Va. lawmakers seek 'repeal amendment'
October 26, 2010
Danielle Nadler - The Winchester Star
WINCHESTER - A handful of Virginia legislators plan to propose an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would allow states to repeal an unwanted federal law.
The "repeal amendment" comes as a distaste for big government has recently surfaced around the country, with the expectation that it will culminate in votes for conservatives on Election Day.
The resolution is co-sponsored by Speaker of the House William J. Howell, R-Stafford, and Del. James M. LeMunyon, R-Fairfax, on the house side and state Sen. Jill H. Vogel, R- Upperville, on the senate side. It will be presented during the upcoming General Assembly session, which starts in January.
Under the amendment, a yes vote from 34 states - a two-thirds majority - would be required to repeal a federal law or regulation.
In an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal last month, Howell and Randy E. Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, wrote that the repeal amendment would allow "thousands of democratically elected representatives outside the Beltway to check the will of 535 elected representatives in Washington, D. C (the number of House and Senate members in Congress)."
Currently, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution.
Vogel said she expects the resolution to take center stage at the 2011 legislative session, and for it to find support from representatives on both sides of the aisle.
"I think whether they’re concerned about the car tax or health care — whatever it is — they see this as an important vehicle for the state to step in," Vogel said. "And Virginia will be at the forefront of this national movement."
Legislators who want to see the resolution pass face a set of daunting steps to do so, however.
William Shendow, professor and chair of Shenandoah University’s political science department, said that for the amendment to be proposed at the national level, either two-thirds of Congress would have to vote to propose it, or a constitutional convention would have to be called — requiring two-thirds of the state legislatures to petition Congress to hold one.
From there, it would require the support of three fourths of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment.
"I don’t think, personally, it's going to go that far," Shendow said.
"There’s been a real reluctance to amend the constitution. I guess anything is possible, but it’s not probable."
If legislators do pull together enough votes to push the proposed amendment into law, it would likely still be rare that 34 states vote together and use the amendment to repeal a federal regulation.
And that's the point, according to Vogel.
"It would require a significant statement and again a big movement among the states for any law to be repealed," Vogel said. "But again, at the end of the day, that’s the checks and balances that our forefathers intended." Clifford "Clay" Athey, R-Front Royal, who is considering co-sponsoring the resolution, says a repeal amendment is needed now more than ever. "States have taken a smaller and smaller role," he said. "The federal government has grown so big and has gotten into so many areas that you’re seeing a tremendous pushback from states and citizens." He calls the amendment a "wake up call" to Congress. The resolution would not completely make a particular federal law or regulation void, Athey added, but send it back to Congress for reconsideration.
“If they want to adopt it again, they can,” he explained. “But if I were them, I’d be very nervous to do that if 34 states disagreed with something.” Shendow says the proposed resolution has sparked worthwhile conversations, but he believes citizens already have the opportunity to shift power from the federal to the state level, and will exercise that opportunity in next week’s election. “If you want less national government, elect people who see that view and send them to Washington,” he said. In all, 27 amendments have been made to the original document, 10 of which make up the Bill of Rights. The most recent prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for representatives. It passed in 1992, more than 202 years after its initial submission.
— Contact Danielle Nadler at dnadler@winchester star.com
Three constitutional amendments on ballot
October 09, 2010
Danielle Nadler - The Winchester Star
WINCHESTER - Virginia voters will be asked to declare their stance on more than congressional candidates on Nov. 2. There are also three constitutional amendments on the ballot for Election Day, the first of which would allow localities to grant full or partial real estate tax exemptions to low-income senior citizens and to people with disabilities.
The second would exempt disabled veterans or their surviving spouses from the real estate tax, if the disability or death was service related.
The third and most controversial amendment would increase the size of the state's revenue-stabilization fund, also known as the "rainy-day fund," from 10 percent to 15 percent of the average tax revenues realized during the previous three fiscal years from income and retail sales taxes.
The first two amendments are " no -brainers , " according to state Sen. Jill H. Vogel, R- Upperville, who as a member of the Privileges and Elections Committee voted to place all three on Virginia ballots.
She said the revenue-stabilization issue has prompted discussion among people who both agree and disagree with setting more money aside for economically tough times.
"In a time like we are in right now, that rainy-day fund keeps government going without having to implement major tax increases," said Vogel, who agrees with all three amendments.
She has heard a handful of constituents say they are concerned that the amendment would allow government to stash more taxpayer money, but many support the increase.
"I don’t think it’s something that would be abused," Vogel said. "This would allow us to set aside money for those times that are really bad."
On the Internet . . . sbe.virginia.gov
— Contact Danielle Nadler at dnadler@winchester star.com
Political districts in region likely to be reshaped
October 05, 2010
Danielle Nadler - The Winchester Star
WINCHESTER — The shape of the northern Shenandoah Valley’s political districts will most likely change by this time next year.
Every 10 years, when new census data are released, the districts are redrawn to keep approximately the same number of people in each district and ensure equal representation.
Early figures from the 2010 Census show that the population climbed in all of the area’s congressional, Senate, and House of Delegates districts since the lines were last redrawn in 2001.
The final Census population numbers, which are the basis for the new lines, will be released in February.
According to the early Census estimates:
The 10th Congressional District, represented by Republican Frank R. Wolf for 30 years, has 132,967 residents (18.5 percent) more than the equalized district size of 717,370 people.
The 27th state Senate District, represented by Jill H. Vogel, R-Upperville, has 26,987 residents (13.7 percent) more than the equalized number of 197,277.
The 29th House of Delegates District, represented by Beverly J. Sherwood, R-Frederick, has 7,142 residents (9.1 percent) more than the equalized size of 78,911.
The 18th House District, represented by Del. Clifford L. “Clay” Athey Jr., R-Warren County, has 6,201 people (7.9 percent) more than the equalized amount.
The 33rd House District, represented by Joe T. May, R-Leesburg, was the third-fastest-growing district in the state during the past decade. The district has 33,152 residents (42 percent) more than the equalized amount.
“This is a whole new ball game,” said Vogel. “Everything has to change.”
And under a tight deadline.
The lines must be redrawn by the General Assembly with a stamp of approval from the U.S. Department of Justice in time for state Senate elections in November 2011.
The final OK from the Justice Department is a requirement under the Voting Rights Act for southern states with a history of discrimination against African-Americans.
To start the process, the Redistricting Subcommittee of the House of Delegates Committee on Privileges and Elections will hold six public hearings through December.
The public hearing closest to Winchester will take place at 7 tonight in Mason Hall at George Mason University in Fairfax.
According to Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University who is an expert in redistricting, next year will mark the first time in recent memory that the General Assembly has been split during redistricting — with a hefty Republican majority in the House and a Senate narrowly controlled by Democrats.
Since the party in power controls the redistricting process, the split General Assembly could result in more fairly drawn lines — or more challenges to find an agreement, he said.
“The state has not faced this problem before in modern times,” he said. “So I definitely expect a lot of intrigue in this redistricting.”
The 10th Congressional District, covering an area from McLean in the east to Frederick County in west, will face major changes.
McDonald predicts it will encompass more of the Shenandoah Valley and less of Northern Virginia — most likely meaning more Republicans and fewer Democrats.
If Wolf wins the Nov. 2 election, the district would need to include his home in Vienna.
“That’s going to be a strange-looking district,” McDonald said. “Something’s going to have to give somewhere.”
In Wolf’s 30 years as a congressman, he has represented the northern Shenandoah Valley for 17 years. Before the 1991 redistricting, the Winchester area was part of the 7th Congressional District (the change didn’t take effect until 1993).
“Congressman Wolf has made it clear he very much wants to represent the northern parts of the Shenandoah Valley,” said Daniel Scandling, Wolf’s chief of staff.
The 33rd House of Delegates District once stretched to include some of Fauquier County and Chantilly in western Fairfax County. With a surge in population, especially in Loudoun County, the district grew smaller in geographical size — and is expected to shrink again.
“I’m perfectly happy with the makeup of my present district, but I don’t see that there’s any choice but to redistrict,” May said. “We’ll see how it rolls out.”
The local Senate district, held by Vogel, will most likely become less diverse, whether it is reduced from the east or the west.
As is, it includes constituents who live just off the Dulles Greenway to those who live on farmland in Frederick Count y.
“It’s very diverse, which is hard, but I will say I absolutely love this district,” Vogel said. “I would hope we keep the communities with common interests together, but it’s way too early to guess.”
McDonald said he predicts Republican lawmakers will try to retain their current district lines as much as possible. If lines are redrawn to take in more of the urban population, districts with more Democrats would result.
“If there is a shift of power to the urban districts, it’s going to be to the detriment of the Republicans,” McDonald said. “There are a lot of games that can go on here.”
William Shendow, chairman of the political science department at Shenandoah University, said he hopes the political lines are drawn by a bipartisan group with an objective perspective.
“I think it should be taken as much as possible out of the political domain,” he said. “The district lines should not be drawn by politicians who are to gain.”
McDonald said the “stars would have to align” before that happens.
The Senate passed a bill supporting bipartisan redistricting reform, but it died in a House committee.
Vogel voted in favor of reform and sponsored a bipartisan reform bill.
“I think people will want to be fair,” she said. “They certainly should be.”
— Contact Danielle Nadler at dnadler@winchester star.com
The lines must be redrawn by the General Assembly with a stamp of approval from the U.S. Department of Justice in time for state Senate elections in November 2011.
|
