Proposing an amendment to Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of Virginia, relating to qualifications of voters and the right to vote; persons not entitled to vote.
HJ2 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution governing voter qualifications and who may be denied the right to vote. The measure states that every person who meets the listed qualifications has a fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, and it preserves the basic requirements that a voter be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, a Virginia resident, and registered to vote. It also keeps the existing categories of persons who may be disqualified, but rewrites them in more rights-protective language.
The amendment changes the treatment of people convicted of felonies by providing that they are not entitled to vote during incarceration for the felony, but are automatically restored to full political rights, including voting, upon release without further action. It also provides that persons adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting are not entitled to vote during that period of incapacity, but may vote again once capacity is restored as prescribed by law. The resolution also retains and clarifies provisions on residence, overseas voters, voters who move within Virginia, and preregistration for those who will be old enough by the next general election.
If adopted, HJ2 would amend the Virginia Constitution itself, changing the state’s foundational rules on voter eligibility and disenfranchisement. It would narrow the period during which people with felony convictions are barred from voting, shifting restoration of voting rights to occur automatically upon release from incarceration rather than requiring gubernatorial or other executive action. It would also preserve the ability to exclude certain individuals found mentally incompetent to vote, while tying re-enfranchisement to restored capacity. The amendment would affect election administration, voter registration, and the rights of formerly incarcerated individuals and persons under guardianship or similar court findings.
The available record shows the measure was agreed to by both chambers, indicating formal legislative support and no recorded committee or floor opposition in the provided materials. The language of the amendment reflects a generally pro-voting-rights approach, emphasizing that qualified voters have a fundamental right to vote and reducing barriers to re-enfranchisement for people leaving incarceration. Because no transcripts or vote details are provided, there is no documented debate to indicate broader controversy in the supplied context.
The main point of potential contention is the treatment of felony disenfranchisement and automatic restoration of voting rights after release from incarceration. Supporters would likely view this as a voting-rights expansion and a simplification of restoration procedures, while opponents could object to restoring voting rights without individualized review or executive approval. A second possible area of concern is the standard for excluding persons adjudicated mentally incompetent, since the amendment preserves that disqualification but ties it to a court finding and later restoration of capacity, which may raise questions about implementation and due process. No specific opposing arguments are included in the provided record.