Disability Voting News: January 28, 2026

Sarah Blahovec

Sarah Blahovec

— 5 min read
The Accessible Voting Booth: Disability Voting News: January 28, 2026

Welcome back to the Accessible Voting Booth! January has been a long and excruciating month, and I don't have much to say beyond that (oh, and abolish ICE). Let's get into some voting news.

Federal court strikes down Virginia's felony disenfranchisement policy, and Virginia Democrats introduce a resolution to end disenfranchisement for prior felony convictions and disabilities. (via Democracy Docket). 

Last Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney ruled that Virginia’s lifetime disenfranchisement for people convicted of felonies violates federal law and strips voting rights beyond what was allowed under the Virginia Readmission Act of 1870. 

Currently, Virginia’s Constitution Article II, Section 1 bars all individuals with state or federal felony convictions from voting unless the Governor restores their rights, and this has disenfranchised over 250,000 individuals with felony convictions. The plaintiffs in this case, Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson, were convicted of drug-related crimes.

The Virginia Readmission Act banned the state from disenfranchising citizens except in the case of committing a crime that would be considered “felonies at common law” in 1870. Common law felonies at the time included the following 11: arson, burglary, escape and rescue from a prison or jail, larceny, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, rape, robbery, sodomy, and suicide. (Remember that this was the law in 1870, and the last two are concerning for LGBTQIA+ individuals and people with mental health conditions). The list of qualifying felonies at the time was far less expansive than the list of felonies we have today.

Judge Gilbert notes that while Black Virginians make up one fifth of the state’s voting-age population, they comprise 46% of disenfranchised Virginians. We also know that thanks to systemic racism and the War on Drugs, Black Americans are disproportionately incarcerated for drug crimes, with nine times as many Black people as white people incarcerated between 1991 and 2001 for crack offenses. In 2016, Black people were still being arrested at twice the rate of white people for cocaine possession. 

Judge Gibney decided that “Article II, Section 1 [of the state constitution] runs afoul of the Virginia Readmission Act by allowing the Commonwealth to disenfranchise people for crimes that were not ‘felonies at common law’ as defined in 1870.” He has issued an injunction prohibiting further disenfranchisement unless individuals have a common law felony as defined in 1870 (the 11 felonies listed above). 

However, the battle to restore voting rights for hundreds of thousands of Virginians with felony convictions is not over. On January 14th, Delegate Elizabeth Bennett-Parker introduced HRJ 2, a resolution to amend the state constitution to automatically restore the voting rights of individuals convicted of felonies upon their release from incarceration.

Additionally and very importantly, this resolution would also modify the state’s disenfranchisement of those who are “adjudicated to be mentally incompetent.” The resolution would require that a judge specifically find that an individual lacks the capacity to understand voting before being disenfranchised. Finally, this resolution would declare that except in enumerated exceptions, “[e]very person who meets the qualifications shall have the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, and such right shall not be abridged by law.” This resolution passed the Senate on the 16th and now will head to the ballot in November, where voters will have to approve it for it to take effect. 

The SAVE Act may be back (via Deseret News).

Republicans at the state and federal level continue to use the nearly-nonexistent issue of “noncitizen voting” to try to implement voter suppression through documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC). House Majority Leader Steve Scalise recently spoke on Fox news about his plans for the “SAVE Act Plus,” stating:

“President Trump has urged Congress to pass this vital legislation I introduced in 2024 with Rep. Chip Roy (of Texas) to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.”

The SAVE Act as introduced in 2024 would require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship such as a passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate, adoption decree (or some other document proving U.S. citizenship) to be able to register to vote. Many summaries of this legislation talk about providing ID that is compliant with REAL ID guidelines. However, REAL ID-compliant identification, such as a driver’s license, would not be sufficient under the SAVE Act as it does not include birthplace or citizenship status, so voters would have to provide additional citizenship documentation. Only Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington offer enhanced IDs that serve as proof of U.S. citizenship. 

Last year, I discussed the many ways that the SAVE Act or state-level documentary proof of citizenship requirements could disenfranchise voters with disabilities or create more significant barriers to voting. This includes potentially requiring voters to present documentation in person at inaccessible election offices or through inaccessible online registration portals. Additionally, people with disabilities may face greater barriers to obtaining passports or birth certificates or traveling to election offices or other government buildings to either obtain or provide documentation. My takeaway:

“The bottom line: The financial and administrative burdens of the SAVE Act, along with rampant access barriers, will make it much more difficult or impossible for millions of disabled Americans to vote.”

Last year, there was not enough support in the Senate for the SAVE Act to have a chance to pass, and hopefully that is unchanged this year. However, 14 states are considering legislation to implement documentary proof of citizenship at the state level, which conflicts with federal law. This results in confusion and bifurcated voting rolls such as in Arizona, where individuals who don’t provide DPOC are only allowed to vote for federal offices including President, U.S. House of Representatives, and U.S. Senate. On January 26, the Utah House passed H209, which would create a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to participate in any election other than for federal offices. Like Arizona, this legislation would result in permitting voters who provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote on a standard ballot while voters who don’t provide it are restricted to a federal ballot.

Utah’s bill defines documentary proof of citizenship as a Utah Driver’s license number or ID card number that verifies citizenship, a U.S. birth certificate, a U.S. passport, alien registration number that verifies U.S. citizenship, naturalization documents, tribal identification, or other document that proves citizenship. Regarding the first option, Utah is not one of the few states that offers an enhanced ID that serves as proof of citizenship, so there are no Utah driver’s licenses or IDs that verify citizenship. I’m concerned that this would create confusion for voters who may not know that regular driver’s licenses and IDs can’t be used to fulfill this requirement. 

That's it for this week's edition of The Accessible Voting Booth! As always, if you’d like to support the newsletter and my work, here’s how:

Read more