they’ve fully completed their sentences and paid all their fines, costs and fees. Violent felons, however, are not and the Governor’s power to grant clemency and reinstate rights is removed. This would essentially mean that violent felons are permanently disenfranchised in Virginia – making Virginia the only state in the union to explicitly do so.
Senator Norment deserves credit for being one of the first to actually begin proposing legislation designed to fix this problem. Virginia is one of only four states where felons rights are not restored absent some specific action from the Governor. That regime has been heavily criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, and Governor Bob McDonnell made felon rights restorations one of his administrations biggest legacy achievements. It was clearly time for the General Assembly to take action, especially after the Governor’s attempts to pull a Washington-style executive order end-around of the Virginia Constitution.
Unfortunately, even with the Governor’s multiple errors in proposing and implementing his felon rights restoration program, Senator Norment’s proposal is not tenable as it is currently written. Removing the Governor’s clemency powers in this regard is an obvious attempt to punish McAuliffe for his side-stepping the General Assembly, but it’s unnecessary. The Governor was a lame duck the day he took office, and he has just over one more year in office. Permanently removing the clemency power from all future Governors because of the bad behavior of the current one is an inappropriate remedy. It causes more harm that it solves.
The proposal has also caused the usual suspects to go apoplectic. The Governor was first out of the gate, issuing a statement that began saying “[t]his cynical proposal unmasks Republican leaders’ true motive, which is to permanently disenfranchise men and women and condemn them to a lifetime as outcasts from our Commonwealth.” The Governor goes on to claim that requiring a non-violent felon to complete their sentence and pay all their fees is the equivalent of a “poll tax,” saying “[w]e will not accept a punitive tax as a barrier to voting for the poorest Virginians.” He ended with yet even more hyperbole, saying “Senator Norment’s proposal is an affront to the ideals established by Virginian Thomas Jefferson 240 years ago.”
Leaving aside that the ideals established by Thomas Jefferson would have left over 1.5 million Virginians disenfranchised solely because of the color of their skin, McAuliffe’s claim that Norment’s proposal for automatic restoration is essentially a poll tax is simply incorrect. Fines and fees as the result of a criminal sentence aren’t a tax – they’re a penalty, and they aren’t leveled at all voters, just those who have had their rights stripped because they’ve been convicted of a felony. There’s nothing inherently discriminatory about requiring someone to complete their sentence fully before having their rights restored, even if it may fall harder on the poor. Even those who support felon rights restoration recognize that felons still broke the law, and completion of their sentence is the minimum expectation. That should include paying what they owe. Calling this a poll tax is wrong and part of a cynical attempt by the Governor to inject race into this issue, as poll taxes were long a lynch-pin of Jim Crow.
The Washington Post lashed out in a similar, absurd vein in their editorial today, calling the proposal “essentially racist.” The editorial is long on vitriol and short on thoughtful discussion. Not only does it ignore most of the arguments both in favor and against the amendment, it spends half its text personally attacking Tommy Norment. They seem to have a problem with Senator Norment’s behavior in office, particularly his acceptance of gifts, calling him “ethically challenged.”
Remember that when they endorse Hillary Clinton for President.
Norment’s proposal has also been met with skepticism by the GOP. As reported by the Daily Press, Speaker Bill Howell stopped short of supporting Senator Norment’s plan, saying that it would be part of the discussion of what to do on the issue.
Even Virginia’s Embarassment, Corey Stewart, gets it half right, in a thoughtful statement regarding the proposal in a statement issued on Labor Day.
“I cannot support Tommy Norment’s proposal to forever ban some felons from ever having their voting rights restored. At some point in our lives, especially when we are young, many of us do something stupid–sometimes even criminal. But we can redeem ourselves. That is the story of my father, whom I loved and respected greatly. I do not believe in automatic restoration of a felon’s voting rights, since many are never able to redeem themselves. But if someone pays their debt to society and is able to turn their life around, then they should be able to apply to have their rights restored, and live as productive and proud citizens.”
Criticizing Corey Stewart is easy, but the reasonableness and personal tone in this statement is one of the reasons why he is a legitimate candidate for Governor in 2017.
The biggest issue with Senator Norment’s proposal is that it is essentially trying to fix a part of the law that actually isn’t broken. Those who support the restoration of felon’s rights have focused primarily on non-violent felonies – the bulk of the felonies for which Virginians are imprisoned – and ensuring that non-violent felons whose debt has been paid have their rights automatically restored. For violent felons, even the most ardent supporter of rights restoration would be hesitant to support an automatic restoration. For those cases, the law as it stands now is sufficient – the Governor, upon petition from the offender, should review the case and make a decision specifically on the merits of that case. There’s no need for an automatic action in that case, especially if the offender hasn’t asked for his rights to be returned.
Changing the law makes sense – there is no reason for the General Assembly and the Governor to continue the tit-for-tat public attacks and private maneuvering that has been the hallmark of the relationship between this Governor and the General Assembly since the Governor was inaugurated. The tit-for-tat began with Medicaid Expansion, then it moved to judicial appointments, and now we’re on felon rights restoration. While the Governor is to blame for much of the problem here – it was his attempts to do an end around the General Assembly on Medicaid Expansion that originally soured the relationship, and his failures to consult with the leadership of the General Assembly on multiple issues, like judicial appointments, has further soured it. Felon rights restoration was the final straw. The problem here is that unlike expansion of an entitlement program or somebody receiving an appointment, the issue here involves one of the most important rights of a citizen in a free society, and it’s unacceptable to have the Governor and the General Assembly at each others’ throats when rights hang in the balance.
The General Assembly should amend the Constitution to automatically restore the voting rights of non-violent felons when they’ve completed their sentences. They should not bar violent felons from ever regaining the franchise, and should build upon the current case-by-case system. Taking away the Governor’s power of clemency goes too far and permanently disenfranchising violent felons is unnecessary.
