Sometimes they DO listen

Back in June, The Hill ran a story about the Iowa governor preparing to sign an Executive Order restoring rights to convicted felons. I posted it here to ensure that I was accurate in saying that is not true, as Virginia still requires individual application for rights restoration. A nice exchange of thoughts and information followed.

Today, The Hill ran a story saying the EO had been signed, but was again reported as the “last state” to do so. I recalled the earlier discussion here and decided to email the editors @ The Hill. Here is what I sent:

“With regards to this story:
The Commonwealth of Virginia still requires felons to apply to the governor’s office, through the Secretary of State for restoration of rights. There was a similar story in June about this signing and I researched and discussed on a local forum the veracity of the story, i.e. Iowa being the last state to restore felon voting rights. (Link to forum discussion here :

During Terry McAuliffe’s term as governor, he did sign an Executive Order with a blanket restoration of rights for felons. It was challenged by the GOP State Legislature and the EO was overturned by the State Supreme Court. This could be the reason why your reporter is saying such.
PLEASE have the reporter, Ms. Coleman, research this a little better.
Thank you for your time.”

Just over 10 minutes after I sent my email, I recevied this reply:

“Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This post has been updated. ” And it was.

So, yes, I am blowing my own horn just a touch. But it also brings up that we should not be silent with regards to media inaccuracies and should point them out when caught. They may not always reply as quickly, and they may believe their information is accurate. But we do have a responsibility to call out mistakes when they happen. Be it from the media or the one’s they cover.

3 thoughts on “Sometimes they DO listen

  1. I really don’t see where requiring an application for restoration of rights is an excessive burden, nor should rights be restored unless restitution to victims, where that is possible, has been made. For victimless crimes, no restitution is necessary, and for crimes against persons that cannot be made right, restoration of rights is not appropriate. If you have murdered, maimed or raped someone, you forfeit citizenship.


    1. “I really don’t see where requiring an application for restoration of rights is an excessive burden”…

      Maybe not to you, but for some it is. I don’t see any reason why an individual’s rights cannot be automatically restored provided all obligations, including restitution, if called for, have been met.

      I find it ironic that, according to an acquaintance of mine, there are signs at the halfway house in NN that all say “Welcome Back, Citizen”. Not entirely accurate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s