One of the biggest emerging problems in America is disenfranchisement. Between immigrants (legal and illegal) without representation to felons and citizens of DC without voting representation in Congress, there are entire segments of the population that have no capabilities for representation, but pay taxes.

If I recall correcty, that's kinda why the colonies revolted in 1775, wasn't it?

If we expand the franchise, we get more buy-in to the system, and there are greater incentives for participating and abiding by common norms.

We must assimilate those who feel alienated, and the right to vote is a critical part of that.

Right now the only way a felon can have voting rights restored is to wait five years and then request restoration.  Most felons aren't even aware this option is available to them and so never go through the process.

For those who believe that having a felony conviction should deprive one forever of the ability to participate in our democracy, they should educate themselves about what exactly constitutes a felony in this state.  In Virginia, if you are convicted of possessing a single Ecstasy pill at a rave, if you are caught carrying an empty jeweler's bag (size of a postage stamp) containing cocaine residue, if you have tried to evade the police, if you have shoplifted things valued at more than $200, or caused property damage of more than $1000, or hit another vehicle containing occupants and continued on your way you have committed a felony and a conviction will deprive you of your right to vote.  Of particular concern to me is the draconian zero tolerance drug laws which make virtually anything which isn't marijuana a felony.  Every Friday I attend circuit court sentencings and watch young adults come in to be sentenced for the felony of having a pill or a small amount of cocaine or heroin or other substances in their possession.  The kids who shared Ecstasy with their friends at a rave come in to be sentenced for possession with intent to distribute.  Sometimes they're in there to be sentenced for an impulse crime like snatching a $300 jacket off the rack at  Nordstroms.  What they did is not good and downright stupid, but it's hard to see why someone who made a bad and immature decision at age 18 or 20 should pay for it for the rest of his or her life with curtailment of civil liberties.  When one considers that they are being sentenced as adults but are considered by law to be too immature to be able legally to drink a beer then it is even more frustrating. 

If you want individuals to return as productive members of society, you must allow them back into society.

Just as an aside, I know for a fact that, at least as far as the House Courts Committee goes, every time a new felony is created or a misdemeanor penalty is increased to a felony, the Members raise the issue of whether the particular decision should be taken, in light of its impact on voting rights. 

Those decisions are not taken lightly, but reflect the fact that felons have broken the social compact with the community.  Stripping felons of the right to vote should act as a deterrent to future criminality.  We know for a fact that criminals take into account the gun laws of a particular community, such as Project Exile, before committing crimes.  If they value their voting rights, they should similarly consider the impact of their actions on their future participation in society's decision making processes. 

Moreover, if potential felons are unable to appreciate the future impact of their actions, then their loss of voting rights is all the more justified and beneficial to society. In limited circumstances, the Governor (through the SoC)can restore the rights of felons especially deserving of special consideration.

comparing them to the people who elected george bush twice might put that idea into perspective. clearly the inability "to appreciate the future impact of their actions" is not germaine to the issue of voting rights. if it were we would have a very small voting population.

just a thought

I would distinguish the two by the fact that second round Bush voters could not have known with absolute certainty the damage they were doing by casting a vote his way.  Potential felons can know with certainty that loss of voting rights is the immediate and proximate of their actions. 

Apparently you did not even consider the fact that our General Assembly can get a little felony-happy when it's deciding on what makes a felony and what doesn't.  And since our own state's rules are so much harsher than those of surrounding jurisdictions it comes as a distinct shock to most people to find out just how wide-ranging the felony designation of even minor seeming criminal acts is.  Our GA has been on a binge of punitive rules-making for years.  Everything is cast exactly as you've cast it - "Well, gee, making really, really harsh rules will guarantee that prospective felons will think twice and decide not to do it."  The reasoning is laughable and completely inapplicable to the real world.  In the real world people are often young or stupid or addicted or misinformed or drunk or reacting to peer pressure or simply not knowledgeable about the law.  I've encountered even lawyers (usually the parents of some idiot kid caught with Ecstasy or a some other substance) who are astounded to find out that Junior is now officially a felon.  Many of the definitions of felony have not changed in decades, as in the example taking things valued at more than $200.  This has been the official threshold since before I started practicing law some 20 years ago.  All the other states have much higher thresholds, just as they have thresholds for drug possession and other offenses, but Virginia lawmakers are obsessed with bright line absolutist rules and worried sick about appearing to be "soft" on crime if they try to apply anything approaching nuance or degree.  As a result Virginia lawbreakers are labeled felons far more than their compatriots in neighboring states and in DC, and they suffer far worse curtailment of civil liberties as a result of the same acts.  And once they've been officially labeled for life do you think that makes them better citizens? I don't think so.

I'm put in mind of a man who used to call the elderly lawyer who mentored me when I first started practicing law.  Every few months this lawyer would receive a call from an old client who had pled guilty to a felony back in the early 60s, asking if it was possible to set aside his conviction.  He would get on the phone and cry and ask if there were only some way to restore his civil rights.  This continued well into the 2000s, when he finally died at the age of 60 something.  He had spent over 40 years of his life trying to atone and get back what he lost at age 20.  He'd gone on to marry, get a job, raise a family, and in every respect become a contributing member of society; yet in his eyes and the eyes of our law he was forever marked as less than a citizen.  It was tragic and my mentor often told me his deepest regret was allowing this person to plead guilty to the felony and take probation instead of fighting the charge and potentially going to jail.  It had seemed like a good deal, but the effects were lifelong and soul-crushing.  So tell me, Houdon, was justice served? 

Project Exile is all well and good, although I've seen even that result in some clear injustices (any time you have a one size fits all solution to anything you're going to have  injustice), but guns are a special case.  Most people have no understanding of how harshly we treat non-violent crime in this state and the vast majority of crimes are non-violent, consisting mostly of drug possession and theft. 

I agree with Catzmaw that Virginia's classification of crimes doesn't make a lot of sense.  I too have been practiciong law for close to 20 years.  Recently, the GA reclassified possession of certain pills (e.g. loratab) as a felony. So we now have a whole new crop of young felons.
The larceny statutes haven't been adjusted for inflation  since before 1971.  What cost $200 in the sixties is very different from today.  There have been bills introduced to correct this but they keep getting killed in the House committees.

I would exclude those who commit voter fraud or another election crime from an automatic restoration of voting rights, since these crimes strike at the very foundation of our democracy.  Of course, a lot of these crimes are still misdemeanors, see Virginia Code Sections 24.2-1000 et seq.  Seems like the GA's priorities may be misplaced. Hmm Maybe they're protecting their own.

But even in these cases, I think the felons should be able to petition the Circuit Court to restore their rights after they have completed their sentences and a short waiting period. Restoration would be based upon evidence of a reformed character and their reputation in the community. The classic concepts of repentence, reparation and reformation. 

They have paid their debt to society. There should be no reason for them not to automatically have them restored.  What are they afraid of? The best people are the ones that have been on both side of the tracks!!  They have learned and know what needs fixing. Not those in office who have no clue of what goes on in the real world.  The live in fancy houses fancy neighbor hoods and habve enough clout that when one of their own gets in trouble it gets swept under the rug or never comes to action.