>> Society has become so concerned about criminals these days and not about the victims, so I oppose this amendment.

(Protesters chanting) This is what democracy looks like.

JAHD KHALIL: This fall, Virginians are voting on whether to change the state's constitution.

I'm Jahd Khalil, VPMs State Politics Reporter, and I'm speaking to advocates who are for and against the proposed constitutional amendments.

In this episode, we're talking about voting rights.

Virginia's constitution says when a person is convicted of a felony, they lose their right to vote.

And the only way to restore that right is to ask the governor in writing after serving out their sentence.

The proposed amendment would make restoring those voting rights automatic.

Skeptics of the law say if you don't follow the law, you shouldn't get to elect lawmakers.

SANDRA ALCAIDE: And if an individual has harmed another individual, is that person ready to be fully reintegrated into society and then vote on laws?

JAHD KHALIL: Proponents say those who have served their time shouldn't stay disenfranchised.

SHEBA WILLIAMS: It can be demeaning sometimes to have to ask for permission for something that we're told is a right.

JAHD KHALIL: Soon, it'll be up to voters to decide.

This is "Amending Virginia."

(Upbeat music) More than a quarter million people in Virginia have lost their right to vote due to a felony conviction.

Felonies include violent crimes like murder or rape, but there are non-violent felonies too, like drug possession, revealing the formula of a pesticide and a whole host of others.

After serving a prison sentence, Virginians still can't vote, serve on a jury or run for office.

The only person who can give them those rights back is the governor.

The commonwealth is one of several states that withholds voting rights after a person has completed their sentence, parole and probation.

And the rights restoration process can be complicated and varies, depending on who's governor.

The Virginia voting rights restoration amendment makes restoration automatic upon release from incarceration for the felony conviction.

I wanted to know why the states constitution links voting rights to crime.

Caroline Legros took me into the Virginia Museum of History & Culture's archives, where we found the practice has its roots in racism.

CAROLINE LEGROS: One of the really key turning points in this debate about whether or not felons should have the right to vote stems from the constitutional convention that took place here in Virginia in 1901, which was spearheaded by a state senator named Carter Glass out of Lynchburg.

You have a speech that Glass made to the convention that really lays out the framework for a concerted effort to disenfranchise felons and, specifically, the Black voter.

JAHD KHALIL: After Reconstruction, there's constitutional protections for all Americans.

And this is kind of the moment when Southern states are really trying to unwind that.

CAROLINE LEGROS: And so actually we're able to see the speech here.

This is a printed version that would've been circulated among Virginians immediately following the conventions.

He says, "I would go to my grave under the oppression of self-condemnation if I failed here to assert the right and, at any cost, to secure the means of white supremacy in the conduct of the affairs of this government and of every city and county in the Commonwealth from one extremity to the other."

You have really very explicit references to the ways in which the government needed to be focused on protecting against potential domination of the Black vote within the political system in Virginia.

JAHD KHALIL: What was he trying to do though?

What does he tell us?

CAROLINE LEGROS: They would determine that anyone who was a felon would not be able to retain their right to vote, either while they were incarcerated or following their incarceration.

Now, what this sort of proposes is that the list of crimes that make up or that are considered to be a felony should be expanded.

Things like petty larceny would be considered as felonies.

So this is something that would essentially be considered a misdemeanor now, like shoplifting, something that was a relatively small and inoffensive crime.

That would then be considered a felony under this new constitution.

Individuals like Glass who were designing this plan knew that at the time in 1901, the overwhelmingly most common conviction for Black Virginians was petty larceny.

JAHD KHALIL: How has that changed over time?

Because now there's lots of white voters and non-Black voters that are disenfranchised, right?

CAROLINE LEGROS: This is not necessarily a strictly Republican or Democratic issue.

We've had individuals and groups of legislators on both sides of the aisle sort of working on this issue, but Virginia's among the most restrictive states when it comes to your ability to access your right to vote following incarceration for a felony.

Some states, for example, will allow incarcerated individuals to vote while they are in prison.

But this current proposed amendment represents a very explicit effort to expand the right of a felon really to the moment that they exit incarceration.

JAHD KHALIL: After getting that background from Caroline, I wanted to speak to people who support and oppose this amendment.

Admittedly, it was difficult finding an outspoken critic who was willing to speak on the record with me.

I ultimately reached Sandra Alcaide, a Regent University law professor and former prosecutor.

We met at the law school and she explained why she thinks this particular amendment may not be the answer.

Can you tell me how you're coming to this issue and kind of from what lens you're looking at it?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: I am a former prosecutor, so I prosecuted special victims cases in the Bronx in New York City for about five years.

I'm very passionate about victims' rights and advocating for them.

JAHD KHALIL: What's the current law when it comes to someone's ability to vote if they've been incarcerated?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: Sure.

The governor will look at a few reasons in terms of determining whether to reinstate those voting rights.

Those aren't set in stone, but they could be whether the person has been rehabilitated, whether the person is ready to be reintegrated into society, the seriousness of the crime that they committed.

JAHD KHALIL: What makes a felony, and what's not a felony?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: Sure, so a felony is the most serious type of crime.

A misdemeanor is a crime that would require somebody to be incarcerated for a year or less.

A felony is a more serious crime.

So if a person is charged and convicted of a felony, they can be sentenced to a year or more in prison, just due to the more serious nature of the crime.

JAHD KHALIL: What do you think is important for people to know about this amendment?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: One thing to consider is that this amendment only talks about incarceration, but there are a lot of other things to think about.

Whether an individual is still going to be supervised, whether an individual is still going to be on parole, whether an individual is truly ready to be reintegrated into society, whether an individual has been rehabilitated.

You know, taking away someone's voting rights, it's not a punishment.

It's not something that judges consider or prosecutors consider at all when they think about a plea deal or a sentence after a conviction, but it is a collateral consequence and it's something to consider when we think about the public good.

When an individual has broken the law and then gets to vote on the law after they've broken the law in a serious manner, should that person be able to automatically vote on something that they didn't really have much regard for initially?

JAHD KHALIL: Are you concerned at all that there's maybe a lack of standards or guidelines that the governor has to consider when giving someone back their rights?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: We teach about the law, and it's the application of the law to specific facts.

It's always a concern, you know, that there could be some sort of politicization or different individuals might be impacted differently if there aren't any standards.

So, yes, I do think that it's very important that if an individual is applying for something as important as voting rights, that standards need to be looked at in order to make sure that the process is fair.

JAHD KHALIL: A lot of this was codified in a time of Virginia's history where politics of race were top of mind for a lot of politicians that were writing this thing.

Should that give people pause when they're considering this amendment?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: I think it's always important to think about context and history and to be thoughtful in making decisions, but then also look at the application now and ask oneself, "Is it possible to vote on this without thinking of anything in racial terms,” right?

Because obviously it's wrong to pass any law based upon racial considerations.

For me, the question is: What is best for the public?

What is best for an individual?

Is this based upon an individual's conduct irrespective of their ethnic composition, background, socioeconomic status?

And if so, then we can, you know, consider it, whether to pass or not pass.

JAHD KHALIL: If you were to rewrite this amendment, how would you change it?

SANDRA ALCAIDE: There could be a statute that's passed where a governor does have specific standards to look at.

Maybe in certain instances, an individual's rights would be fully restored if it was a non-violent crime, but if there were a violent crime that were committed, you know, there would be a look at the seriousness of the offense, a look at the rehabilitative process, just so that the restoration is done a little more thoughtfully.

JAHD KHALIL: After speaking to Sandra, I wanted to talk with someone who has worked on the other side of the issue.

Sheba Williams lost her right to vote after a felony conviction in 2004.

After Republican Governor Bob McDonnell restored her rights in 2013, she began advocating for others.

We met at the Fairfield Library in Henrico County, which holds special meaning for Sheba.

SHEBA WILLIAMS: This is the first place I voted after I had been disenfranchised for nine years.

It was really emotional.

2013, I had lost my right to vote due to a wrongful conviction in 2004.

I was only sentenced to five years of probation, but because of inability to afford fines and fees and restitution, it dragged out for nine years.

You know, historically, felony disenfranchisement got into our constitution because of newly free slaves, trying to disenfranchise them.

It wasn't about public safety, it was not about anything other than trying to keep as many Black people as possible who were newly free slaves.

So kind of knowing the history and knowing just how much voting matters as far as everything that we do in life is dictated by that vote.

JAHD KHALIL: Tell me about your organization and how you got involved with that, what it does, all that sort of thing.

SHEBA WILLIAMS: We do direct service for individuals leaving long-term incarceration.

We also do policy and advocacy work, but we've served, like, thousands of Virginians who are impacted by incarceration.

Restoration of rights has been one of the cornerstones of what we do.

And if the constitutional amendment passes, people will be able to just submit their voter registration application without having to ask a person if they can have this constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in democracy.

JAHD KHALIL: I do remember when, you know, covering this in the General Assembly that there were a lot of discussions about fines, fees and restitutions.

As proposed, this amendment doesn't require that.

I guess, why is that important?

SHEBA WILLIAMS: If we think about fines and fees, mostly our administrative costs that are paid to the courts and things like that, but they are akin to a poll tax.

And if we think about the history of where this happened, we used to have literacy tests, we used to have poll taxes, and we got rid of all of these vestiges of Jim Crow.

We all know there's a disparate impact on Black Virginians, right?

We make up about 19% of the population and we make up about 50% of the prison population, but this impacts everybody.

Like, we do restoration of rights in practice and we get calls from people who identify as Republican or Green Party or — I don't identify with any party.

Like, it runs across the spectrum now, you know, more so than when we started 10 years ago.

Everybody's impacted by this.

JAHD KHALIL: For somebody that doesn't have a personal connection to somebody that has, you know, been imprisoned or been incarcerated, why should they care about this amendment and why would you encourage them to vote “Yes?” SHEBA WILLIAMS: If I can't participate in the process and I can't advocate for my child in the same way, that leaves our communities blighted.

The communities that voted the least were divested from.

We don't see grocery stores, we don't see the best upheld schools.

We don't have parks and recs a lot of times.

People take more pride in things when they are belonging to a community.

And we have already, like, for centuries made people who are impacted by incarceration feel like second-class citizens.

JAHD KHALIL: What would the passage of this amendment mean for the way that someone feels about their place and how they interact with the democratic system of governance or society or their community, all these things?

SHEBA WILLIAMS: It can be demeaning sometimes to have to ask for permission for something that we're told is a right.

Like, it's in the Constitution and you hear a lot of people use it interchangeably, like, as a privilege, but it is a right.

Being able to participate and, like, give guidance on how your — not just you and your household, but your community is governed.

That's a big thing for people to kind of take pride in.

We look forward to getting this to the finish line and taking the process out of the hands of an individual, making it something that doesn't bring shame where people have to ask permission for a thing that should be their right.

JAHD KHALIL: So both Sheba and Sandra agree the way Virginia handles voting rights restoration isn't working, but they disagree on how to fix it.

Sandra says take the politics out of it and create a review system that's consistent regardless of who's governor.

But Sheba argues that voting is a right protected by the US Constitution, and once someone has served their sentence, that right should be restored.

This November, Virginians will decide whether to vote “Yes” on automatic rights restoration or not.

For more information on all three of the constitutional amendments going to voters this fall, as well as all of our election-related coverage, visit our website at VPM.org.

♪ This is what democracy looks like ♪ ♪ Hey, hey, ho, ho ♪ Jim Crow has got to go ♪ Hey, hey, ho, ho (bright music)