William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
Abstract
This Note argues that Governor Youngkin’s felon re-enfranchisement “scheme” violates the Constitution. Ultimately, I will be evaluating the argument made in Hawkins v. Youngkin, formerly known as Nolef Turns v. Youngkin, noting its strengths and its weaknesses. Part I describes both American history and Virginia’s specific history of denying people convicted of felonies their right to vote. It also details the Supreme Court case, Richardson v. Ramirez, in which the Court held that denying people convicted of a felony the right to vote is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Part I also gives a brief history of recent progress that past Virginia governors have made to re-enfranchise people convicted of felonies. Next, Part II analyzes Governor Youngkin’s re-enfranchisement “scheme” and compares it to those of his predecessors. It also looks at the arguments made in Hawkins v. Youngkin and King v. Youngkin, two current legal actions against Governor Youngkin alleging that his felon re-enfranchisement scheme is unconstitutional. Part III proposes that his scheme is unconstitutional and analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of what I believe to be the strongest argument supporting his scheme being unconstitutional, the legal argument being made in Hawkins v. Youngkin. Furthermore, Part III also recommends how the Hawkins’s argument could be strengthened for potential future litigation and distinguishes the facts of Hawkins from those of the landmark case Burdick v. Takushi. This Note concludes by reiterating that the facts of Hawkins v. Youngkin are distinguishable from Supreme Court precedent and that Governor Youngkin’s felon re-enfranchisement scheme, or lack thereof, is unconstitutional.
This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.