Youngkin Petitions Virginia Supreme Court Amid NAACP’s Challenge Over Voting Rights Restorations

A yearslong legal challenge to Gov. Glenn Youngkin over access to records concerning his administration’s changes to voting rights restoration entered a new chapter this year, after the Virginia Court of Appeals in August ruled that the case, lodged by the Virginia NAACP, can move forward.

A court had issued an order in Youngkin’s favor in 2024, but its failure to address attorneys’ fees led to the successful appeal that has continued the case. Late last month, Youngkin petitioned Virginia’s Supreme Court to appeal the continuation of the case, with his legal team arguing that the law doesn’t mandate attorneys’ fees be included in the substance of a case and that the NAACP’s complaints about the lingering attorney’s fees issue came months after the 2024 ruling.

Virginia Court of Appeals rules NAACP’s voting rights FOIA lawsuit against Youngkin isn’t over

“The need for a clear, bright-line rule is evident in this matter,” Youngkin’s petition to the state Supreme Court stated. As the governor, his legal representation stems from the office of the attorney general.

In response to Youngkin’s petition, lawyers for the NAACP countered that the fees are a minor part of the larger issue their lawsuit is trying to address: whether the administration skirted Virginia Freedom of Information Act rules concerning their inquiry into how the administration handles voter rights restoration.

“He’s tried to make a big deal out of (the fees) being the focus,” said Ryan Snow, the NAACP’s legal counsel. “The focus is not on the fees. The focus is on having our day in court and being able to show a court that there was a violation (of FOIA).”

Background

In Virginia, people who are convicted of felonies lose their right to vote unless a governor restores that right. While three previous governors, both Republican and Democratic, had streamlined the process for ex-felons to restore their voting rights, Youngkin adjusted the process back to a petition-based one. His administration has provided little guidance on what may yield a successful outcome and who would be unlikely to be told “yes.”  Voter restoration numbers have been lower under his administration than they were during his predecessors’ administrations.

Calling it “a long and hard process,” Virginia NAACP president Cozy Bailey added that the group’s scrutiny of the revised process “began when we noticed the falling off a cliff, if you will, of restoration numbers.”

Several people whose restoration applications were denied said last year they were frustrated they couldn’t participate in presidential and local elections. The NAACP had filed FOIA requests in 2023 to learn more about the restoration process under Youngkin’s watch, citing a lack of transparency as their key concern.

Acting in what former Youngkin spokeswoman Macaulay Porter called “good faith,” the administration released some documents that provided some insight. Materials suggested that completion of probation or repayment of fines might be a factor in Youngkin’s approval, but further details were not disclosed.

However, the information Youngkin’s camp shared tipped the NAACP off about the existence of a database where petitions were stored,  which they argued should have been revealed through their FOIA.

Prior to the case being allowed to continue this summer, a district judge last year sided with Youngkin over an exemption in state code dubbed “working papers,” and allowed the alleged database to stay hidden.

Snow said that his team believes the database “is still a live issue” that they want access to, along with other records the NAACP had sought, including documents about the transition in the method for restorations, records about the information needed for applicants to petition, documents about meetings to discuss aspects of the restoration procedure, and communications with denied applicants.

While some of those records were revealed in the “good faith” release, the NAACP’s legal team believes they were “initially unlawfully withheld,” which they say they “can prove to a court.”

As legal saga continues, a constitutional amendment is on the horizon

While Youngkin and the NAACP’s dispute continues to play out and he prepares to vacate his role as governor, Virginia’s legislature is in the process of advancing a constitutional amendment that could allow restorations to happen so long as ex-felons have completed their sentences.

The proposal, which has advanced with slim bipartisan support, must pass again in 2026 before it can appear on statewide ballots next November. From there, voters around the state could decide to accept or reject it. If voted down,  Virginia’s next governor would be able to uphold Youngkin’s petition-based restoration process or embrace the automatic process previous governors used.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger supports the amendment and said in an interview that if it fails, she will prioritize restoring people’s voting rights. Earle-Sears did not indicate a position on the voting rights measure, unlike her signatures expressing opposition to other advancing constitutional amendments.

Bailey, of the NAACP, emphasized that as his organization engages in the legal process, he remains hopeful that more Virginians will eventually be able to engage in the democratic one.

“It is a human right to be able to participate in the process of electing officials and having a voice,” he said.

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