California Too Conservative for Some Virginia Dems

Left turn ahead — sharp left turn.

by Hans Bader

To some Americans, staunchly progressive California may seem too liberal. But not to Virginia’s Democratic legislators. They’re proposing legislation that would make Virginia more liberal than California. That includes letting murderers vote while in prison, and letting them be paroled even if a court has sentenced them to life without parole.

Virginia legislators have proposed allowing even the worst criminals to seek parole — such as a person convicted of murder who tortured his victim to death — even if a court sentenced them to life in prison at a time when parole did not exist. Virginia abolished parole in 1995, due to discontent over the fact that criminals were serving only about 30% of their sentences before being released.

But parole would be made available to even the worst murderers by a recently introduced bill, SB 91. It would retroactively extend parole rights to current inmates, as well as giving future criminals the right to seek parole. Most willful and premeditated murders are Class 2 offenses under Virginia law, for which parole would be available after 15 years.

In California, a woman was recently sentenced to life in prison without parole for murdering a disabled woman through torture, by deliberately starving her to death. But under the Virginia parole bill, a similarly-cruel murderer could eventually be paroled.

Parole could be sought annually: before parole was abolished, relatives of murder victims would show up at parole hearings, year after year, in an effort to keep the killer of their loved one from being released. Testifying before the parole board took an emotional toll on survivors, forcing them to relive the crime in all its horror.

The legislation to reinstate parole may very well be enacted. That is because it is sponsored by Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, one of the most senior and powerful members of the state senate, and Kaye Kory, D-Falls Church, a long-time member of the House of Delegates.

Legislators have also proposed letting criminals vote even while in prison, rather than waiting until the end of their sentence.

measure sponsored by progressives in both houses of the Virginia legislature would let felons who are currently in prison vote, regardless of their crime. Currently, all but two states forbid prisoners to vote after they are found guilty of a felony.

States do that because prisoners haven’t yet paid their debt to society, and forfeit many rights while incarcerated. The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that states may deny people the right to vote “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” States historically denied the vote to felons, just as they denied it to other groups they perceived as unqualified to vote, like children, non-citizens, and the mentally incompetent.

Not even liberal California lets people who are currently in prison vote. The Virginia Constitution currently bans felons from voting, even after being released from prison, unless the governor restores their rights. But a measure recently introduced in Virginia’s legislature, SJ 8, would let them vote even before being released from prison, and even if they have committed a serious crime like murder or rape. This measure would amend the state constitution to give prisoners and mentally incompetent people the right to vote.

Only two states — Vermont and Maine — allow prison inmates to vote. Those states are unlike Virginia, because they have so few inmates that inmate voting has little impact on elections. In those states, prisoners can only vote by absentee ballot in the place where they last lived. They are not counted as residents of the town that houses a prison, which means their votes can’t sway local elections if they vote as a bloc.

In Virginia, that’s not the case. If prisoners could vote, local elections in a rural area could be dominated by a large prison bloc vote, resulting in law-abiding taxpayers losing control of their local government to prisoners.

Hans Bader is an attorney living in Northern Virginia. A version of this column was first published in Liberty Unyielding.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

14 responses to “California Too Conservative for Some Virginia Dems”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    The Virginia Democrats are misinterpreting their victory, and I heard another example of it yesterday as Speaker-designee Filler-Corn spoke to a business luncheon. They think the voters of VA endorsed an entire laundry list of their liberal goals. And certainly their base voters and donors did. But the voters who put them over the top had basically two motivations — stick it to Trump and prevent a perceived threat to “take away” their healthcare benefits, the “pre-existing conditions” canard that was pounded home in campaign after campaign. “Twill be a fascinating session.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Mr. Bader is being too alarmist. There is little, if any, chance parole will be reinstated. Sen. John Edwards may have been in office a long time, but he has little influence. Kaye Kory is not a “long-time” member of the House; she was first elected in 2010. She has not been on the Courts of Justice committee, to which parole legislation would be sent, nor is she likely to be on that committee. Another indication that this legislation has no chance is the lack of co-patrons–none in the Senate, in which it originates and no House co-patrons other than Kory.

    As far as allowing felons in prison to vote, the proposal to amend the Constitution to allow that to happen would have to pass the 2020 legislature and the 2021 legislature and then be approved in a statewide referendum. It is not likely to get out of the Senate this year.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Oh, alarmism is fun. I didn’t even look at the patrons and judged this DOA on its face.

  3. djrippert Avatar

    Thank God that amending the state constitution is one of the very few examples of participatory democracy included in the Virginia Constitution. No chance this passes a popular vote.

    The bigger question is what the heck the people of Roanoke and Falls Church are thinking electing people like Edwards and Kory who would put forth such an absurd proposed bill. Edwards is a walking billboard for term limits.

  4. Fred Woehrle Avatar
    Fred Woehrle

    The legislature is likely to pass some overly broad parole legislation that benefits murderers– although it may not be the specific example Bader cites. The most likely is a bill to allow even the worst teenage criminals to seek parole after 20 years, no matter how many murders and rapes they have committed. Senator Marsden has proposed such a bill, SB 103. The reason it is likely to pass is that a similar, but slightly less extreme, bill almost passed the state senate in 2019, when the senate was more conservative than it is today. That bill would have allowed such offenders to seek parole after 25 years, no matter how many crimes they committed. The bill, SB 1053, died on a tie vote, with all Democrats voting for it, as well as one Republican (Norment). The current bill is more extreme than that bill, because it allows parole after 20 years, rather than 25 years. So maybe no Republicans will vote for it. But they don’t need any Republican votes to pass it, now that the Democrats control both houses of the legislature.

    It seems like a bad idea to allow Class 1 offenders — such as serial killers who torture multiple victims to death — to seek parole after a mere 20 years. But that is what SB103 would do. Class 1 offenders should have to wait at least 30 years before being eligible for parole. That is necessary both for deterrence — there is some deterrent value to long sentences — and to protect victims’ families from potential confrontations with unusually violent and sadistic predators. Thus, it is unfortunate that SB 103 will probably be enacted. It should be voted down or vetoed.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      SB 103 is a little more complicated than as described above. First of all, it would apply only to offenders who committed their offenses while they were juveniles (under 18 years old). So, not all teenagers, just those 17 and below. Secondly, it would apply to two categories of offenders: (1) those with life sentences and (2) those with a sentence or sentences totaling more than 20 years. (There are many offenses, other than murder, that can carry a sentence of more than 20 years.) The premise is that juveniles are more prone to impulsive actions or not likely to exercise good judgment as older persons, so a life sentence for someone who committed crimes while a juvenile may not be of any benefit to society.

      Being eligible for parole does not necessarily mean that someone will get parole. Mr. Woehrle is worried about serial killers or persons who torture their multiple victims to death. There are few of those in Virginia who committed their crimes while a juvenile. The one that I am aware of, Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the Beltway snipers, has been sentenced to life without parole; therefore, the proposed legislation would not be applicable in his case. In Virginia, victims’ families do not face confrontation with their perpetrators during parole proceedings.

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Yet, children not yet teenagers can select their gender and even have hormone treatment. Some want to allow them to select surgery. Reconcile the two concepts. Can persons less than 18 years of age exercise good judgment or not? I suspect the Governor cannot answer that one.

        SCOTUS has already ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole cannot be imposed on juveniles.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I am not going to try to reconcile those concepts; I am not sure if they are reconcilable.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          re: ” Can persons less than 18 years of age exercise good judgment or not? I suspect the Governor cannot answer that one.”

          Well, on many issues, it’s not a black and white thing.

          And there is a difference between what a person may or may not want to do with respect to gender – and how that issue is treated by govt in terms of facilities and accommodations.

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            No, the issue of knowledgeable consent unites both issues. Society has generally held minors to a lessor standard of responsibility because of their lack of knowledge and judgment. We have juvenile courts for all but the worst offenders. We don’t let children marry. A child’s ability to bind himself to a contract is limited. SCOTUS has held the death penalty cannot be imposed on minor. Ditto for mandatory life without parole.

            Yet, there is a strong movement to allow and assist youth to “modify” their bodies to the opposite gender. This is clearly a more life-altering decision that most other things we prevent children from doing. There is no logical explanation for the different treatment.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        Dick – being an ordinary schmuck .. I am able to go to a website and read a bill but I am not able to get all the meaning out of it that you can.

        And obviously those that want to misrepresent such bills, can and do.

        It seems like in today’s roiled political waters – a risky thing to submit a bill that is so complex that it cannot be easily understood and is susceptible to being misrepresented by those opposed.

  5. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Rape an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-child, vote while in prison and serve only part of your sentence. Throw a bomb into a mosque or synagogue, ditto. Walk into a school and kill 40 students and teachers with a semi-automatic rifle, ditto.

    North Carolina keeps looking more and more attractive.

  6. Quoting former (liberal) repub Congressman Tom Davis, who said several years ago, paraphrasing, if the Virginia repubs do not shape up, Virginia may go past New Jersey blue right over to California BLUE.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think the idea that “liberals” as Dems – as a group – all have in their heart-lf-hearts far left radical wants is just idiotic.

      NoVA is deep blue but NoVA prides itself on responsible fiscal policies and it’s AAA rating. Yes, they want more/better education but they are always willing to pay more in taxes for it – UNLIKE their Conservative counterparts!

      Ditto for things like universal pre-school or minimum wage , etc.

      They’re NOT wanting all these things at the expense of fiscal harm and loss of their AAA rating!

Leave a Reply