Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 7 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Partisan frustration
Published Saturday, February 6, 2010
Steve Stewart
Bill Barlow, back at work in the House of Delegates after a bruising re-election battle last fall, dabbles at a mid-morning “lunch” of scrambled eggs and toast while entertaining constituents and lamenting the partisanship that grips Richmond these days.
The Smithfield lawyer and 10-term lawmaker is a Democrat in a Republican-controlled chamber. The fate of legislation is more likely to be determined by the party of the delegate who introduced it than the merit of the idea.
Frustration is evident in his voice as Barlow, up since 5 a.m. and several meetings already behind him on this young day, rattles off a number of bills he introduced that will never see the light of the House floor.
“If people back home understood …,” he says before educating the visiting constituents about the power of subcommittees, where good legislation can die in an empty meeting room at 7 a.m. with no one watching.
At least a bill in Virginia’s General Assembly gets a recorded subcommittee vote; in my native Mississippi, legislative committee chairmen can — and often do — wield what’s called the “pocket veto,” which prevents a bill from even being debated by a committee or subcommittee.
Still, Barlow’s point is well-taken.
His common-sense bill to make failure to wear a seat belt a primary offense rather than a secondary offense was killed by a subcommittee’s Republican majority. Identical legislation introduced by a Senate Republican passed the Senate with ease.
Isle of Wight County officials, concerned about the upcoming closure of International Paper Co.’s Franklin mill and the impact of the resulting lost tax revenue on property owners’ tax burden, asked Barlow to sponsor legislation allowing the county to levy a tax on cigarettes. Illogically, cities, towns and a couple of Northern Virginia counties can tax cigarettes, while most counties cannot.
Barlow introduced one bill to let all counties levy cigarette taxes and a second bill giving only Isle of Wight County permission. Both died in subcommittee.
Hold on to your wallets, Isle of Wight homeowners.
For years, Barlow has tried to minimize the politics in legislative and congressional redistricting by giving the once-a-decade task to an independent commission. Each year, the legislation dies quietly. The result is increasingly gerrymandered districts designed to guarantee the re-election of an incumbent or to stack the deck for one party or one race.
It’s the reason that Republicans never bother to put up a serious candidate for the congressional district on the Peninsula and that Democrats concede the congressional district south of the James. It’s the reason increasing numbers of General Assembly incumbents run unopposed for re-election.
The founding fathers believed that a certain degree of partisanship and gridlock were healthy — and wisely put in place constitutional checks and balances to prevent ideologues from running roughshod over dissenters.
Partisanship run amok can be equally detrimental, however.
Richmond and Washington would function more effectively if lawmakers were more concerned about the merits and demerits of legislation than about who gets the credit or the blame.
Steve Stewart is publisher of The Tidewater News. His e-mail address is steve.stewart@tidewaternews.com.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by grantsara83 (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Democrats, I believe control the senate side of the legislature. Del. Barlow's fight for the cigarette tax and seat belt laws was widely opposed by voters across the Commonwealth. I supported both, and have expressed my feelings to both Del. Barlow and Senator Quayle. The failure of both will cause needless deaths. Then again, we are distracted by more pressing issues, such as multi-holers at Barretts Landing. Go figure.
Posted by happycamper (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taking Steve's comments about the wishes of the founding fathers one more step: It's true that they felt a multi-party system would help with checks and balances. They also had a vision that serving in state and federal legislatures was just that ... a service. I believe they never envisioned that service becoming a career. The idea was to leave your farm or other job, and make a sacrifice for a few years aimed at bettering your society. I believe it's time we returned to that idea. If the citizens took back control of the issue and voted for term limits, we'd be MUCH more aligned with the vision of the founders. Personally, I'm all for a single term of 6 years for the house, senate (state and federal) and the executives both state and federal. Staggeer elections (1/3 of houses every 2 years), and no person could EVER be re-elected to the same office after one six year term. If they desire to run for another office for another six year term, that's okay. For example, you could serve in the House for one term, then run for governor for a single term. This would keep people focused on the reason they ran in the first place, and it would preclude all the "politics" involved with running for re-election. Six years is PLENTY of time to get your ideas implemented. Serve your state and/or country, and go back to your job and family. It's sound policy. It would allow many more qualified people to serve. It would be much closer to what the founders had in mind. It would be the right thing to do.
Posted by abc123 (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose term limits upon Representatives or Senators. This is because the states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution.
I agree it would be a good thing to do, but not Constitutional. But what we as voters can do is elect someone different. That is in our power, we just have to use it.
Posted by NotfromHere (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Happy and abc- I couldn't agree more.
Vote EVERY incumbent out and remind them we can impose our own term limits, if they won't. Every bill that gets suggested- in reference to term limits for Congress- dies a quiet death, as they said.
But this would require people to renounce any allegiance to a political party- and establish a new allegiance to the USA and each other. Some people will die before they voted Dem (or Reb.) Personally speaking I am liberal on some issues, and conservative on others- but if you are sitting in office it is highly unlikely you will get my vote.
Posted by happycamper (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
abc,
The US Constitution enacted term limits for the presidency in 1951. If the Constitution can be amended to set two 4-year terms, it can be changed again! I realize I'm asking the foxes to guard the henhouse by supposing that Congress will amend the Constitution to set limits on themselves. However, NotFromHere has a good way to start the process. By hook or crook (pardon the inference), there is a dire need to figure a way to change existing laws to allow reasonable term limits. Some state have them. Remember Lurleen Wallace?
Posted by abc123 (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, states can impose limits, seperation of power allows for that. Amending the constitution is a whole seperate level not to be taken lightly.
So you are calling for Congress to cut themselves out of a job? (Three-fourths of the state legislatures approval is required) Now if our Congressional representatives did what was right it wouldnt be a problem in the first place - right? Go ahead - sign the petition: www.termlimits.org, I have, but really I feel there is no hope for this to pass, since the very people that would have to pass it are the ones that are the problem.
So, we wait for Congress to do what is right - good luck with that... Or we as voters elect someone different - which do you think we have a better chance of? I for one will continue to vote against current regime. Yes, you may have to really go against the grain - but how else are we to get back our government of the people, by the people?
Posted by abc123 (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and by the way I was not familiar with Lurleen Wallace, who passed away before my time, but thank you for sharing the name with me. Thanks to a quick internet search I was able to research a quick history on her. Man, to say her husband was not very nice is quite the understatement. I never will understand what makes some people tick.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)