VCC Magazine Fall 2019

V I R G I N I A

Q U A R T E R L Y M A G A Z I N E

N EXT R OUND The Can Virginia map a path forward on guns ?

INSIDE Guns • Elections • Race

Fall 2019

Stinson Vineyards, Virginia

Tourism Works for Virginia. In 2018, The Virginia Domestic Tourism industry generated $26 billion in traveler spending, supported 234,000 jobs, generated $6.1 billion in saaries and wages, and provided $1.8 billion in state and local taxes. virginia.org

C O N T E N T S VIRGINIA CAPITOL CONNECTIONS QUARTERLY MAGAZINE

Fall 2019

4 Publisher’s and Editor’s notes 5 Review of the Second Amendment 7 More gun control will not make us safer 7 A multifaceted strategy is needed 9 One of the most important issues we face 9 The Good News? 10 Through the Voter’s Eyes 11 Campaign Finance 12 Voter Registration 14 Conscientious Diversity 15 Education Beyond the Classroom 16 Swords into plowshares 18 Memories of a Southern Childhood 18 “I Am 400” 20 They Changed Us All 21 “Amazon had it right” 21 Why invest in CTE? 22 Ginny Edwards: A lifetime of legislative service 23 Bring It to the Table 24 State Offices Help Veterans and Families

VCC QM Team Left to Right: Nick Mai, Cierra Parks, Bonnie Atwood, Hannah King

page 5

BELL

VAN CLEAVE

page 7

GODDARD

page 7

page 9

25 VHHA Foundation Partnerships 26 The Lighter Side of Lobbying

SASLAW

On The Web www.vccqm.org

Cover illustration by Chris OBrion

page 9

Chris OBrion has created illustrations, editorial cartoons and graphics for dozens of newspapers, magazines and other publications. He lives in the Richmond area.

KRIZEK

Volume 25 Number 4 • Editor-in-Chief –Bonnie Atwood • Assistant Editor – Cierra Parks • Student Editors –Hannah King, Nick Mai • Publisher –David Bailey • Art Director –John Sours School Distribution – schools@capitolsquare.com • Advertising – Ads@CapitolSquare.com • Printer –Wordsprint • Virginia Capitol Connections Quarterly Magazine (ISSN 1076-4577) is published by: Virginia Capitol Connections • 1108 East Main Street • Suite 1200 • Richmond, Virginia 23219 • (804) 643-5554 • Copyright 2019, Virginia Capitol Connections, Inc. All rights reserved. The views expressed in the articles of Virginia Capitol Connections Quarterly Magazine , a non-partisan publication, are not necessarily those of the editors or publisher.

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

3

From the Editor: Who was Anna Maria Lane?

From the Publisher: I go out walkin' –on Ninth Street For more than a year I’ve walked on Ninth Street north of Bank Street seeing the remains of one of my favorite historical markers, of Anna Maria Lane. One might miss the broken pole that appears to be standing guard over the most disgusting mess adjacent to the Capitol grounds. This City of Richmond debacle greeting me daily as I walk to and from my office.

My agonizing silence ended in mid-September when I unloaded on Facebook. David L. Bailey Ninth Street next to Capitol Square Just over the fence is Mantle and the location of the wall and statues honoring women. But you walk by several “weed and trash filled planters” on the Capitol side of Ninth Street, a complete disaster.

Years ago, the plan seemed to be a good one with plantings and maintenance. With such beautiful Capitol grounds, this is beyond words. Bonnie Atwood, unless you get some satisfactory action, how about an editorial in Virginia Capitol Connections. Bonnie replied, “This is what people see when they visit our State Capitol. It used to be beautiful. I hold my breath when I walk by.” Many friends joined the conversation with a variety of comments. Tracy Dean Howard I've often had the same thought walking down the Ninth Street side. Ick. Walt Latham We're told in York County to not have standing water because of mosquitoes. We also discussed the need to restore the historical marker. See the David L. Bailey page to read our many comments. As we go to press there’s good news: The marker will be replaced and there’s more than just hope that the ugly mess will be gone. Stay tuned. Don’t feel bad if you’ve never heard of her. She was not aVirginia native. Her claim to fame here occurred late in the Revolutionary War. Not satisfied to serve the Continental Army as a cook or a nurse, she summoned the courage to dress as a man, and enlisted as a man, putting her directly in harm’s way. She was distinguished at the Battle of Germantown, near Philadelphia, where she performed “extraordinary military services,” and was wounded in battle. After the war, the Lanes lived in Virginia. They moved to Richmond in 1801, where her husband served in the public guard, and she assisted in a military hospital. Lane was one of a few women who received pensions from the new government. They received $100 per year for life in recognition of her service “in revolutionary war, in the garb, and with the courage of a soldier.” She died in 1810. Today, all the public sees are a sign where her name once stood, and a neglected sidewalk around it. Virginia Capitol Connections Quarterly Magazine thanks the Library of Virginia (and our Facebook friends) for this information . V

V

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

4

A Review of the Second Amendment’s Origin and Interpretation By Lauren C. Bell

Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. The City of New York and the New York City Police Department-License Division . As the Court prepares to return to the Second Amendment—a part of the Constitution it has rarely reviewed—and as questions ripple across the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation about how best to deal with gun violence, it is an opportune time to review the legislative and legal history of one of the Constitution’s most enigmatic provisions. Legislative History – The Second Amendment Between the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, the states enacted a number of laws designed to ensure that they could defend themselves from another invasion. These laws established state militias, the scope of which were defined by state law. In 1785, Virginia passed its law establishing the state militia. As recounted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Virginia militia law declared: The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty….All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years…shall be inrolled or formed into companies. … There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months. … Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows:…every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. During the ratification debates over the proposed Constitution in 1787-88, some delegates to the ratifying conventions within the states worried that the new federal government would seek to strip state militias of their self-defense capabilities. (See, for example: Stephen P. Halbrook and David B. Kopel, Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823, 7 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 347 [1999], https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol7/iss2/3 .) This was among the reasons that many states indicated they would not ratify the Constitution without the promise of a bill of rights. The Second Amendment was thus added to the original document as part of the Bill of Rights. It was originally proposed in the United States House of Representatives by James Madison on June 8, 1789. As proposed by Madison, the amendment read: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” [Emphasis added.]

Congress had other things to do—and members had not yet settled on the need for a bill of rights, nor had they agreed on the form amendments would take. As a result, debate on the substance of this amendment was postponed until July 21, 1789, when the proposal was referred to a select committee consisting of a member from each of the 11 states that had ratified the Constitution up to that point (neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina had yet ratified). A few weeks later, on Friday August 21, the so-called “Committee of 11” reported a revised Second Amendment proposal, along with several others, back to the House of Representatives. According to the House Journal , the amendment at that point read: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” Debate commenced, but according to the House Journal not much was said about the substantive issue of bearing arms. Instead, the debate focused on the exemption from arms-bearing for religious reasons. In the Senate, there was an attempt on September 9, 1789 to add a clause to indicate that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was for the common defense, but the Senate Journal for that day indicates that the amendment did not pass, and offers no more insights into what the members discussed. This quick summary of the debates in Congress around Madison’s proposed amendment tell us several things. First, they tell us that it was well-established at that time that state citizens not only had a right, but were often required to bear arms; next, it is clear that as proposed, the second amendment was intended to ensure that the federal government would not interfere with state regulations regarding firearms; and third, they tell us that the debates in Congress focused almost exclusively around whether the Second Amendment ought to create a federal exemption for religious objections to arms-bearing. Significant Supreme Court Decisions What the legislative history of the Second Amendment doesn’t tell us is what the practical implications of the amendment were. It is the Supreme Court, which has heard remarkably few Second Amendment cases over time, that has been left to sort that out. In one of its first cases involving a second amendment issue, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that individual citizens could not be charged with violating another person’s second amendment rights, because the second amendment “is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…” A decade later, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court upheld state restrictions on bearing arms while marching in military formation outside of a legally-recognized state or federal militia, noting that states could prohibit people from parading with weapons without violating the Second Amendment, because the second amendment was a limit on federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. This was consistent with the legislative history of the Amendment, but also reflects the fact that the Constitution itself had not yet been incorporated to apply to the states. In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), the Supreme Court took up the question of whether prohibitions on concealed weapons were constitutional, and determined that they were. According to the Court, a person’s right to keep and bear arms was not abridged simply because he or she were prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon. These early cases demonstrate that at the turn of the 20th Century, the judicial consensus was that the Second Amendment was a limitation on the federal government, not on the states (or

See Second Amendment , continued on page 6

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

5

Second Amendment from page 5

Conclusion

individuals). And, the Supreme Court was clear that states could pass reasonable regulations or even bans on guns or gun-related activity, without abridging the second amendment guarantees. The most significant case of the 20th century was U.S. v. Miller , which the Court decided in 1939. In this case, two men convicted of transporting a so-called sawed-off shotgun across state lines appealed their convictions on the grounds that the federal law prohibiting such transport was unconstitutional under the second amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, writing: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” U.S. v. Miller ’s conclusion that the Second Amendment only guaranteed an individual right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia stood until 2008, when the Supreme Court decided a Second Amendment case for the first time in nearly 70 years. That case, District of Columbia v. Heller , overturned D.C.’s total ban on handguns and upheld the District of Columbia Circuit Court’s conclusion that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that [DC’s] total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.” Because this case arose out of the District of Columbia, it applied only to DC and other federal jurisdictions. In 2010, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago —a case that was filed on the same day that the Court handed down the Heller decision—the Court extended the individual right to bear arms to all citizens by striking down state- and city-level bans on firearms. New York State Rifle & Pistol The Court has not heard another Second Amendment case since 2010’s McDonald decision. In late Spring 2019, however, the Court signaled its intention to hear the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association case during the October 2019 term. This case, which challenges a New York City ordinance prohibiting people with so-called “premises” license to own a gun in their home from transporting that gun outside of city limits, even to places like a second home or to a gun range. In essence, the Supreme Court is being asked to acknowledge that not only is there an individual right to keep arms, but also to acknowledge that there is an individual right to bear arms. Interestingly, the case is now moot; following the Court’s decision to agree to hear the case, both New York City and New Association, Inc., et al. v. The City of New York and the New York City Police Department-License Division

Embedded in its 2008 Heller decision was a signal from the Supreme Court to policymakers that changes to gun laws need to come via legislative solutions, not judicial ones. The Court clarified that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ The Court ultimately concluded in Heller that “[t]he Constitution [provides] a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” As the Virginia General Assembly’s 2019 abbreviated special session on gun violence indicates, there does not seem to be significant appetite among legislators at least inVirginia—but likely not in toomany other places either—to tackle the thorny issues alluded to by the Court more than a decade ago. And with little in either the legislative history of the Second Amendment or in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to offer a definitive conclusion about what theAmendment means, or what it protects, it is likely that this is an area of the law that will continue to be a challenge for legislators and judges alike. Lauren C. Bell is Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of Political Science at Randolph Macon College. Editor’s Note: Some of the spellings in this piece reflect the original spelling of the words at the time the documents were written. V

Dr. Brenda D. Long Executive Director (540) 760-2504 FAX (540) 961-4392 email brendalong73@gmail.com www.virginiaacte.org

York state changed their firearms laws to allow an individual who is legally permitted to own a gun to transport that gun anywhere that he or she is legally permitted to possess it. Under the Supreme Court’s own rules relating to hearing cases, there is an argument to be made that the Court should now refuse to hear this case, since the parties bringing the case have now achieved the result they were looking for via state and local legislative processes. Indeed, the Court will consider that argument at its October 1, 2019 conference; it may decide to rescind its decision to hear the case then. If it does not do so, the case is scheduled for oral argument on December 2, 2019.

chipdicks @ gentrylocke.com 804.225.5507 gentrylocke.com/chip CHIP DICKS Legislative Counsel

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

6

Editor’s Note: Virginia Capitol Connections reached out to all state legislators inviting comments about gun issues. We thank the legislators who responded and we welcome additional comments in future issues.

A multifaceted strategy is needed By Andrew L. Goddard In the twelve years since the tragic 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, the Virginia General Assembly has steadfastly ignored legislative efforts to prevent gun violence in the Commonwealth. Instead they have systematically weakened or repealed many of the gun laws that were in effect at that time. The results of these actions are clearly demonstrated by data; in 2007 annual firearm related deaths inVirginia were close to 800, but by 2017 that number had risen to over 1,000 – a more than 25% increase.

More gun control will not make us safer– but there are things that will By Philip Van Cleave If gun control reduces crime, Chicago,

Baltimore, andWashington DCwould be the safest places in the U.S. Thomas Jefferson wrote that laws that forbid the carrying of arms “disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” Let’s look at some of the gun control proposals on the table and why they won’t reduce crime: “Red Flag” Laws (also called Extreme Risk Protection Orders) – These laws, on

In 2007, Virginia was no longer one of the leading source states for crime gun origination in the country as a result of the passage of the “One Handgun a Month” law, yet after its repeal, Virginia is once again a leading source state for firearms recovered in other states. We are the leading supplier of crime guns to New York, New Jersey, Maryland, DC and Virginia. Despite the lessons learned from the Virginia Tech tragedy, it is now easier for someone with a history of severe mental illness to have their firearms rights restored, yet not one of the seven firearms related recommendations of the Virginia Tech review panel have been implemented. The scourge of gun violence in the Commonwealth and the Nation is not a single issue, it is the combination of many different types of violence, each with its own characteristics, causes and consequences. As such, no single legislative action can be taken that would reduce all types of gun violence. Instead, a multifaceted strategy is needed which deals with data driven regulations that would specifically target the causes of, and those responsible for, each individual strain of violence. There are, however, some interventions which would reduce several types of gun violence, such as the introduction of “universal background checks” on all gun sales. This would make it much more difficult for individuals, with no legal right to possess guns, to purchase them from unlicensed sellers. Similarly, a Gun Violence Restraining Order, which allows police to temporarily remove firearms from individuals experiencing some form of crisis, would reduce firearm suicides and homicides. Other legislation to restrict assault weapons, to reduce interstate gun trafficking, to enhance safe storage practices, to retighten the qualifications for concealed carry permit applicants and regulations limiting the number of rounds in magazines, etc., would all result in reduced gun deaths in the Commonwealth. None of these measures are “new and untested” ideas, as many states have already adopted such legislation and seen the benefits. For instance, states that have Universal Background Checks have seen significant reductions in gun related homicides, suicides and even accidental shootings. In addition, fewer women were killed in domestic violence related gun attacks and fewer law enforcement officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. The Second Amendment, as redefined by the late Justice Scalia in recent years, recognizes a right to keep and bear firearms for legal purposes. Since all the bills championed by the Governor, both in the 2019 regular session and the later special session, deal specifically with issues of gun violence, thus there is no logical avenue to oppose them on the grounds of Second Amendment protections. It would be ludicrous to think that those who drafted the Bill of Rights would recognize any right for citizens to perform illegal acts, such as gun violence. The only individuals who resort to using the Second See A multifaceted strategy is needed , continued on page 8

their face, are clearly about confiscating guns and not about safety. Without having committed any crime and with no due process, a person who is accused of being an “extreme risk” for violent behavior gets a surprise visit from law enforcement and his firearms are confiscated. (Just such a surprise visit at 5 am got a an accused gun owner in Maryland shot to death by the police back in October.) The “extremely dangerous” person is not arrested or taken to get a mental health evaluation. He doesn’t even have to be home when they come to get his guns. He is free to commit suicide or to commit murder, as he pleases. A person doesn’t need a gun to be able to commit suicide or to kill others, either. Twenty-five percent of suicides are by hanging. In 2016, hands or feet, blunt objects, and knives were used to kill 2,732 people. On top of all that, Red Flag Laws violate many of the protections in the Bill of Rights: you have no due process prior to the confiscation, you are presumed to be dangerous, your property is taken without compensation and the police are not responsible tor loss or damage to your guns, and you don’t get to confront your accuser or even know why your guns are being taken. In Maryland, a large percentage of Red Flag actions result from malicious falsehoods levied by vengeance seekers. Because no actual crime is alleged, the poor are not provided counsel at state expense and must face the court without representation. Even if a person ultimately is found not to be dangerous and their guns returned, he is going to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and their reputation and livelihood could be affected. Universal background checks – according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics only 7 percent of criminals buy a gun through a background check using their real name. The vast majority got their guns from the black market, stole them, were given them by family or friends, or got them through a straw purchase. And most background check denials stem from systemic errors such as confusing people with similar names. Universal Background Checks criminalize private sales of lawfully owned property, increase the cost and complexity of the sale, and can be enforced only if a gun registration scheme is implemented. Limit on magazine capacity – Governor Kaine’s Virginia Tech Review Panel that investigated the 2007 massacre concluded on page 74, “… 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.” There is evidence that higher- capacity magazines are helpful for self-defense, especially when multiple criminals are involved in an attack. Ban of “assault style rifles” – so-called assault rifles are standard semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features. Such rifles are rarely used in crime according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In

See More gun control will not make us safer , continued on page 8

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

7

the U.S. in 2016 there were a total of 374 murders using a rifle, all rifles, and not just an “assault rifle”. That is fewer murders than those caused using hands and feet (656), blunt objects (472), or knives (1,604). For Virginia the numbers were 10 murders with a rifle (all rifles), 30 with hands and feet, and 33 with knives. AR-15 rifles are excellent self-defense firearms. That’s why they are the most common rifles in police inventories. Handgun rationing – both Virginia and South Carolina repealed their one-handgun-a-month law as ineffective. It was. The law did not reduce the number of guns that were illegally sold in other states, but it did complicate the lives of law-abiding gun owners who wanted to purchase multiple handguns in a month Enable local gun control – Virginia used to allow localities to pass their own gun control and the result was chaos. A law-abiding citizen had no way to be sure he wasn’t breaking some arcane ordinance in each locality he passed through as he traveled the state. Even the police often weren’t sure about local gun-control ordinances. In 2004 state preemption was passed and overnight it became easy for citizens to ensure they followed the law, as they only had to learn state gun laws, not a myriad of hard-to-find local gun laws. Now let’s look at some changes to laws that will help save lives: Eliminate public “gun-free zones” – 90 percent of public mass- shootings since 1950 have been in gun-free zones. That makes perfect sense. It is much easier to attack helpless victims than ones who can fight back. Taking away our right to protect ourselves does not make us safer. Disarming someone only emboldens an attacker. Allow state and local government employees who have a concealed handgun permit to carry concealed while at work . Bedford County has such a policy and if Virginia Beach did before the Building No. 2 massacre earlier this year, there’s a good chance the murderer would not have even tried his attack as he would have had no idea who was armed. If he did attack, he most likely would have been stopped before many lives had been taken. Allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry wherever an off-duty police officer can carry. Citizens should have the same right to self-defense everywhere, regardless of occupation. Bottom line: Preserve our freedom. Don’t hinder or obstruct our right to self-defense. Get those needing mental-health treatment the help they need. And keep the truly dangerous people locked up, away from the rest of us, so they can do no harm. Philip Van Cleave is president of Virginia Citizen Defense League. More gun control will not make us safer from page 7

Amendment to oppose measures aimed at reducing gun violence which would not take away the right of a law-abiding person to keep and bear arms, must not understand the true meaning or purpose of the Second Amendment. The recent increase in frequency and severity of mass shootings highlights the fact that assault weapons, fitted with large capacity magazines, are becoming the weapons of choice for gunmen who wish to shoot large numbers of people at one time. Taking into account both the ability to create large numbers of victims and the fact that the increase physical damage that comes from extremely high velocity rounds, assault weapons produce a level of lethality closely akin to that of fully automatic machine guns, which have been heavily regulated since the 1930’s. It is also very difficult to imagine a scenario where a civilian would need the ability to kill or maim so many victims in a few minutes, that fits the definition of a “legal activity”. If the weapons cannot be banned outright, then they should at least be regulated under the National Firearms Act in the same manner as machine guns. The people of Virginia deserve to be given the opportunity to benefit from the same reductions in gun deaths and injuries that other states have experienced after they adopted preventive legislation, all of which have withstood challenges in court and have been found to be Constitutional. Virginia cannot afford another 12-year experiment of doing nothing while the death toll continues to rise. The time has come to realize that “thoughts and prayers” are a natural reaction to the horror of gun violence, but they do nothing to reduce the likelihood of that violence continuing to take a staggering toll of harm in our Commonwealth. Andrew L. Goddard is President of the Richmond Chapter of the Million Mom March against gun violence and Legislative Director A multifaceted strategy is needed from page 7 Virginia Capitol Connections

Download the Virginia Capitol Connections App Today! virginiaredbook.com

of the Virginia Center for Public Safety. His interest in mental health issues, as well as gun safety, came about as a result of his son’s injuries sustained in the Virginia Tech tragedy of 2007.

201 9

V

V

Sunday, 9:30 AM – VPM (Richmond, Charlottesville & Harrisonburg) Sunday, 10 AM – Blue Ridge PBS 15.1 (Roanoke & Lynchburg) Tuesday, 5 PM – WHRO-World (Norfolk) Wednesday, 8:30 PM – Southwest VA PTV 15.2 (Roanoke & Lynchburg)

Thursday, 5:30 PM – WHRO-World (Norfolk) Check the schedules of additional stations: ARC TV (Southwest)

Norfolk’s Network , TV-48 Suffolk Network , TV-190

V I E W I N G S C H E D U L E

Weekly show information is on Facebook— THIS WEEK IN RICHMOND Past shows may be seen on vpm.org/watch/this-week-in-richmond

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

8

One of the most important issues we face today By Richard L. Saslaw Gun violence prevention is one

of the most important issues we as a Commonwealth and a nation face today. Earlier this summer, the same summer in which 12 innocent victims were gunned down in a mass shooting in Virginia Beach, Governor Northam called a special session of the General Assembly and tasked the legislature with thoughtfully exploring and debating commonsense solutions to stem the scourge of gun violence. Republican

majorities in both the House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia instead chose to shirk their duties and put any and all reform on hold by referring the issue for “further study” by the Crime Commission. And this time they did it with a smile and friendly banter, even as hundreds of individuals presented their heart-tugging stories and courageous legislators held out hope things would be different after the facts were presented. It is not unusual to defer action on proposals that come before the Crime Commission. But it is unforgivable these bills did not get a hearing in either chamber in July. And what’s a total insult to the men, women and children we are elected to serve is deferring legislative action until after the elections this November 5. Thoughts and prayers are not saving any lives. It’s not a state secret that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons have only one purpose—kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. It’s not likely that an individual will use a rifle with 50-round “drum” magazine to hunt beer or bear. In order to operate a moving vehicle—whether a car, motorcycle, or a boat—you need a license. It’s therefore puzzling to me why there is such ardent opposition to universal background checks. Not a license, just a simple check to ensure that a person is capable of responsibly owning a firearm. Annually, more than 1,000 Virginians lose their lives to gun violence. More than half are due to suicide. In cases of domestic abuse, women are most likely to be the victims of gun violence. Isn’t it time to try to save lives rather than stack up the death toll? Universal background checks, forbidding the sale of military- style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines, and keeping weapons out of the wrong hands are not new or novel ideas. They are ideas that have been discussed and vetted ad nauseam over the past decade as the mounting body count continues to stun this nation. When we are in charge, I can assure you Senate and House Democrats will get commonsense legislation to the Governor’s desk. Senator Richard L. Saslaw is a democrat who represents the 35th District: Falls Church, part of Alexandria, and Fairfax County. The Good News? By Paul Krizek The good news is that there has been an overall decrease in violent crime over the last ten years in the Commonwealth, however the use of firearms in violent crimes has risen 31% for murder and non-negligent manslaughter and 54% for aggravated assault. Specifically, in 2018, there were 3,108 aggravated assault incidents with a firearm, up from just 2,069 in 2009. (From the Virginia State Police Criminal Justice Information Services Division, August 30, 2019) Delegate Paul Krizek is a democrat representing the 44th District, which covers part of Fairfax. V

V IRGINIA D EPARTMENT OF S MALL B USINESS AND

S UPPLIER D IVERSITY

M ore than 97% of Virginia’s businesses are small . We are your economic development agency , helping you grow and prosper through increased

What we offer… • Virginia Small Business Financing Authority providing access to capital; • Business Development and Outreach providing education and outreach to assist small businesses with strategic growth and development; • Certifications to enhance procurement opportunities

revenue and job creation .

for SWaM and DBE qualified businesses.

For further information about services offered, please visit us at www.sbsd.virginia.gov or call (804) 786-6585

V

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

9

Through the Voters’ Eyes: Gun Control in the Commonwealth

By Rachel Bitecofer

On behalf of Virginia voters, the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University submits this analysis about the issue of gun control in the Commonwealth. The analysis presents recent views of Virginians on gun control issues using the Wason Center’s data base of public opinion research on this topic. While Virginians are more closely divided on question of “principles” regarding the gun debate, there is broad consensus that transcends the normal bounds of partisanship

Republicans. On background checks, 76% of Republicans supported this reform in our 2018 survey. And although still a minority within their party, 45% of Republicans supported the assault weapons ban, which was also supported by 66% of Independents. So, with robust public support at this level, even support among Republican voters, and two amiable Democratic Administrations supportive of these reforms, why has there been no action on these issues in the Virginia General Assembly? The answer to that is complicated and it highlights a problem Republican elected official are facing across the country: how do they reconcile strident positions supported by the Republican base, and perhaps more importantly, powerful interest groups like the NRA, with the political realities they face in swing districts where voters want action? With control of both chambers of theVirginia Assembly on the line, including the Speaker’s own seat, Republican leader Kirk Cox’s answer to this paradox over the summer was to avoid the debate. Faced with several bad options the Speaker chose to end the Governor’s special session on guns before it really began; a move that will no doubt highlight the fact that movement in this policy area hangs on the balance of partisan control of the state’s General Assembly, with voters rendering a verdict on the question this November. Faced with pressure from their own base, and constraints from party members serving in safe Republican districts, Republicans are counting on another long-standing electoral reality ofAmerican politics to hold onto their majorities. The anti-gun control side might be small in number, but up to now, have been mighty in turnout. In an election where just 30% of registered voters are expected to show up, having public opinion on your side is not enough, especially if Democrats fail to leverage their advantage on this issue. Supporting Virginia hospitals and health systems to help enhance clinical, financial, and operational performance by delivering an array of products, Continued on next page

in the electorate when it comes to specific gun control proposals that have been discussed in the Commonwealth since the state’s first mass shooting atVirginia Tech University in 2007, which left 32 people dead. The principle statement, “Is it more important to protect gun rights or control gun ownership” produces a modest advantage on the side of gun control, 54% to 41% in our 2018 iteration of the question. But on specific reforms such as expanded background checks to close the private sale, or so-called “gun show” loophole, support is overwhelming: 84% in support to just 15% opposed. Even the more controversial reform proposal, the assault weapons ban, polls decidedly in favor of the ban: 65% in support, 34% opposed. It’s a key to illustrate the point that you don’t get much above 50% in anything in American politics in the polarized era where voters assess everything from the state of the economy to the performance of a president via their partisanship. So, its important to dig into these numbers and appreciate the level of support these two reforms earn, not only from Independents, but more importantly, from self-described

resources, and services from endorsed, vetted partners who deliver the results needed in today’s dynamic health care environment. http://vhhaservices.com David Jenkins, (804) 965Ǧ1350, djenkins@vhha.com

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

10

Campaign Finance: A Leading Political Indicator By Stephen J. Farnsworth With the Republican Party’s narrow

control of both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly at risk in November, and with little polling regarding individual legislative contests, campaign contribution totals offer key evidence regarding candidates’ prospects. While they lack the rigor of a professionally conducted survey, the health of a campaign’s fundraising demonstrates that donors with money to spend view the candidate as a good investment. Spending

hen it comes to events no one throws a party like David Napier.

After Ralph Northam successfully made gun control a central focus of his messaging strategy in his 2017 gubernatorial bid, Virginia Democrats learned that the politics of guns in the Commonwealth have changed over the past decade. Indeed, for the first time ever, exit polling in Virginia revealed the same percent of Virginia voters motivated to the polls to advance gun control as to prevent it. And with many of the competitive Senate and House of Delegate districts overlapping the Virginia Beach area, the scene of the state’s latest mass shooting, guns are sure to be a major issue in the 2019 cycle. May the most passionate voters win. Rachel Bitecofer is Assistant Director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University. In her position with the Wason Center she conducts survey research on public policy issues and election campaigns. She has been featured in many media outlets including national outlets such as the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and NPR and she is a regular contributor on CBC Radio. money on someone likely to lose by a substantial amount is a waste of resources. This is particularly true when partisan control of the legislature is uncertain, as is it this year. The huge fundraising hauls by many candidates so far this year suggest that donors are going all-in in both the most competitive districts as well as some of those drawn to give one party or the other a notable advantage. Money for these races has come from Virginia, and from around the country, as both parties hope to brag about successes in Virginia in November 2019 during the 2020 presidential campaign next year. Donors have contributed more than $30 million to the 40 Senate seats before the voters this year, with the Democrats enjoying a $1 million fundraising advantage. The Democrats have a roughly $2 million advantage in fundraising for the 100 House seats, where a total of more than $33 million has been collected. With Republicans dominating the rural districts and Democrats dominating the inner cities and nearby suburbs, control of the legislature may depend on districts that have voters in outer-ring suburban communities, or communities that are a mix of suburban and more rural precincts. The GOP’s narrow majority in the Senate of Virginia may turn on two open-seat contests, the 7th District (parts of Virginia Beach and Norfolk) and the 13th District (parts of Loudoun and Fairfax), seats held during the past session by Republicans. The two candidates in the 13th District raised more than $1 million in total as of August 31, while the two candidates in the 7th District have raised more than $800,000 in total. But things are not quiet elsewhere. Strong fundraising has also taken place in a number of districts where Republican incumbent senators are facing aggressive Democratic challengers. More than a million dollars has been raised so far, for example, to wage the Continued from previous page See Campaign Finance , continued on page 15

Known throughout Central Virginia for his wonderful food and hospitality, David is delighted to have opened his catering facility in the heart of Shockoe Bottom. No event is too small or large. Delicious Box Lunches delivered. O ne of Richmond’s most elegant dining rooms is now exclusively available for your private parties and special events. Our award winning chefs produce an array of dishes from steaks and seafood to vegetarian and international masterpieces that will satisfy the most discriminating palate. The Old City Bar is the perfect place to celebrate.

Parking available adjacent to building Phone 804-644-1702 FAX: 804-644-1703 E-Mail: catering@whitehousecateringva.com Web Site: www.whitehousecateringva.com

V

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

11

Voter Registration Is Up More in Democratic Strongholds By Kelly Booth

Over the past four years, voter registration has grown faster in Virginia localities that tend to vote Democratic than in localities that usually go Republican. That could spell trouble for the GOP heading into November’s elections. Between August 2015 and August 2019, voter registration increased 9% in the state’s Democratic strongholds but only 6% in Republican strongholds, according to an analysis of data from theVirginia Department of Elections.

In contrast, voter registration declined slightly in most of the localities that cast at least three-fourths of their votes for Trump. For instance, the number of registered voters was down 5% in Buchanan County and 7% in Dickenson County. Not every locality reflected the trend. Voter registration increased 15% or more in the Republican strongholds of New Kent, Louisa and Goochland counties, and it dropped in Greensville County and the cities ofWilliamsburg and Franklin, which tend to vote for Democrats. But overall, the number of registered voters went up more in Democratic localities than Republican ones. Will redrawn districts help Democrats? Stephen Farnsworth, director of the Center for Leadership and Media Studies at the University of MaryWashington, noted that voter registration increased after 11 Virginia House districts were redrawn this year. That happened after the courts found that the districts had been racially gerrymandered. The redrawn districts generally are more favorable to Democrats. “When lines are drawn more favorably for one party or the other, that increases the quality of the candidates who are willing to run, increases the amount of money that donors are willing to spend, and those two things can increase voter interest,” said Farnsworth, a professor of political science and international affairs. “Expect higher turnout in some of those newly drawn districts because they’re more competitive than they used to be.” All seats in the General Assembly are up for election on Nov. 5. Currently, Republicans hold a 21-19 majority in the Virginia Senate and a 51-49 edge in the House of Delegates. Ryer noted that the Senate has had the same districts drawn by the Democrats since 2011. “The Senate is operating under a Democratic gerrymander,” Ryer said. “Yet, despite the fact that the Democrats drew the lines, Republicans have been in the majority since those lines went into effect.” Democrats are hoping to flip both chambers so that they control not only state government’s executive branch, with Ralph Northam’s election as governor in 2017, but also the legislative branch. “If Democrats can pick up a few seats in either chamber, the legislature will shift. And if they pick up a couple of seats in both chambers, then Democrats will control the governor’s office as well as both chambers of the legislature—and we haven’t seen that in Virginia in 20 years,” Farnsworth said. With control of the General Assembly at stake, Virginia’s legislative elections have attracted national attention. “People really look to Virginia as an indicator for how the rest of the nation will vote, especially since we have become a purple (state) trending blue,” Gilley said. “A lot of campaign operations and different groups almost use Virginia as like a test area for different tactics and strategies … National groups look at Virginia because we’ve got off-year elections, so they’ll implement strategies here to see if they want to use them in the regular-year election.” Gilley said voters also were motivated by how close some elections have been in Virginia. In 2017, the race between Republican incumbent David Yancey and Democratic challenger Shelly Simonds in the 94th House District in Newport News ended in a tie. The election was decided by a lottery: Yancey’s name was pulled from a bowl, allowing Republicans to maintain control of the House. Gilley said that election “really highlighted how important every single vote is.” Kelly Booth is a junior at Virginia Commonwealth University. She is pursuing an undergraduate degree in Mass Communications, Bachelor of Science (B.S.) with a concentration in journalism print/ online.

Democratic Party officials say they are pleased about the trend in a year when Virginians are electing state legislators but not a governor or U.S. senator. “We always say slower turnout withVirginia’s off-year election and fully recognize that this is an off-off year election with no statewide race,” said Kathryn Gilley, communications director for the House Democratic Caucus. “That being said, the fact that there is so much new voter registration ... Virginians are really aware of the importance of this year.” But Jeff Ryer, press secretary for the Virginia Senate Republican Caucus, said an increase in registered voters in Democratic areas doesn’t necessarily mean Democrats will win at the polls. He said something similar happened in Florida in 2016 and 2018, with news stories and opinion surveys predicting victories for Democrats. “Not only did they (Democrats) not prevail, but they lost both,” Ryer said. “One of the things I really like to point out to people is Republicans do much better at the polls than in the polls.” Gilley said Democrats are still energized from the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton carried Virginia but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump. “Trump’s election has really highlighted the importance of state legislatures,” Gilley said. Pro-Trump vs. Pro-Clinton localities Statewide in 2016, 50% of Virginia voters cast their ballots for Clinton and 44% for Trump. (The remaining votes went to the Libertarian and other minor-party candidates.) Trump carried 93 cities and counties in Virginia, mostly in the less populated southern and western parts of the state where population has been flat or declining. Clinton carried 40 localities, largely in Northern Virginia, the Richmond area and Hampton Roads—areas that are more densely populated and generally are growing in population. The Virginia Department of Elections recently posted data on how many people were registered to vote in each locality as of August. As a reporter interested in political trends, I compared those numbers with the corresponding data for August 2015, when Virginia was preparing for a similar election in which only legislative and local offices were up for grabs. During the four-year period, voter registration increased 6.4%, to 2.68 million, in the 93 localities that voted for Trump. But the number of voters jumped 8.6%, to 2.91 million, in the 40 localities that backed Clinton. The difference was even bigger in the communities that went heavily for one candidate or another: • Seventy-six localities cast at least 55% of their votes for Trump. In those cities and counties combined, voter registration went up 5.8% over the past four years. • Thirty localities cast at least 55% of their votes for Clinton. Taken as a whole, those areas have seen an 8.7% jump in registered voters since 2015. For example, voter registration was up 16% in Richmond and 11% in Alexandria—cities that cast at least three-fourths of their votes for Clinton.

V

V irginia C apitol C onnections , F all 2019

12