McAuliffe had issued a sweeping executive order in April that affected 206,000 ex-offenders in the state.
In a 4-3 ruling, the state's justices said under the state constitution, McAuliffe didn't have the authority for such a proclamation.
[...] Nothing stops the governor from granting rights to felons on an individual basis, but the justices said it was unconstitutional to do it through a blanket order.
[...] Under McAuliffe's order, the restoration of rights only extended to felons who have finished serving their terms — anyone in prison, or on supervised probation or parole, was still barred from voting. The order also granted felons the right to serve on juries and become a notary.
[...] He also noted that most states allow felons who have completed their terms to vote — Iowa, Kentucky and Florida are the only other exceptions.
[...] "Republicans suspect the real motive for McAuliffe's order is political," [NPR's] Pam [Fessler] reported [earlier this month]. "The governor is a close ally of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who could benefit from more African-American voters if the race in Virginia is tight. McAuliffe denied that was his reason for issuing the order."
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 25 2016, @06:04PM
"Rambling?" Thanks for that Q *groan.* Which one of us, exactly, has spent nearly a decade on church history, comparative religion, apologetics and counter-apologetics, logic, philosophy, and yes, reading the Koran? I don't ramble, thank you very much.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday July 25 2016, @08:00PM
That's why there usually is some (or some more) sense in your posts - but as I wrote before, your strong language sometimes drowns the voice of reason a bit, and tempts some individuals to provoke you. (Well, I didn't put it exactly that way, but the meaning was similar.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum