virginia Archives - Page 9 of 11 - Voting Integrity Institute

A Guide to Photo ID, Early Voting and other Voting Law Cases
Gallery
A Guide to Photo ID, Early Voting and other Voting Law Cases

Early Voting, News, Voter ID

A Guide to Photo ID, Early Voting and other Voting Law Cases

As the presidential election nears, a number of important voting law cases are still up in the air. And that can be confusing -- for voters trying to figure out what they do or don't need to cast their ballots, for election officials trying to figure out how to run elections, and for politicians trying to make sure supporters get out and vote. Here's a brief guide provided by National Public Radio via WAMU on where some of the big cases stand, as of the end of June. More rulings are expected, although courts are reluctant to make major voting law changes too close to Election Day. Referenced states are: North Carolina; Texas; Ohio; Wisconsin; Kansas; Virginia.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:36:32+00:00July 13th, 2016|Early Voting, News, Voter ID|

Terry McAuliffe vs. the Rule of Law

By Charles J. Cooper Virginia's Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently signed an executive order restoring, with the stroke of a pen, the right to vote for all 206,000 Virginia felons who have completed their terms of incarceration and supervised probation. This includes more than 40,000 felons convicted of violent crimes. The order also restores the rights to serve on a jury and to seek and hold public office, and it makes each of them eligible to ask a court to restore their right to own and carry firearms. The sweeping order has no precedent in Virginia history, and last week Virginia's Republican House Speaker William J. Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. and four other state voters filed a challenge to its constitutionality. Their petition asks the Virginia Supreme Court to invalidate the governor's order before votes are cast in November, lest the validity of the general election be cast into doubt. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the state's high court issued an order on June 1 calling a special session of the court to hear argument in the case on July 19. The executive order defies the text of the Virginia Constitution. Article II flatly prohibits all felons from voting, but it grants the governor a narrow power to restore voting rights to deserving felons on an individual, case-by-case basis. Nothing in the constitution gives the governor power to restore political rights en masse to virtually all felons, no matter how heinous or numerous their crimes. Gov. McAuliffe, a Democrat, has acknowledged that for 240 years none of the state's 71 other governors exercised wholesale clemency power. In 2010 another Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, expressly declined to issue a blanket restoration order like Gov. McAuliffe's, concluding that such an order would "rewrite" the law rather than follow it. Three years later, a bipartisan committee convened and headed by Virginia's then-attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, advised Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell that a blanket order restoring voting rights would be unconstitutional. Gov. McAuliffe has attempted to justify his order by claiming that Virginia's felon-disenfranchisement provision was introduced into the Constitution after the Civil War in a racist effort to disenfranchise African-Americans. He told the Nation magazine in April that "in 1901 and 1902 they put literacy tests, the poll tax and then disenfranchisement of felons into the state's constitution." This is not true. The prohibition on felon voting dates back to 1830--a time when African-Americans were prohibited from voting altogether. The felon disenfranchisement provision could not have been introduced for the purpose of disenfranchising them. No wonder the federal courts have uniformly rejected the claim that Virginia's prohibition on felon voting discriminates on the basis of race.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00June 6th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Voter ID|

ACRU’s Charles Cooper Sues Virginia Gov. McAuliffe over Felon Voting

By Robert Knight The Democrat felon voting express train in Virginia hit a sharp curve on Monday when Republican lawmakers went to the state's highest court to derail it. Constitutional attorney Charles J. Cooper's law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Republican leaders in the Virginia legislature asking the state Supreme Court to block 206,000 felons from voting in November. The lawsuit Howell v. McAuliffe states that Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe abused the separation of powers in an April 22 executive order that gives a blanket restoration to convicts who've completed their sentences. McAuliffe is countermanding longtime policy, in which Virginia's governors have restored voting rights by individual cases, the suit states. The felons who received the blanket amnesty include inmates convicted of rape, murder, and other major offenses. It's worth noting that McAuliffe, who served as a fundraiser for Bill and Hillary Clinton, ignored the fact that his two predecessors, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Bob McDonnell, both attempted blanket amnesty for some felons but abided by opinions from state attorneys general ruling this out as unconstitutional. The current hyper-partisan attorney general, Democrat Mark Herring, who refused to defend the state's constitutional marriage amendment, has no such qualms, which is why the GOP leaders resorted to the lawsuit. "In his blanket restoration, the Governor didn't consider the violence of the offense, the number of offenses, or whether the offender has paid his victim's medical bills," said a press release from Virginia 58th District delegate Rob Bell. "The executive order covers felons who are still on unsupervised probation. It makes 40,000 violent felons eligible to sit on juries, and is already being used by a defendant accused of murdering a state trooper to demand that these felons be included in his jury pool."

ACRU Staff2016-05-24T14:28:58+00:00May 24th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, In the Courts|

Virginia Assembly Republicans Sue Governor over Felon Voting

Virginia Republicans on Monday asked the state's highest court to block more than 200,000 felons from voting in November, arguing that Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe abused his power by restoring the voting rights of thousands of convicts who've completed their sentences. In a lawsuit GOP leaders filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, they say McAuliffe violated the separation of powers by effectively suspending the state's ban on voting by felons. They say McAuliffe is ignoring decades of practice, which has made clear that governors can restore voting rights only on a case-by-case basis. "Gov. McAuliffe's executive order defines the plain text of the Constitution, flouts the separation of powers, and has no precedent in the annals of Virginia history. The governor simply may not, with the stroke of the pen, unilaterally suspend and amend the Constitution," their lawyers wrote in the suit. The lawsuit is being brought by House Speaker William Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment along with four other Virginia voters. They're asking the justices to prohibit election officials from registering felons and to cancel all such registrations since April 22. As of last week, election officials said nearly 4,000 felons had signed up to vote, media outlets reported.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00May 23rd, 2016|Early Voting, In the Courts, News, Voter ID|

Giving Violent Felons the Automatic Right to Vote Is Not Morally Defensible

By J. Christian Adams Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. In elections, just as in society, it is important that everyone follow the rules. Automatically restoring the right to vote for felons is a bad idea. Before felons enjoy the full measure of citizenship, at a minimum, they should seek an individualized determination that they deserve the right to vote. Redemption loses its value when redemption is automatically bestowed. If the goal of felon voting restoration is to integrate felons back into society, it should be an active and contemplative exercise by the applicant seeking redemption, not an automatic one. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's decree that felons will enjoy automatic voting rights in the swing state of Virginia was a bad idea and contrary to state law. When the integrity and credibility of American elections is involved, it is essential that everyone follow the rules. Breaking the rules is particularly corrosive when it appears to have a brazenly partisan aim, as in Virginia. Giving violent felons the automatic right to vote is not morally defensible. Violent criminals who have shown contempt for other members of society and our laws should not have a voice in the process of writing laws. When a violent felon helps to choose lawmakers, laws will invariably skew more toward the criminal to the detriment of the law-abiding citizen. If you commit violent crimes, in nearly every state you forfeit multiple constitutional rights, including the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Most advocates for restoring rights never seem to get around to Second Amendment rights. That's no accident because the national campaign to restore felon voting rights is first and foremost an effort to help Democrats win elections. Studies have shown that felons vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and the advocates for felon voting know it, and usually like it. Automatically restoring felon voting rights is the latest instance of normalizing criminal behavior. Voters with violent criminal tendencies are the last thing we need anywhere close to the American election process

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00May 9th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, Early Voting, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

Virginia Gov. McAuliffe Breaks the Constitution to Plump the Democratic Vote

By Hans von Spakovsky In what is likely an unconstitutional state action seemingly calculated to ensure that the purple state of Virginia goes blue in the November election, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D.) signed an order on Friday restoring the voting rights of 206,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, armed robbery, rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes. The order also restores their right to sit on a jury, become a notary, and even serve in elected office. McAuliffe believes that ex-felons can be trusted to make decisions in the ballot booth and the jury box but apparently not to own a gun. He draws the line at restoring their Second Amendment rights; that would be a bridge too far. His order specifically does not restore their "right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms." And while his order requires that felons complete probation and parole before enjoying restoration of their rights, it applies regardless of whether they have paid any court fines or restitution to victims. What McAuliffe entirely dismisses is the principle that if you won't follow the law yourself, you can't demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.

ACRU Staff2016-04-25T11:59:51+00:00April 25th, 2016|ACRU Commentary|

Virginia Governor Adds 200,000 Felons to Voting Rolls

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- More than 200,000 convicted felons will be eligible to vote and run for public office in Virginia under a sweeping executive order announced Friday by Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe said his actions would help undo Virginia's long history of trying to suppress the black vote. He said he was certain he had the legal authority for the massive extension of voting rights, adding that he'd consulted with legal and constitutional experts, including Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring.

ACRU Staff2016-04-22T12:17:03+00:00April 22nd, 2016|News|

No Voters Denied Due to Photo ID Law, former Virginia Officials Testify

Several former state and local election officials testified in federal court that they were not aware of any eligible voter who has been denied the right to cast a ballot because of Virginia's photo voter ID requirement enacted in 2013. "None," said Cameron Quinn, a former state elections official who from 2011 until last year was the general registrar for Fairfax County, testifying on March 1 in the sixth day of a trial before U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in a lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party of Virginia and two voters challenging the state law. Fairfax is the state's largest jurisdiction and has 700,000 registered voters. Justin Riemer, a former member of the Virginia State Board of Elections and Donald Palmer, the former secretary of the board, also testified that they were not aware of anyone unable to vote because of the photo requirement.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:35:34+00:00March 12th, 2016|In the Courts, News, Voter ID|

Virginia Voter Photo ID Law Challenged in Court

A Virginia law requiring voters to show photo identification went on trial in federal court on Feb. 22, challenged by Democratic Party activists who allege it throws up barriers to voting by minorities and the poor. Lawyers defending the 2013 Virginia law said it prevented voter fraud. The trial in U.S. District Court is one of several voting rights legal battles as Democrats and Republicans square off before November's presidential and congressional elections. The Democratic Party of Virginia and two party activists are suing the Virginia State Board of Elections and want Judge Henry Hudson to strike down the law. Attorney Bruce Spiva, representing those challenging the measure, said the photo ID law was an effort to hamper the Democratic Party in the state. It creates "irrational hoops that people have to jump through" and has a "disproportional impact on people of color," Spiva said. Mark Hearne, an independent counsel for the state attorney general, dismissed the allegations. "It is impossible to show a suppressive effect on minorities from the photo ID law," Hearne said. He added the law was an effort to protect against voter fraud.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:35:34+00:00March 1st, 2016|In the Courts, News, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

How Non-Citizens Can Swing Elections

By Hans von Spakovsky In an article in Politico, Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, point out a fact that should greatly concern all Americans: that the presence of millions of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, could tilt the presidential election toward the Democrat Party and decide the election in favor of the eventual Democratic nominee. Voter Fraud Happens As I have outlined in many different articles and a recent book on voter fraud, illegal voting by noncitizens is a growing problem. Most election officials are not taking the steps necessary to detect or stop it, and many prosecutors including the current Justice Department seem reluctant to prosecute it. A study released in 2014 by three professors at Old Dominion and George Mason Universities in Virginia concluded that 6.4 percent of the noncitizen population voted illegally in the 2008 election, enough to have changed the outcome of various contests in a number of states. That includes the winner of North Carolina's electoral votes, which went to Barack Obama by a relatively small margin, since a majority of foreign-born residents favor the Democratic Party. That may also be why Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the governor of a battleground state, vetoed a bill that would have required jury commissioners to provide local election officials with the names of individuals called for jury duty from the state's voter registration list who were excused for not being U.S. citizens. Some States Have Congressional Districts They Shouldn't Have But as Rozel and Goldman accurately point out, noncitizens may be changing the outcome of presidential elections even without voting illegally. This is related to the problem of some states having more representatives in Congress than they should, and others being shortchanged unfairly due to the huge--and growing--population of illegal aliens whom the Obama administration and its political allies want to provide permanent amnesty. All of this stems from the way apportionment is conducted. There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Under Sec. 2 of Article I of the Constitution and Sec. 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, every ten years, after the "Enumeration" (the Census), we redistribute those 435 seats based on the "whole number of persons in each State." In other words, the number of members of the House that each state gets is based on the total population of each state relative to the total population of the U.S., which includes noncitizens. Thus, the upwards of 12 million illegal aliens present in the U.S., combined with other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:02+00:00October 7th, 2015|ACRU Commentary, Vote Fraud, Voter ID|

SUBSCRIBE