A Virginia Republican is demanding an investigation after a constituent received an official certificate restoring voting rights to a dog dead five years, a paperwork failure critics say shows no real review.
Republican Del. Tom Garrett of Buckingham called for a probe after a constituent reportedly got an official voting-rights restoration certificate naming his dog, Biscuit, who died about five years ago.
Just the News reported that the document bore the governor’s signature and stated the executive had reviewed the particulars of Biscuit’s criminal case and determined her rights should be restored. The owner confirmed the certificate’s authenticity to Fox News.
The episode lands on Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s administration and its process for restoring voting and jury-service rights to former felons, a power the governor holds under the Virginia Constitution. Garrett framed the issue as one of basic competence, not second chances.
Garrett made clear he was not attacking the idea of restoring rights to people who have finished their sentences. He said the problem was whether the state was using that power with any real check at all.
According to Fox News, Garrett said:
"This is not a question of whether people who have served their sentences deserve a second chance. This is a question of whether the Commonwealth is exercising one of the Governor’s constitutional powers with even the most basic level of review,"
He went further on the specifics of the document itself.
"Biscuit was a dog. Biscuit has been dead for five years. Yet an official document bearing the governor’s signature says the executive reviewed the particulars of Biscuit’s criminal case and determined her rights should be restored. Virginians deserve an explanation for how that is possible."
Those lines put the focus where it belongs: a signed state paper that treats a deceased pet as a former felon whose case was reviewed.
Biscuit’s owner, an unnamed constituent, told Fox News the certificate was real. He also said the dog had no criminal record that would have triggered the process.
The owner said:
"To my knowledge, she was never convicted of a felony, nor did she ever show any interest in voting,"
He described Biscuit as a “good dog and is greatly missed.” That detail makes the paperwork even harder to explain. A dead animal with no felony conviction still ended up on an official restoration certificate tied to the governor’s signature.
Spanberger’s office rejected the idea that the administration restored rights to a dog. A spokesperson said the certificate was tied to a real person, not a pet.
The spokesperson said:
"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,"
That answer leaves a gap. If the file belongs to a person with a date of birth and a Social Security number, how did the name “Biscuit” appear on a document that claims the executive reviewed a criminal case and restored rights? The office did not explain the mismatch in public remarks reported so far.
No absolute date for when the certificate was issued or received has been made public. No formal investigation status, case number, or full certificate text has been released in the reporting. What is known is the owner’s confirmation, Garrett’s call for a probe, and the administration’s claim that the record is linked to a person, while the paper itself named a dog dead for five years.
When a governor’s signature lands on a rights-restoration certificate for a deceased family pet, taxpayers are right to ask whether anyone is actually reading the files before the state acts.
