Amendment 2 · HJ2 · Felon Voting Rights

VOTE NO on HJ2

HJ2 would automatically restore voting rights to convicted felons the moment they leave prison — even those still on parole, still under court supervision, still serving their sentence. Permanently in the Virginia Constitution.

Sign the Petition — RiseUpNow.us Learn More at RiseUpNow.us

HJ1 — Abortion HJ2 — Felon Voting HJ3 — Marriage & Faith

The Ballot Language

What HJ2 Actually Says

Proposed Constitutional Language

"A person who has been convicted of a felony shall not be entitled to vote during any period of incarceration for such felony conviction, but upon release from incarceration for that felony conviction and without further action required of him such person shall be invested with all political rights, including the right to vote."

⚠️ The key phrase is "upon release from incarceration" — not "upon completing the full sentence." Under parole, a person has been released from prison but is still serving their sentence under court supervision. HJ2 would restore voting rights at the moment of release from prison, regardless of parole, probation, or outstanding restitution.

What Changes

Current Process vs. HJ2

Situation	Current Virginia Law	Under HJ2
Person serving prison sentence	Cannot vote	Cannot vote
Person released on active parole	Cannot vote (must apply to governor)	Voting rights automatically restored
Person on probation (no prison time)	Cannot vote (must apply to governor)	Voting rights automatically restored
Person who completed full sentence	Must apply to governor	Automatically restored
Person with unpaid victim restitution	Must apply; governor can consider	Automatically restored regardless
Governor discretion	Yes — case-by-case	Eliminated entirely

Why It Matters

Key Concerns with HJ2

Still Serving Their Sentence

Parole is not freedom — it's supervised release. A person on parole has been released from prison but is still legally serving their sentence, subject to conditions, reporting requirements, and potential return to prison. HJ2 treats "out of prison" as "done with their sentence," which is legally and practically not the same thing.

Eliminates All Governor Discretion

Since Virginia's founding, the governor has held the power to restore civil rights case by case. This process exists so that context matters — the nature of the crime, the victim's circumstances, whether restitution has been paid. HJ2 eliminates all of that with a constitutional mandate. One size fits all.

No Consideration of Victims

Under the current process, a governor can consider whether a person has paid restitution to their victims before restoring civil rights. HJ2 removes this consideration entirely — voting rights are restored automatically regardless of whether victims have been made whole.

Permanent Constitutional Change

Virginia's current rights-restoration process has been reformed significantly in recent years — governors have been restoring rights at record rates. HJ2 goes further by cementing a specific standard into the constitution, making future adjustments impossible without another amendment process.

Talking Points

How to Talk About HJ2

Parole Is Still a Sentence

"When someone is on parole, they haven't finished their sentence — they've been released under conditions. They still report to a parole officer. They can still be sent back to prison. HJ2 treats the moment someone walks out of prison as the moment their sentence is complete. Those are not the same thing."

The Governor's Process Works

"Virginia governors have been restoring civil rights to hundreds of thousands of people over the last decade. The process works, and it allows each case to be reviewed on its merits. HJ2 doesn't improve that process — it eliminates it and replaces it with a blanket rule that doesn't account for any individual circumstances."

Victims Are Left Out

"Under HJ2, a person convicted of a violent crime against a victim — who never paid a dollar of court-ordered restitution — would have their voting rights automatically restored the day they leave prison. There is no mechanism to require restitution first. The victim's experience doesn't factor in at all."

This Is Permanent

"You might think the right policy is automatic restoration after full completion of a sentence — including parole and probation. That's actually a reasonable position. But that's not what HJ2 does — it restores rights on release from prison, not after completing the full sentence. And once this is in the constitution, we can't adjust it."

Not Unique to Virginia

"Virginia is not uniquely harsh compared to other states. Most states require people to complete their sentence — including supervised release — before voting rights are restored. HJ2 would put Virginia on the more permissive end of the national spectrum, and lock that in permanently."

Common Questions

Objections & Responses

"Don't people who've served their time deserve to vote?"

Many do — and Virginia's existing system already allows the governor to restore rights to those who have completed their full sentence. What HJ2 does is extend that to people still on parole and probation, still technically serving their sentence. The question isn't whether rights should ever be restored — it's about when, and whether that decision should be locked into the constitution permanently.

"The current process is a slow bureaucratic mess."

Virginia governors have significantly streamlined rights restoration in recent years. If the process needs further improvement, that's a legislative fix — not a reason to amend the constitution. Laws can be updated; a constitutional amendment cannot.

"Voting helps with rehabilitation."

This is a debated claim, but even if true, it doesn't address the specific design of HJ2. Someone on active parole — still under court supervision — is in a very different situation than someone who has completed their full sentence. The amendment makes no such distinction.

"Isn't this about racial justice?"

Advocates frame it that way. But the specific language of HJ2 — "upon release from incarceration" — creates a policy that applies regardless of race, and that eliminates all case-by-case consideration regardless of the nature of the crime. Improving racial equity in the criminal justice system is a legitimate goal; writing this specific policy permanently into the constitution may not be the right mechanism.