The Virginia Supreme Court will not rush to hear a Republican challenge to Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s April 22 order restoring voting rights to 206,000 felons.

In an order issued Wednesday, the seven-member court announced it would sit in special session on Tuesday, July 19, to hear arguments in the case aimed at deciding the governor’s authority to issue a blanket restoration of rights rather than acting on a case-by-case basis.

The court’s decision to hold the special summer session rebuffs a request from House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Fredericksburg, and five other GOP challengers, who urged the court to move more quickly and hold the hearing Monday, June 6.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who represents the governor, the state Board of Elections and the state Department of Elections, had urged the justices “not to be stampeded” into hearing the challenge that “is highly unlikely to succeed.”

Defendants usually have 21 days to file briefs in response, but the Republican plaintiffs’ request for a fast hearing would have shortened that time by a week. The challenge was filed May 27, making the normal deadline to reply June 13.

The challengers argue that the governor’s action flouts the wording and common understanding of the 1971 Virginia Constitution, which previously has been interpreted to give governors the power to restore felons’ voting and civil rights on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a group.

In a brief to the court, Mr. Herring has outlined a four-part argument he plans to use in urging the court to reject the challenge to the governor’s authority.

Mr. Herring plans to argue that the governor acted within his constitutional authority. He also will urge the state’s highest court to throw out the case on the grounds the challengers lack standing or the right to sue.

His third prong will be to urge the court to reject the challengers’ request for orders barring the governor from issuing restorations en masse and rescinding any restoration of rights resulting from his April 22 action based on the court’s past rulings.

Finally, Mr. Herring will argue that even if the court sides with the challengers, the remedy should not be to remove from the voting rolls the names of those individuals who benefited from the governor’s decision in April.

Instead, Mr. Herring plans to argue that the right remedy would be to allow the governor to deliver case-by-case information to the General Assembly for each of the 206,000 people whose rights were restored, something the governor is prepared to do.