Disenfranchisement News

Virginia: Governor’s Swan Song to the Tune of Restoring Votes

During one of his last radio show broadcasts, outgoing Governor Tim Kaine talked about being one of two governors that have strongly advocated for the reenfranchisement of individuals with felony records. Kaine, who leaves office in January, encouraged residents to continue to apply for vote restoration.

When asked why Kaine would not sign an executive order restoring voting rights prior to stepping down, he said, “our analysis of Virginia law is that I can’t just do a blanket restoration – I have to restore people by name,” said Kaine.

Kaine and predecessor Mark R. Warner have restored the rights of more Virginians ”than any of the previous governors of the commonwealth combined,” according to WSLS 10.

“If your felony was a nonviolent felony, we restored every right of everybody who applies,” Kaine said of the restoration process while in office. “If it’s a violent felony, we dig into it a little more.”

National: Chicken Stealers Disenfranchised – Then and Now

The recent edition of the Journal of Southern History features an article by Pippa Holloway entitled, “A Chicken-Stealer Shall Lose His Vote - Disfranchisement from Larceny in the South,” an essay on the policy all southern states (excluding Texas) adopted between 1874 and 1882 to disenfranchise individuals for petty theft. The changes were part of an effort to ban African Americans from voting and to restore the Democratic Party to political dominance in the region, according to Holloway, an associate history professor at Middle Tennessee University.

According to the journal abstract, the essay highlights the fact that “two southern states that had never disfranchised for any crimes amended their constitutions to establish this penalty for the first time in the 1870s. Finally, southern courts interpreted existing laws to include misdemeanors as disfranchising crimes. While Democrats celebrated the success of these laws in disfranchising African Americans, Republicans criticized their racial and partisan impact. Although Democrats used a variety of techniques to ensure their electoral dominance, these new laws were one tool used by Democrats to deny the vote to Republicans in some of the most tightly-contested elections of this period.”