Constitutional amendment (first reference); qualifications of voters; right to vote; persons not entitled to vote.
SJR248 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia to revise the state’s voter-qualification language. The resolution states that every person meeting the listed qualifications has the fundamental right to vote in Virginia, and it updates the text governing who is not entitled to vote. It retains the basic requirements that a voter be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, a resident of the Commonwealth and precinct, and properly registered, while also preserving provisions allowing the General Assembly to set rules for overseas voters, certain voters who move within Virginia, and advance registration for those who will be eligible by the next general election.
The most significant substantive change concerns people convicted of felonies. The current constitutional language is revised to specify that a person is not qualified to vote during any period of incarceration for a felony conviction, but that upon release from incarceration, the person is automatically restored to all political rights, including the right to vote, without further action. The amendment also updates the language regarding persons adjudicated mentally incompetent, specifying that they are not entitled to vote during the period of incapacity until competency is restored as provided by law. Because this is a constitutional amendment, it does not itself change ordinary statutes, but instead would alter the governing constitutional standard for voter eligibility if fully adopted through Virginia’s amendment process.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears supportive but divided. It passed both chambers, but with notable opposition in committee and on the floor, indicating that the proposal was controversial even though it advanced. The Senate approved it 21-18 after a 35-4 vote to waive reading of amendments, and the House approved it 55-42 after a 13-9 committee report, suggesting a partisan or ideological split rather than broad consensus.
The main point of contention is the felony-voting provision. Supporters appear to favor automatic restoration of voting rights after release from incarceration, while opponents likely object to changing the constitutional text to make restoration automatic rather than dependent on executive or other affirmative action. The mental-incompetence language and the broader statement that the right to vote is fundamental may also have drawn scrutiny, but the voting history suggests the felony-related restoration language is the most likely source of disagreement.
If ultimately ratified through the required constitutional process, the amendment would affect Virginia voters, people with felony convictions, individuals adjudicated mentally incompetent, overseas voters, and new residents or voters who move between precincts. It would also reinforce the constitutional framework for voter registration and eligibility in Virginia by explicitly recognizing the right to vote as fundamental while preserving the General Assembly’s authority to regulate certain voting accommodations by law.
SJR248 would amend the Virginia Constitution, not the Code of Virginia, by revising Article II, Section 1 on voter qualifications and disqualifications. Its principal legal effect would be to make voting rights automatically restored upon release from incarceration for a felony conviction, while retaining ineligibility during incarceration, and to clarify the voting ineligibility of persons adjudicated mentally incompetent until competency is restored. It also preserves existing constitutional provisions on residency, overseas voting, precinct changes, and advance registration. Because it is a constitutional amendment, any implementing changes would depend on the amendment’s full ratification process and would supersede inconsistent state law or practice.
The bill appears to have received enough support to advance in both chambers, but the votes show clear division. Committee reports were narrower than the final floor votes, and the final Senate and House tallies indicate meaningful opposition. Overall, the sentiment is mixed-to-supportive: the measure moved forward, but not with bipartisan or unanimous enthusiasm, suggesting the underlying policy change was accepted by a majority but remained politically contentious.
The central contention is the automatic restoration of voting rights for people convicted of felonies after release from incarceration. Supporters likely view this as a voting-rights expansion and a clearer, more automatic restoration process, while opponents likely prefer retaining more restrictive or discretionary restoration rules. Secondary contention may involve the constitutional declaration that the right to vote is fundamental and the revised language concerning persons adjudicated mentally incompetent, though the recorded votes suggest the felony-restoration issue is the primary source of disagreement.