All other States allow former –felons to vote or own firearms after a specific time-frame has passed, not forcing them to apply for that right and possibly be denied like Kentucky and Virginia.
Over the last few years the restoration of rights process in
has become more streamlined and a
large number of felons have had their rights restored that is undisputed. Virginia
BUT, the number of former-offenders with sexual convictions who have applied and been denied is high from what I’ve heard from RSO’s who have contacted me. over the years
There has been legislation proposed at the last few Virginia General Assembly sessions to make the restoration automatic and those proposals have failed. I have monitored them each session looking to see if Virginia RSO’s were being excluded and if that did happen I planned to oppose such a proposal.
Well, it seems
latest rights-restoration proposal does just that, it excludes those who have
been convicted of a sex crime. Kentucky
Just like Small Business Loans, HUD Housing, SNAP Benefits, Veteran’s Benefits (federal prohibitions) and Medicare coverage for Viagra (
prohibition) RSO’s are being
excluded for automatic voting right restoration. Virginia
The below editorial has been written in response to
’s new prejudicial exclusion. Kentucky
Opinion: Many 'sex offenders' deserve rights, November 30, 2015
By Jim Schorch
Gov. Beshear’s recent decision to restore voting rights to many felons is an encouraging step toward criminal justice reform. The governor listed a litany of reasons why ‘it makes no sense" to deny opportunities to those seeking to rebuild their lives after serving out their sentences. He cited a key study that those whose rights are restored are less likely to commit another crime.
Though this signifies a significant policy shift, I am disappointed that the governor’s executive order did not go far enough. He excluded among others, those who commit a "sex-related offense." While this might be overwhelmingly applauded by most, the facts and studies do not support the belief that those convicted of sex offenses are more likely to commit another offense, or that such a population is more dangerous and incurable.
I do not seek to diminish the pain of those who have endured sexual abuse, as their suffering certainly requires suitable punishment for those who have inflicted such harm. It is true there is a small segment whose risk level is so high as to require restrictive oversight to protect the public and children. Fortunately, we have testing methodologies today that can more accurately assess one’s risk level and predict level of dangerousness. But these more serious offenders, while often in the spotlight of media coverage, are more the exception rather than the rule.