Howell v. McAuliffe

Decision Date22 July 2016
Docket NumberRecord No. 160784
Citation788 S.E.2d 706
PartiesWilliam J. Howell, et al. v. Terence R. McAuliffe, et al.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

788 S.E.2d 706

William J. Howell, et al.
v.
Terence R. McAuliffe, et al.

Record No. 160784

Supreme Court of Virginia.

July 22, 2016


Charles J. Cooper (Michael W. Kirk, Arlington; David H. Thompson ; William C. Marra; Haley N. Proctor; Cooper & Kirk, on brief), for appellant.

Stuart A. Raphael, Solicitor General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Trevor S. Cox, Deputy Solicitor General; Matthew R. McGuire, Assistant Attorney General; Anna T. Birkenheier, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Amici Curiae: Robert N. Tracci; Edward Stein, Norfolk; W. Lyle Carver; Darrel W. Puckett, Appomattox; Theophani K. Stamos, Arlington; Joel R. Branscom; Paul A. McAndrews ; William W. Davenport, Chesterfield; Paul Walther, Culpeper; Ann Cabell Baskervill; Raymond F. Morrogh, Fairfax; James P. Fisher ; Eric Branscom; Jeff Haislip; Allen ‘A.J.‘ W. Dudley, Jr., Rocky Mount; Ross P. Spicer; Tracy Quackenbush Martin; R.E. ‘Trip‘ Chalkley, III ; M. Andrew Nester; James E. Plowman, Leesburg; Rusty E. McGuire; Theresa J. ‘Terry‘ Royall; Diana Wheeler O'Connell; Stephanie Brinegar Vipperman; Robert Bryan Haskins; Paul B. Ebert, Manassas; Christopher Billias; Marsha L. Garst, Harrisonburg; Marcus McClung; Travis D. Bird; Derek A. Davis; Julia H. Sichol; C.H. ‘Chuck‘ Slemp, III ; Benjamin M. Hahn, Poquoson; Christopher B. Russell ; Nancy G. Parr, Chesapeake; William B. Bray ; LaBravia J. Jenkins, Fredericksburg; H. Clay Gravely, IV, Danville; Donald Caldwell, Roanoke; Thomas E. Bowers ; Colin D. Stolle, Virginia Beach; David L. Ledbetter (James E. Plowman, Leesburg, on brief), in support of petitioners.

Amici Curiae: Andrew P. Miller ; James S. Gilmore, III ; Kenneth T. ‘Ken‘ Cuccinelli, II, Richmond, (William S. Consovoy ; Bryan K. Weir; Consovoy McArthur Park, on brief), in support of petitioners.

Amicus Curiae: Virginia State Conference of the NAACP (David O. Prince ; Allison J. Riggs, on brief), in support of respondents.

Amici Curiae: ACLU and ACLU of Virginia (Hope R. Amezquita; Dale E. Ho; Julie A. Ebenstein, on brief), in support of respondents.

Amici Curiae: David Green and Bridging the Gap in Virginia, Inc. (Rodney F. Page ; Kristen Clarke ; Ezra D. Rosenberg ; Bryan Cave, on brief), in support of respondents.

Amicus Curiae: Fair Elections Legal Network (Jon Sherman; Jan A. Larson ; Jessica Ring Amunson ; Mark P. Gaber ; Jenner & Block, on brief), in support of respondents.

Amici Curiae: A.E. Dick Howard, Charlottesville; Daniel R. Ortiz; Carl W. Tobias; John Paul Jones (Alexander B. Bowerman ; N. Thomas Connally III ; Hogan Lovells, McLean, on brief), in support of respondents.

Amici Curiae: Anton A. Bell, Portsmouth; Michael N. Herring, Shannon L. Taylor, Richmond; Stephanie N. Morales; Gergory D. Underwood ; Bryan L. Porter (Frank K. Friedman ; Erin B. Ashwell ; Woods Rogers, Roanoke, on brief), in support of respondents.

PRESENT: All the Justices

788 S.E.2d 710

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS

The dominant role in articulation of public policy in the Commonwealth of Virginia rests with the elected branches. The role of the judiciary is a restrained one. Ours is not to judge the advisability or wisdom of policy choices. The Executive and Legislative Branches are directly accountable to the electorate, and it is in those political venues that public policy should be shaped. From time to time, disagreements between these branches of government require interpretation of our statutes, the Constitution of Virginia, or the United States Constitution. Our proper role is to interpret law and not to express our opinion on policy. The case before us today is such a case.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia sets out a general rule of law and then provides for an exception: “No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority.” Va. Const. art. II, § 1 (emphasis added). On April 22, 2016, Governor Terence R. McAuliffe issued an Executive Order that inverts this rule-exception sequence. The practical effect of this Executive Order effectively reframes Article II, Section 1 to say: “No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be disqualified to vote unless the convicted felon is incarcerated or serving a sentence of supervised release.”

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of Virginia provides: “That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.” The major question before the Court is whether the Executive Order “suspends” a general principle of voter disqualification and replaces it with a new principle of voter qualification that has not received the “consent of the representatives of the people.”

We answer this question against the backdrop of history. Never before have any of the prior 71 Virginia Governors issued a clemency order of any kind—including pardons, reprieves, commutations, and restoration orders—to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request. To be sure, no Governor of this Commonwealth, until now, has even suggested that such a power exists. And the only Governors who have seriously considered the question concluded that no such power exists.

In this case, Governor McAuliffe asserts that his clemency power in this matter is “absolute” under Article V, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia. J.A. at 1. We respectfully disagree. The clemency power may be broad, but it is not absolute. Deeply embedded in the Virginia legal tradition is “a cautious and incremental approach to any expansions of the executive power.” Gallagher v. Commonwealth , 284 Va. 444, 451, 732 S.E.2d 22, 25 (2012). This tradition reflects our belief that the “concerns motivating the original framers in 1776 still survive in Virginia,” including their skeptical view of “the unfettered exercise of executive power.” Id.

In this proceeding, which invokes this Court's original jurisdiction, we also consider several other issues related to the issuance of the Executive Order, and whether writs of mandamus or prohibition lie against the Governor, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Virginia Department of Elections, the Commissioner of the Department of Elections, the State Board of Elections, and the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary of the State Board of Elections, with respect to actions taken or to be taken in response to this Executive Order.

I. Facts and Proceedings

Governor McAuliffe's Executive Order stated that it removed the political disabilities of approximately 206,000 Virginians who had been convicted of a felony but who had completed their sentences of incarceration and any periods of supervised release, including probation and parole. The civil rights restored by the Executive Order were the rights to vote, to hold public office, to serve on a jury, and to act as a notary public.1

788 S.E.2d 711

When Governor McAuliffe issued the Executive Order, he indicated that he would issue similar orders at the end of each month to restore the rights of Virginians who had been convicted of a felony but who had since completed their sentences of incarceration and supervised release. Governor McAuliffe issued such orders on May 31, 2016, and again on June 24, 2016.2

On May 23, 2016, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William J. Howell, Majority Leader of the Virginia Senate Thomas Norment, Jr., and four other Virginia registered voters (“petitioners”) filed a petition seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition in this Court against Governor McAuliffe, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Virginia Department of Elections, the Commissioner of the Department of Elections, and the State Board of Elections (“respondents”). In their petition, they seek to cancel the voter registrations accomplished pursuant to the Executive Order, prevent further such registrations, and prohibit Governor McAuliffe from issuing additional executive orders categorically restoring the voting rights of felons who have completed their sentences. Petitioners assert that the Governor's Executive Order and any similar subsequent orders effectively ify the Constitution of Virginia's general prohibition against voting by convicted felons who have completed sentences of incarceration and supervision. They contend this assertion of executive authority “defies the plain text of the Constitution, flouts the separation of powers, and has no precedent in the annals of Virginia history.”

Petitioners ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections Edgardo Cortés to fulfill his duties under Code § 24.2–404(A)(2), (A)(4), and (A)(6), by removing from the record of registered voters any felon who has registered pursuant to the challenged executive orders, returning those persons to the list of individuals prohibited from voting, and refusing to register any new voters under the orders. Also, petitioners seek to compel Chairman of the Virginia Board of Elections James Alcorn, Vice Chairman of the Virginia Board of Elections Clara Bell Wheeler, and Secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections Singleton McAllister to fulfill their duties under Code § 24.2–404(C) by instituting procedures to ensure that Commissioner Cortés complies with any order we may issue.

Petitioners further ask that we command Secretary of the Commonwealth Kelly Thomasson to comply with her duty under Code § 24.2–404(A)(9) and Code § 53.1–231.1 and delete or omit from the records of felons who have had their political rights restored any person whose rights were restored pursuant to one of the challenged Executive Orders. Additionally, petitioners ask that we command Governor McAuliffe to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws prohibiting felons from voting are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Bista v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 2022
    ... ... " Howell v. McAuliffe , 292 Va. 320, 350, 788 S.E.2d 706 (2016) (second alteration in original) (quoting Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137, 177, 1 Cranch ... ...
  • Butcher v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2020
    ... ... Madison , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). To be sure, we fully embrace this solemn duty. See, e.g. , Howell v. McAuliffe , 292 Va. 320, 350, 788 S.E.2d 706 (2016) ; Fitzgerald v. Loudoun Cty. Sheriffs Office , 289 Va. 499, 505, 771 S.E.2d 858 (2015) ... ...
  • Wolf v. Scarnati
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2020
    ... ... Howell v. McAuliffe , 292 Va. 320, 788 S.E.2d 706, 721 (2016). The Kentucky Supreme Court, noting that the clause in the Kentucky Constitution "was modeled ... ...
  • Old Dominion Comm. for Fair Util. Rates v. State Corp.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 14, 2017
    ... ... be understood in the sense in which they are popularly employed, unless the context or the very nature of the subject indicates otherwise." Howell v. McAuliffe , 292 Va. 320, 368, 788 S.E.2d 706, 734 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Manship v. McAuliffe , ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT