In September, a letter apparently showed up in a mailbox in Gum Spring in Goochland County, addressed to “Biscuit Rigsby.” It was from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, who informed Biscuit of good news: “Governor Abigail D. Spanberger has restored your right to vote, to become a notary public, to serve on a jury and to hold public office.”
Enclosed was the formal document, signed by the governor, which three times listed Biscuit’s name in bold type.
This is the type of letter that goes out to convicted felons who, under Virginia’s constitution, lose certain rights that can only be restored by action of the governor. This one, though, was curious on many levels.
The first problem is that Biscuit is — or rather, was — a dog.
She’s been dead for about five years.
The Rigbsy family — one member of which talked with Richmond-based journalists on Friday but did not want to be quoted — contacted their state legislator, Del. Tom Garrett, R-Buckingham County. On Friday, Garrett did what any Republican would do with this information: He made it public and called for a formal investigation into why the governor is attempting to restore the civil rights of a dead dog. This quickly set the internet, um, barking with conservative commentary and memes.
A spokesperson for the governor disputed the case: “Of course we did not restore the rights of a dog. We cannot disclose this individual’s information, but we can tell you that it is associated with a person with a date of birth and Social Security number.”
The governor’s office did not say more, which only raises more questions: How did a dog’s name get into whatever database the governor is using? Has a convicted felon ever lived at that address? Did that convicted felon at some point put down the name Biscuit on some form or did it somehow get co-mingled with dog licenses? Goochland County court records show only one person with the surname Rigsby who has been convicted of a felony. That person has a Gum Spring address, but Department of Corrections records show he is currently incarcerated. Did the governor inadvertently restore the civil rights of someone who is currently serving a five-year sentence for abduction?
The case of Biscuit the beagle-hound mix does not exist in isolation. Former Del. Tim Anderson, R-Virginia Beach, has been calling attention to a similar restoration of rights letter that went to “Betty No Last Name” at the Chesapeake jail. (He said he obtained it after a Freedom of Information Act request to the Chesapeake sheriff.) There have also been multiple reports that some letters have gone to dead people; Spanberger recently told WTVR-TV in Richmond that she suspects the problem lies with mistakes in different government databases and that her administration is looking into this.
These letters to dead dogs, dead people and people with no last name also come against the backdrop of an election: Virginians have been voting this fall and will wrap up that process on Tuesday, on many things. One of those is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change the process by which convicted felons in Virginia get their rights restored.
At the risk of passing up some good lines – barking up a wrong tree, the dog that didn’t bark, Virginia going to the dogs – let’s take a serious look at some of the issues involved here.
Virginia’s policy toward convicted felons is unique
In 48 states, felons lose certain rights (principally the right to vote) when they’re convicted. Only Maine and Vermont don’t. Of those 48 states, 46 states have some process to restore those rights at some point. In many cases, it’s an automatic restoration after release. In some cases, it’s after some waiting period. In two states – Kentucky and Virginia – felons don’t get their rights back unless the governor signs a paper to give them back.
Those restorations used to be pretty rare but have become more common this century. Here are the numbers for each Virginia governor since 1990:
Douglas Wilder (D): 427
George Allen (R ): 460
Jim Gilmore (R ): 238
Mark Warner (D): 3,486
Tim Kaine (D): 4,402
Bob McDonnell (R ): More than 8,000
Terry McAuliffe (D): 173,166
Ralph Northam (D): More than 126,000
Glenn Youngkin (R ): Less than 10,000
Abigail Spanberger (D): 66,085 so far
The proposed Amendment 3 would end this process and make restoration of rights automatic upon completion of a felon’s sentence. Supporters say restoration of rights shouldn’t depend on a single person; opponents say some crimes are so heinous that those committing them shouldn’t be allowed full participation in society ever again. You can read the full language of that amendment on the legistature’s website and the arguments for and against it at Cardinal News.
The scandal is not the dog or the missing last name, it’s the governor’s signature
In 2016, then-Gov. McAuliffe decided to accelerate the process of restoring civil rights by issuing a blanket restoration to cover every convicted felon. Top Republican legislators — including the Speaker of the House at the time, Bill Howell — filed suit, arguing that the state constitution didn’t allow this.
They pointed to the brief language in the state constitution that governs restoration of rights. That language requires the governor to tell the General Assembly each year “the particulars of every case” along with the governor’s rationale for restoring the felon’s rights. They argued that a blank restoration did not fulfill that requirement. The Virginia Supreme Court, in the Howell vs. McAuliffe case, agreed. McAuliffe couldn’t sign a single document; he had to sign separate documents for each felon whose rights he was restoring.
The word that comes up throughout that ruling is “individualized,” meaning there’s a constitutional expectation that the governor reviews each case “on an individualized, case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of each.” The court found that McAuliffe’s blanket restoration was “irreconcilable with the specific requirement in Article V, Section 12 that the Governor communicate to the General Assembly the ‘particulars of every case’ and state his ‘reasons’ for each pardon. This requirement implies a specificity and particularity . . .”
That’s why the question here really isn’t so much how a database spit out the name “Biscuit Rigsby” or “Betty No Last Name” but that the governor signed those documents. It suggests that the governor wasn’t really reading the documents or carrying out the “individualized” review that the Virginia Supreme Court says the state constitution expects. The restoration letters to Biscuit and Betty No Last Name say the governor “completed review of the particulars of the individual’s case.” What review took place?
Perhaps we can forgive the governor for Biscuit — there are lots of people with odd names out there — but “Betty No Last Name” should have prompted some questions somewhere along the line. The governor appears to have just been signing every document put before her, with more trust in the technology that produced the list than experience has taught us to have.
No, this doesn’t mean Biscuit and Betty No Last Name can vote
A governor can restore someone’s right to vote, but that doesn’t make them eligible to vote. The person still has to register. How many do? We don’t know. Not everyone bothers to register to vote, and not everyone registered bothers to vote: In last year’s governor’s race, only 54% did. I tried to run through the math in a column when Spanberger began her restorations and estimated that Spanberger’s 66,000 restorations may result, at best, in 25,724 new voters – of whom 35% might be inclined to be Republican voters. All that is speculative math, though. The point is that a restoration of rights does not automatically register someone to vote, and most people who have committed felonies probably aren’t all that civically engaged.
However, Garrett points out that the restoration letter includes a QR code that goes to the Virginia Department of Elections Citizen Portal, where you can register to vote online – if you have a valid Virginia’s driver’s license or other state ID. It’s unlikely that Biscuit or Betty No Last Name have either.
Anyone with a computer can get to that portal without the QR code, but the letter just makes it easier – and a letter to someone who does exist invites trouble, Garrett said. “It’s facilitating illegal voting,” he said.
He makes the case that the whole process seems very slipshod. If letters are going out to Biscuit and Betty No Last Name, it’s clearly not perfect. Garrett now joins other Republicans who have called for a formal investigation. Ironically, a “yes” vote on Amendment 3 would presumably eliminate all these potential problems by making the process automatic. You walk out of prison and you get your rights back. We’ll see Tuesday night how Virginians feel about that. In the meantime, Republicans are looking forward to that governor’s report on the restorations she’s issued so far where she has to detail “the particulars of every case.”
For more political news and analysis, sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter that goes out on Friday afternoons.
