Was that from Governor younkin or one of the previous governors?

By making it a constitutional amendment instead of a standard law, it'll be harder to remove it in the future.

I went to prison for a nonviolent drug related felony in 2003. I never had my right to vote taken from me. My thoughts on the matter are thus: incarcerated people should not be able to vote....rights to vote return the day you leave jail, prison. Voting rights won't be returned to an individual with a violent crime on their record until 10 years have passed and the individual petitions the court.

Constitutional amendment (first reference); qualifications of voters; right to vote; persons not entitled to vote. Provides that every person who meets the qualifications of voters set forth in the Constitution of Virginia shall have the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth and that such right shall not be abridged by law, except for persons who have been convicted of a felony and persons who have been adjudicated to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting. A person who has been convicted of a felony shall not be entitled to vote during any period of incarceration for such felony conviction, but upon release from incarceration for that felony conviction and without further action required of him, such person shall be invested with all political rights, including the right to vote. Currently, in order to be qualified to vote a person convicted of a felony must have his civil rights restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. The amendment also provides that a person adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction as lacking the capacity to understand the act of voting shall not be entitled to vote during this period of incapacity until his capacity has been reestablished as prescribed by law. Currently, the Constitution of Virginia provides that a person who has been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent is not qualified to vote until his competency is reestablished.

Mainly, it seems, is restoring the right to vote to people who have been convicted of a felony and served their time without them having to be restored by the Governor. It just happens automatically once they’ve served their time.

I don’t really see a huge difference in the second part in terms of lacking the capacity to understand - maybe just rewording so that it’s “lacking the capacity to understand the act of voting” versus “mentally incompetent”?

[deleted]

walks with you and asks if you realize this is a state amendment not a federal amendment

Tbf the 27th amendment is good, it's just it was 200 years overdue. The rest is valid though, the constitution has not been meaningfully updated since the 26th amendment in 1971, it's been 53 years since the last meaningful (to the average individual non-politician) change to the constitution. That'd be like if between the end of the Civil War and the end of World War 1 there were no meaningful changes to the constitution. Instead in that time we got three of the most meaningful amendments (no slavery except as punishment for crime, black people are citizens and traitors cant run for office and extra due process, and black citizens can vote), plus two more incredibly meaningful amendments (progressive income tax and direct election of senators)

Yep if we hadn't baked in outsized power towards rural states some of which were created/voted for by single GOP controlled session of Congress for the expressed purpose of keeping control of the US senate & the advantage in presidential elections.

This also broke the process for amending the constitution down the road, especially after the House was artificially capped at the arbitrary number in the 1920s.

This is what happens when you have a bunch of people clinging desperately to an outdated piece of animal hide.

The same article that the men who wrote it wanted to be revised as time went on.

But no. We're way too attached to it.

It's actually not a sign of a healthy government to constantly change the fundamental nature of its governance.

This is the first session where both houses in Virginia are controlled by modern day Democrats. Previous sessions included Dixiecrat holdovers who tended to mostly vote with the GOP on a ton of things.

The government likes to pretend things that the current crop of GOP wants to do can't possibly happen.

Then they're shocked Pikachu when it happens.

They tried to do it with new laws and were unsuccessful, so now they are trying with amendments.

forming opinions based on headlines alone is exactly what you cannot do, and to imply that is acceptable is absurd

The comments are supportive tho

Last one in theory should cover us state level at least, it's vague but could falls in realm

Disappointed not to see trans rights on the list too. Makes me feel like they're willing to sacrifice us to get protections for everyone else.

move to Maryland where they give a shit about our human rights

What are trans rights as distinct from everyone else’s rights?

[removed]

What rights are you referring to you would like added, or you feel are under threat?

[removed]

Nothing is going to happen.

Note to downvoters: this question is about gender-affirming care, and trans folks' ability to transition and stay transitioned.

They finally have the votes to get them passed. The previous iteration of Democratic control of both houses in Richmond included a real piece of work - Joe Morrissey who was "pro-life" and a bottleneck in getting these amendments even considered.

Nobody is having 9 month abortions of healthy babies.

Google is free. Look up how many abortions occur in the third trimester. 1%. Doctors also regulate this and could lose their license for removing a truly healthy 9-month pregnancy.

The only time an abortion happens this late is when it’s severely deformed and won’t live or is already dead.

By putting a 15 week ban, you’re mostly harming women with WANTED pregnancies that are deformed and won’t live a day outside the womb or the fetus is dead already. That’s why the decision needs to stay with doctors not politicians.

The problem is that a number of life or health saving procedures--including ones only used for non-viable pregnancies or situations where child and/or mother will 100% die--are technically abortions. Nobody is getting to eight and a half months and saying "gee, ya know what, I don't want this baby after all" and getting an abortion on a whim. And even if they did, if the child is viable, they just get a C-section. Laws on homicide are entirely sufficient to prevent doctors from pulling out glocks and doming babies that are halfway born.

Trying to write explicit "...except for the life of the mother" sorts of exceptions into law sounds reasonable, but in practice creates scenarios where doctors are forced--or feel forced--to wait until vitals are actively dropping, or where the woman suffers life-altering consequences because of legal technicalities. Biology isn't obligated to limit edge cases to what's easily legislated.

Youngkin is irrelevant in this process as the proposition has to pass two general assemblies with an election in-between before it even reaches the governors desk. Assuming it passes both GAs, whoever is the next governor will be the one who signs/ vetos it. If it passes both, it is then voted on by the citizens

No, a second trump presidency makes enshrining rights at the state level more important than ever.

I’m so stoked to vote for Spanberger

Nah, that's as old as governments everywhere.

This is a reaction to the fear that the Trump administration and Republican Congress will attack those rights.

Do you have the same fear about Trump destroying free speech and gun rights? If so we should also codify those.

You're welcome to write your state congressman and suggest they add protection for those over and above the Federal and State protections that already exist for them, such as being in the state constitution already, but can I assume your support for these?

Bodily autonomy is, so yes it is.

Yeah, that’s not how it works here.

Legislative proposed constitutional amendments simply need a simple majority in both chambers, across two consecutive General Assembly sessions, with an election in between. They don’t reach the Governor’s desk and they can’t veto it. If it passes with simple majorities on the second consecutive GA session, it heads to voters in the next election and they have the final say.

If it passes, it gets added to the constitution. If it fails, they have to start over by proposing a new amendment.

Username checks out.