CLAIRE GASTAI4GA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
A
ACLU
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
of VIRGINIA
February 2, 2017
Members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus
Senators and Delegates:
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF
VIRGINIA
FRANKLIN ST.
RICHMOND, VA 23219
WWW,ACLUVLORG
Thank you so much for allowing me to make a presentation to the Virginia Legislative
Black Caucus today. I am grateful for the time you gave me and for listening to what I
had to say. I am always dismayed when Senator Spruill and I are not on the same side of
any issue. Nonetheless, I am afraid that on the issue of whether the Black Caucus should
support 5JR223, the Senator and I could not be farther apart.
SiR 223, Senator Tommy Norments proposed constitutional amendment on voting
rights is not an improvement over the Jim Crow remnant currently in our constitution.
Constitutionalizing criteria that the current Governor, Governor McDonnell and future
governors have been or are free not to apply is not better for people of color who are
disproportionately impacted by the current felony disenfranchisement provisions. As
written, whether as introduced, or expressed in the copy of the substitute we think may
resemble what the Senate will be asked to vote on soon which is attached, Norment’s
proposal is simply constitutionalized voter suppression. While there is no guarantee that
a future Governor will be as open to doing the right thing as Governor McAuliffe, it is a
guarantee that, if this constitutional amendment is enacted, there would be no chance
to continue the current progress using the current rules the Governor is now using to
restore rights.
As written, Senator Norment’s proposal (original and substitute) puts into the
constitution forever criteria for restoration of rights that the ACLU of Virginia and allies
have spent 10 years negotiating with governors to eliminate as requirements. Over the
past four admini5trations (Warner, Kaine, McDonnell and McAuliffe), we have been able
to change the process radically first to separate nonviolent from violent felonies, then to
eliminate the requirement for individualized applications for nonviolent felons, then to
redefine “violent” to exclude drug offenses, and finally to eliminate repayment
requirements. All of those requirements would, under Norment’s and Habeeb’s
proposals, be rewritten in stone into the constitution, potentially requiring another 100
years to change. And, although these proposals use the term “automatic” regarding
nonviolent felons, the process to be imposed by the legislature is not guaranteed to be
anything like that term implies.
Under the Norment proposal, the Governor loses all discretion to decide what criteria to
apply or how to manage the restoration process. The proposal says that the legislature
will: 1) define violent and nonviolent; 2) prescribe the “process” for “automatic”
restoration of the “civil rights” of a person convicted of a nonviolent felony; and 3) say
what “rules and regulations” will govern the Governor’s “power” to restore the rights of
violent felons.
The Norment proposal says that everyone who wants their rights back has to:
1) Complete their sentence and any modification of it, including any probation or
parole;
2) Pay in full any restitution, fines, costs, and fees assessed as a result of conviction.
It also says that violent felons must:
1) Wait five years after they have paid the last dime they owe and completed all of
the terms of their sentence before they can apply;
2) Not be convicted of any new felony in those five years or any misdemeanor
involving “moral turpitude” (i.e., lying, cheating or stealing or a sex crime).
AUCRICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF
701 2. FRANKLIN ST
SUITE 1412
RICHMOND, VA 23219
T1804644.8O8O
WWW.ACLUVA.ORG
Finally, the Norment proposal says that anyone convicted of voter fraud is permanently
disenfranchised without recourse.
.
.
.
The ACLU of Virginia urges you to reject the amendment to our constitution proposed
in SiR 223 (and in Delegate Habeeb’s very similar HJR 542 if it is reported out of P and
E). Neither proposal is an improvement over the current disenfranchisement
provisions. In fact, the proposals are worse because they would codify in the
constitution criteria for getting your vote back that three past Governors and the
current Governor have chosen not to apply and any future Governor might reject.
Most importantly, these proposals codify a financial mortgage on a person’s vote that is
an unconstitutional modern day poll tax. If a proposal with the repayment provision
were to pass, be placed on the ballot, and be accepted by the voters, the ACLU of
Virginia will initiate suit immediately to challenge the financial conditions on voting as
a poll tax.
All Virginians who are US citizens over 18 should be able to vote, period. Voting is not
a privilege that should be subject to legislative whim and granted or revoked
depending on the politics of the moment. Voting is a fundamental right that should be
guaranteed in the Virginia Constitution.
Right now, however, the state’s constitution lacks language guaranteeing the right to
vote. That’s because the original drafters didn’t want women, black Virginians and
people not members of the landed elite to vote.
The Virginia General Assembly is now debating whether to grant or deny the right to
vote to certain groups of people based on past mistakes or their ability to pay user fees
collected to defray the costs of the criminal justice system and courts.
Senator Locke’s proposed amendment, SiR 319, would have put a true right to vote in
the constitution. Now, that would have been an improvement over the current
proposal. Isn’t that what we should be fighting for rather than agreeing to lock into the
constitution language that limits the right to vote forever for some people who made a
mistake or can’t pay back the user fees they were charged as “consumers” of the
criminal justice system?
Thanks for considering our arguments.
Best
Claire
Attachment
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF
VIRGINIA
701 E. FRANKLIN ST.
SUITE 1412
RICHMOND, VA 23219
T1604 644.6060
WWW.ACLUVA.ORG
\QC
A
1I24/2Ol7O6:O8PM/\V”
17104661D
2
b,Meg
\
I
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 223
2
AMENDMENT 111 ThE NATURE OF A SUBSTJRJTE
3
(Proposed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections
4
on
S
(Patron Prior to Substitute—Senator Norment)
6
Proposing amendments to Section 1 of Article U and Section 12 of Article V of the Constitution of
7
Virginia, relating to the qualification of voters and executive clemency.
S
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, a majority of the members
9
elected to each house agreeing, That the following amendments to the Constitution of Virginia be, and
10
the same hereby are, proposed and referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after
11
the next general election of members of the House of Delegates for its concurrence in conformity with
12
the provisions of Section ofArticle XII of the Constitution of Virginia, namely:
13
14
follows:
IS
ARflCLEfl
16
FRANCHISE AND OFFICERS
17
2
Amend Section 1 of Article U and Section 12 of Article V of the Constitution of Virginia as
Section 1. Qualifications of voters.
18
In elections by the people, the qualifications of voters shall be as follows: Each voter shall be a
19
citizen of the United States, shall be eighteen years of age, shall fliffill the residence requirements set
20
forth in this section, and shall be registered to vote pursuant to this article. No person who has been
21
convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored-y-theJ]j
22
Govemor, in accordance with Article V, Section 12 of this Constitution. or other appropriate authority
23
may restore the civil rialts of any person convicted of a
24
Assembly. The General Assembly shall prescribe by
25
cMl riehts of a person whoiias been convicted of any othelfelonv. excluding election fraud, upon such
26
person’S completion of service of his sentence and any 4dification of that sentence, including any
-
ç
i3 S%
4it felony, as defined by the General
I
law tjnrocess for the automatic restoration of the
-
cknS
‘Oaf’
17104661D
1n4a01706:ogpM
Lamb,Meg
4bqIa&
r&e 9
27
vedod or condition of urobadon or tarole. and his Dayment 1nJp of any restitution, fines, costs, and
28
fees assessed against him asp result of his conviction. Averson convicted of a fe7pny involvijig elcctiop,_,
29
fraud shall be ineligible to have his civil rights restored pursuant to fins section or Artide V. Section 12
30
of this Constitution. As prescribed by law, no person adjudicated to be mentally incompetent shall be
31
qualified to vote until his competency has been reestablished.
32
The residence requirements shall be that each voter shall be a resident of the Commonwealth and
33
of the precinct where he votes. Residence, for all purposes of qualification to vote, requires both
34
domicile and a place of abode. The General Assembly may provide for persons who are employed
35
overseas, and their spouses and dependents residing with them, and who are qualified to vote except for
36
relinquishing their place of abode in the Commonwealth while overseas, to vote in the Commonwealth
37
subject to conditions and time limits defined by law. The General Assembly may provide for persons
who am qualified to vote except for having moved their residence from one precinct to another within
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
the Commonwealth to continue to vole in a former precinct subject to conditions and time limits defined
by law. The General Assembly may also provide, in elections for President and Vice President of the
United States, alternatives to regisiration for new residents of the Commonwealth.
Any person who will be qualified with respect to age to vote at the next general election shall be
permitted to register in advance and also to vote in any intervening primaty or special election.
ARTICLE V
EXECUTIVE
45
46
Section 12, Executive clemency.
The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rides and regulations as
the prosecution
48 may be prescribed by law, to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when
consequent upon
49 has been carded on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities
committed prior or
50 conviction for—offenses a violent felony, as defined by The General Assembly,
o vi ed an under
on
ice ‘o b
subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution u
51
r ed b Ia and to commute capital punishment
e
Lions
52 such mlas andre
47
2
171046610
53
1/24/2017 06:08 PM
No person convicted of a violent felony shall be eligible for
j
54
Lamb, Meg
e removal of his political
disabilities pursuant to this section until be has comnieted (ii the PaYThWI4II Ml ofany restitution, fines,
55
osts, and fees assessed against him as a result of his conviction and (ii) service of his sentence and any
56
modification of his sentence, including any period or condition of probation, parole, or suspensinn of
57
sentence, and at least five y7’bave passed since he completed such payment and service of sentence
without any new felony convictiäns saqv misdemeanor convictions involvinoml turpitude)
9
0
61
1e—The Governor shall commçate to the General Assembly, at each regular session,
\
particulars of every case of fine or penalty re tted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and ofpu&shment
SOC
cvi’n1es
commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.
62
It
((C€A9SES
iYflpOC-t t( ‘aCt.A
%ktnVdvwevs
C
&zjJen
O,p,O(y
tt*cli/
yea vs cL#cr
frst
3
dep(
H