We reported last week about Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s executive order to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 felons.
The New York Times the action called a “sweeping order, in a swing state that could play a role in deciding the November presidential election.” Of course, the election-year move by not just any ol’ Democrat, but the co-chairman of President Bill Clinton‘s 1996 re-election campaign AND chairman of Hillary Clinton‘s 2008 presidential campaign — also known as a Clinton “bag carrier” — can only rightly be understood through the lens of political motivation.
Too bad for Gov. McAuliffe there’s no guarantee these ex-felons will be voting for his gal Hillary in the fall.
Via The Blaze:
More than 200,000 convicted felons will be able to cast ballots in the swing state of Virginia in November under a sweeping executive order from Gov. Terry McAuliffe.
Republicans called the order a bald-faced political move by McAuliffe — a close ally of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton — to help his party hold onto the White House.
We sat down with five ex-felons in Richmond to see how they are going to use their newly restored voting rights. The results were surprising, considering the narrative pushed by the media.
These men were the first five to respond to a question put on Facebook about the issue. They were not selected in any order, by race, or to make any particular political point.
Of course, this sampling of five men is not even attempting to be scientific or statistically significant. It does, however, highlight what we already know to be true — that in this election cycle, conventional wisdom just doesn’t seem to apply. And, apparently, the notion that convicted felons are reliably Democrat voters is just another example.
Of course, Gov. McAuliffe timed his action well, to make any effort to thwart his plan unlikely to come to fruition before the November election.
So Democrats are unlikely to be able to stop what the governor has put in motion, even if they realize it might not be in their best interests as they’d hoped.
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]