Dog That Died Five Years Ago Gets Government Letter

man hugging a white dog outdoors — Photo: Olalaphoto / Shutterstock

A Virginia family says their long-dead dog just got a state letter restoring her voting and jury rights.

Story Highlights

A letter and certificate addressed to “Biscuit Rigsby” said voting and jury rights were restored.
The governor’s office says the record is tied to a real person with a Social Security number.
Local reporting says similar letters also reached deceased Virginians, raising system questions.
A restoration letter does not register someone to vote or prove a ballot was cast.

What the Biscuit letter said and why it caught fire

Fox News published photos of a Virginia rights-restoration letter and certificate sent to “Biscuit Rigsby,” a beagle-hound mix that the owner says died about five years ago. The certificate language referred to reviewing “the particulars” of Biscuit’s criminal case, even though the owner said Biscuit was never a felon. The story spread days before voting, feeding anger on both sides about government competence and trust in elections.

The governor’s office denied restoring a dog’s rights and said the certificate is linked to an actual person with a date of birth and Social Security number. The office did not explain how a dog’s name ended up on the mailing that reached the family. That gap left room for speculation. It also highlighted how small data errors can look like big scandals during campaign season.

What we know about similar mailings and what we do not

WSLS reported that letters also reached deceased Virginians and that officials were “digging into it”. The station stressed that a restoration letter does not register a person to vote and does not mean any ballot was sent or cast. That point matters. The strongest evidence so far shows a notice-generation or identity-match problem, not a proven case of illegal voting. Key records, like certificate numbers or system logs, have not been released.

The governor’s public materials say people become eligible for restoration once they are no longer incarcerated for a felony, and the administration reports restoring rights to tens of thousands this year. Large programs can amplify the impact of even rare data mismatches. When systems touch criminal records, death files, and mailing lists, one typo or name collision can ripple into bad mailings that confuse the public and fuel distrust.

How Virginia’s systems are supposed to catch errors

Virginia’s election process uses monthly death data from federal and state sources. Those records load into the statewide system and are matched against voter rolls. Local registrars then review possible matches to remove deceased voters. That is a separate function from the governor’s restoration program. A flawed restoration letter does not prove the voter list kept or reactivated a dead person. But it does raise fair questions about data sharing and quality control between agencies.

x

"BISCUIT" TO THE RESCUE!

POOR "BISCUIT" DIED, AND SHE WAS GOING TO "VOUCH" FOR EIGHT OTHER DOGS!

Virginia Family Receives Voting Paperwork for Their Dead Dog ‘Biscuit’ Due to Spanberger Voting Rights ‘Restoration’ Program!

Imagine receiving an official notification from… pic.twitter.com/8JvaIp6uY7

— STEPHEN MARTIN (@BEAR13328382) October 31, 2026

When systems work, many errors get caught quietly. When they do not, the error shows up in someone’s mailbox. That is what happened here. The state says a real human record exists behind the certificate. The family says the addressee was their deceased dog. Both can be true if a name or address field was wrong, or if two records collided. Without logs, form data, or the certificate number, outsiders cannot tell which step failed.

Why this hits nerves across the spectrum

Conservatives see loose data as proof the state cannot guard the vote. Liberals see a high-volume program tripping over old records because the state long blocked people with past felonies from voting at all. Both groups see a government that talks accountability but hides the ball when errors surface. The office cited privacy rules to withhold details. That protects identities, but it also blocks the public from confirming what really broke and where.

Concrete steps that would restore confidence

Officials could release non-sensitive facts: the certificate’s control number, the exact mailing address, and whether the voter database ever touched this record. Lawmakers or an inspector general could privately review the linked human record and publish an anonymized timeline of the data path. A statewide audit could compare all recent restoration mailings against death files, criminal-history status, and registrar actions, then publish error rates and fixes. These steps are standard, not partisan.

Bottom line for voters

The Biscuit letter signals a preventable process failure, not proof of a dead pet casting a ballot. Virginia law and local checks exist to remove deceased voters from rolls, and a letter alone does not create a voter or a ballot. Still, trust breaks fast when the mail brings absurd news. Clear records, swift fixes, and public error rates would help. Voters deserve strong guardrails and straight answers—without the spin that keeps people angry and in the dark.