OPINION:
Just in time for Election Day, Virginia’s government has apparently found a new category of convicted felon: the family dog.
In late September, Biscuit Rigsby, a Goochland County beagle-hound mix who died some five years ago, was issued an official certificate from Gov. Abigail Spanberger restoring her right to vote and serve on a jury.
The only problem: Biscuit Rigsby did not break any laws or have a criminal record. She was not even human.
People were interested in these podcasts
Her owner was understandably bewildered. As a dog, Biscuit was not even afforded the constitutional rights the governor claimed to be restoring. Yet somehow, Ms. Spanberger’s office produced an official document declaring those rights restored.
One has to wonder whether someone in Richmond is simply pulling names from government databases and issuing rights restoration certificates without checking whether these individuals exist, were ever convicted of a felony or are even alive.
Virginians deserve to know whether any of these erroneous restorations made their way onto the voter rolls.
As a former Virginia attorney general, I find this troubling. The commonwealth is expected to keep accurate records and use its legal authority with care. Official rights restoration certificates for deceased pets reveal a gaping hole in the system.
Biscuit was not the only one. Reports have already surfaced in Virginia of a restoration notice issued to an individual with no last name.
How many more errors are buried in the system? Who is checking to ensure that the people receiving these certificates are real, have been convicted of a felony, and are eligible for restoration?
Ms. Spanberger should be able to answer these basic questions.
The public deserves more than assurances that the process is working. It deserves proof. Delegate Tom Garrett has called for an independent audit of the restoration process. That audit should determine the source of the records, the vetting process used, how many erroneous certificates were issued and whether any resulted in invalid voter registrations.
Biscuit’s owner should not have to defend the honor of a loyal family pet against a fictional criminal history manufactured by the commonwealth. An explanation is needed for how the dog was labeled as a person whose political rights required restoration.
Virginia is not the only state where dogs are getting closer to the ballot box than election laws should ever allow. In California, a Costa Mesa woman illegally registered her dog, Maya Jean, to vote. She cast ballots in the dog’s name in two elections. The case was since resolved when the woman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor down from five felonies, though authorities confirmed that the ballot cast in Maya Jean’s name in the 2021 gubernatorial recall had been counted.
In California, it was voter fraud and a counted ballot. In Virginia, it is a government-issued restoration certificate complete with voting rights that should never have existed in the first place. These are examples of a fundamental failure to vet basic information before it enters the election process.
Virginia’s situation poses an even more serious question: If the commonwealth’s current rights restoration process, with supposed checks and balances, could produce official certificates for deceased dogs and people who cannot be properly identified by last name, what confidence should Virginians have in the accuracy of the records if automatic restoration is approved?
Voters in Virginia should not have to wonder whether the government can tell the difference between a convicted felon and a deceased dog. This is not just a clerical error.
On Tuesday, Virginians will vote on Question 3, a constitutional amendment that would automatically restore political rights to individuals convicted of felonies upon their release from incarceration. It replaces the current requirement for an individual gubernatorial decision, a decision-making process whose integrity is already in serious question.
Under Question 3, release from incarceration will be sufficient to restore all political rights, including the rights to vote, serve on juries and run for public office. It imposes no requirement to complete probation or parole, pay outstanding fines, or pay restitution to crime victims.
In other words, political rights can be restored even before an individual completes his or her criminal sentence and before any court-ordered obligations to the victim are satisfied.
Vote no on Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Question 3 regarding restoration of voting rights.
• Ken Cuccinelli is chairman of Heritage Action’s Election Transparency Initiative and a former acting deputy secretary of homeland security and former Virginia attorney general.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.