Federal judge upholds ruling that certain ex-felons should not automatically lose voting rights

by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury
March 11, 2026

On Monday, a federal court reaffirmed a January ruling that found that Virginia’s current practice of disenfranchising all people with felony convictions violates post-Civil War laws that required former Confederate states to guarantee voting rights for newly emancipated Black residents. 

The series of laws, called the Readmission Acts, also barred states from constitutionally disenfranchising people other than those convicted of crimes that were considered common law at the time. Under current law, all ex-felons’ voting rights are automatically revoked and formerly incarcerated people must petition the governor to have them restored. 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia is the plaintiff in the case, which was originally filed in 2023 and last heard in January. Attorney General Jay Jones then filed a motion that sought to modify a list of applicable felonies under the Readmission Acts, which blocked states from automatically and permanently stripping the voting rights of people convicted of crimes besides murder, manslaughter, arson, burglary, robbery, sodomy, mayhem and larceny. 

When the suit returned to courts on March 9, the ACLU floated the possibility of allowing incarcerated people the ability to vote, so long as their felonies were not common law. 

Judge John Gibney ordered the state to uphold the January ruling and to not address the question of voting in prison. 

“It is apparent that the parties are jockeying for relief not granted earlier. The plaintiffs now ask the Court to tell the electoral officials how and when to allow prisoners to vote; during the litigation of the merits of this case, they sought only an end to automatic disenfranchisement,” he wrote. 

At this time, ACLU attorney Vishal Agraharkar said it doesn’t have any immediate plans to litigate inmates’ ability to vote behind bars.

In upholding the January ruling, Gibney also declined to revisit listing applicable crimes for disenfranchisement, essentially nullifying Jones’ motion.

Jones’ predecessor, former Attorney General Jason Miyares, led the defense in the case during his tenure. Miyares’ team had “previously called such listing impossible and cited the impossibility as grounds to deny any relief at all,” Gibney wrote. 

Jones did not respond when asked for a statement. 

The lawsuit challenged Virginia’s historic disenfranchisement by targeting former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, who adjusted a once-automatic process to restore voting rights to people when they complete their sentences. 

With little clarity on what would garner a successful petition, restoration numbers dropped under Youngkin’s tenure. A pending constitutional amendment headed for voters’ ballots statewide this November would have Virginia enshrine automatic restorations. 

While the pending amendment can allow people who have served their time to once again participate in the democratic process, Agraharkar reiterated that some of those people should have always retained their right to vote. 

“This litigation can reduce the number of people who lose them in the first place and make sure everyone has a voice in our democracy,” he said. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.