|
|
|
What
follows is partly confession and partly a proof, at
least to any open-minded reader, that allowing
governors to run for two consecutive elections will
erode what little real political competition
still exists in Virginia politics. Admittedly, the
confession makes a more interesting
"read," as they say in journalism, for it
touches on the hidden reasons why so many of
Virginia's business, political and editorial elite
suddenly display an urgent desire to change the
state Constitution.
But as I tell my seven-year old, he doesn't live at
South Court Inn, in Luray, where they let you eat
your dessert before dinner. So, not wanting to ruin
anyone's appetite for the main course, let me start
with the mundane task of marshaling the evidence to
prove that the two-term idea is wrong for Virginia
at this point in time.
The level of political competition in Virginia today
would concern even renowned political scientist V.O. Key
who in 1949 called Byrd machine-dominated Virginia a
"museum piece." In the
recently completed November 2002 elections, neither
Republican Senator John Warner nor any of the
state's eleven members of Congress - eight
Republicans and three Democrats - faced a serious
threat of being denied reelection. Sen. Warner got
82 percent of the vote. No challenger to an
incumbent member of Congress won as much as 38
percent of the vote. In sum, there was not a single
competitive race in the elections that are intended
to give average Virginians a voice in the Congress
of the United States. Not a one.
In 2001, all knowledgeable commentators on Virginia
politics lamented what they called a significant
reduction in competition for the 100 House of
Delegate seats up for election that year. This
situation resulted from the very partisan
redistricting by the GOP majority after the 2000
census. Indeed, Governor Warner and the Virginia
Democratic Party spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars suing the Republicans, claiming among other
things that GOP redistricting had unfairly reduced
political competition for the positions of state
senator and state delegate.
They were right: the GOP had purposely curtailed
competition in order to gain more General Assembly
seats. Back in the 1960s, the one-person, one-vote
cases of the Warren Court had declared that such
super-political gerrymandering was likely
unconstitutional. But last year, following the new
posture of the Rehnquist Court, the Virginia Supreme
Court said the state constitution gave the
Republicans the right to use new computer technology
to make the redistricting process as partisan-and
anti-competitive -- as they wanted.
Most observers expect the trend to less competition
to manifest itself again in the 2003 for the House
and state Senate.
All in all, Virginians elect 153 federal and state
legislators to do the people's business in
Washington and Richmond. Yet the evidence is
irrefutable: The level of real political
competition, and thus the practical utility of the
people's vote, has been diminishing in our
Commonwealth.
The practical, democratic ideal underlying our
governmental system -- that the people govern
through the use of the voting franchise – is fast
becoming a theoretical proposition. We need a
marketplace of ideas not only in the private sector,
but likewise in the public sector, especially the
electoral system. Given the current reality in
Virginia, I do not believe the situation will be
easily resolved. But at the very least, surely we
should take care not to do anything that further
reduces the precious little political competition
still remaining in the Commonwealth.
Accordingly,
I must confess -- no, this isn't the real confession
just yet -- surprise that the newly formed Virginia
Coalition for a Two-Term Governor not only shows no
concern for this reality, but appears to have
persuaded Gov. Mark R. Warner and Lt. Gov. Kaine to
support their efforts.
Why am I surprised? Because both men, and indeed I
believe many in the Two-Term Coalition, are also
supporting the creation of a Virginia Redistricting
Commission aimed at removing the legislative
redistricting process from the Republican-controlled
General Assembly. They claim, as do their business
and editorial allies, that such an unprecedented
Virginia governmental entity, with a membership
aimed at giving each party an equal voice, is needed
due to the lack of real competition in our state
and federal legislative elections!
Thus, they concede my factual premise regarding the
growing lack of competition in Virginia politics.
Logic impels me to ask: How, then, is it consistent
for all these sensible political, business and
editorial movers and shakers to back the two-term
amendment if such an amendment would significantly
reduce the level of political competition which, by
their own admission, is already unacceptable?
An honest observer can give only one answer: Their
positions are not consistent. So let me demonstrate
why the two-term law would do precisely what they
claim in a different context that they don't want!
We
all know that the powers of incumbency are
formidable. If the state
constitution were changed to allow a sitting chief
executive to run for a second elected term, instead
of enjoying a competitive contest every four years,
Virginians often would be treated to 2002-style
elections
in which the incumbent governor faced no serious, adequately
funded opponent.
Competition for the posts of lieutenant governor and
attorney general would suffer, too. In the past five
gubernatorial contests, not only were the general
elections competitive, but in one party or the
other, there has generally been a tough intraparty
battle for the nomination, sometimes between the
sitting lieutenant governor and the attorney
general.
Why? The lack of an incumbent in the top spot
encouraged the two other state officeholders to
yield their offices in hopes of winning the big
prize in Virginia politics. In the same five-cycle
period cited above, only two incumbent statewide
officeholders -- Attorney General Mary Sue Terry in
1989 and Lt. Governor Donald S. Beyer in 1993 -- ran
for reelection. And each of them did so to avoid a
nasty intraparty gubernatorial nomination fight with
another statewide officeholder.
But let's assume the state constitution is changed
to allow a sitting governor to run for a second
elected term. The sitting lieutenant governor and
attorney general are almost surely going to seek
reelection. Challenging the sitting governor of
one’s own party is a suicidal proposition.
Challenging the governor from another party is very
risky, especially given the incumbent governor's
ability to raise campaign cash. The sensible
political play for the lieutenant governor or
attorney general would be to run for a second term
and seek the top spot next time, when the incumbent
governor is barred from running for another term.
In the modern history of Virginia politics, three
sitting statewide officeholders -- Terry, Beyer and
Democratic Attorney General Andrew Miller in 1973 --
sought reelection. None faced opposition for
renomination. In the general election, Democrats
Beyer and Miller both won second terms, even though
the Republican gubernatorial candidate was elected.
Terry and Miller faced only token opposition; Beyer
faced tough competition, but his incumbency allowed
him to win a close election even during a Republican
gubernatorial landslide victory.
Accordingly, political history, both nationally and
in Virginia, strongly supports the proposition that
incumbent officeholders in down-ballot statewide
elections are difficult to defeat. They would be
unlikely to forego such favorable reelection odds to
challenge a sitting governor, unless the incumbent
appeared easy to beat.
Therefore, the facts overwhelmingly support this
electoral axiom: If the two-term Governorship
becomes law, Virginians can expect a sharp reduction
in the intraparty competition for the offices of
lieutenant governor and attorney general, and
greatly reduced general election competition as
well. Incumbents, armed with big bankrolls and high
name recognition, are unlikely to face serious
challenges.
So I ask again: How can those who say we need a
Redistricting Commission to spur competition for
General Assembly seats turn around and support a
two-term gubernatorial law that would impair
competition for statewide office? They can't argue
both positions and remain consistent in terms of
principle.
That
leads me to my confession. About this time last
year, I had occasion to give Gov. Warner advice on
another idea being pushed by many of the same
business leaders, political powers, and editorial
writers now backing the two-term gubernatorial
amendment. Back then, they were pushing for a
Transportation Tax Referendum in Tidewater. During
the gubernatorial campaign of 2001, one of the big
issues was a Transportation Tax Referendum in
Northern Virginia. Gov. Warner campaigned on a
promise to put such a referendum on the 2002
election ballot. But he avoided any pledge to sign a
law putting a similar tax measure on the Tidewater
election ballot.
As I have written
before, the business leaders and editorialists
in Tidewater used a "cooked" poll to claim
the people of their area overwhelmingly supported
such a tax when they had reason to suspect, if not
know, the results of this public opinion survey had
been purposely skewed. I don't question the
sincerity of their convictions on the transportation
issue. But they did manipulate the system, through
their access to power, in order to force the hand of
the Governor.
I was sure at the time -- and said so -- that the
poll results were "cooked" and manipulated
for political purposes. In retrospect, I blame
myself for not having been more assertive in making
my feelings known and fighting more strongly to
avoid an unnecessary embarrassment for the governor.
The governor was set up, put in a no-win political
position on the Tidewater Tax Referendum. Old news,
yes. But confessions, by definition, concern old
news one doesn't want to see repeated.
In hindsight, I should have stuck to my guns and
made a stronger case to endorse the Northern
Virginia referendum only. Admittedly, that one also
lost. But people in Northern Virginia had fought for
13 years to get a referendum and candidate Warner
had made a campaign promise to help them. It was a
matter of honor for a freshman governor to keep the
promise.
So, the issue here is not about winning or losing,
as no one who fights for his or her principles is
successful all the time. In the end, the people
decide. But it serves no useful purpose to go down a
blind alley -- as with the Tidewater Tax referendum
-- for the wrong reasons.
I see the same trouble building on the two-term
Governorship and, therefore, feel duty bound to make
my feelings clearly known.
On the issue of the two-term gubernatorial
amendment, Gov. Warner needs to rethink the growing
pressure from so many of the same business leaders,
politicians and editorialists who got him in hot
water for the Tidewater referendum. They have, in my
judgment, a hidden agenda.
It is not merely a case of their failure to
appreciate the impact of the two-term governor on
political competition in the state. It is not even a
case of their messing in an area beyond their proven
zone of competence. Rather, I believe they are
masking their real motivation.
The
two-term advocates assert that a
governor serving two consecutive terms could do a
better job of managing the state’s financial and
governmental affairs. Let me be blunt: There is
absolutely no evidence that Virginia has suffered
from the governor’s one-term limit in any regard.
Just recently, Gov. Warner pointed out how Virginia
had the highest bond rating of any state and how it
was able to balance its budget without some of the
drastic cuts being made in many other states.
I suppose a cynic would say that he was praising
himself, so his remarks should be taken with a grain
of salt. But the fact is, he was telling the truth.
Accordingly, I ask: If we are doing better at
managing our affairs than all these other states with
two-term governorships, then what are all these
advocates really talking about?
Let me cut through their rhetoric. I believe they
seized on the two-term Governorship idea after their
push for higher taxes was defeated this past
November and, as they expect, will be defeated again
in the current session of the General Assembly. In
my view, they have become convinced that a two-term
governorship is the only way to strengthen the
governor's hand sufficiently to allow him, or her,
to push a tax increase through the General Assembly.
That's right: The hidden agenda is more about taxes,
not about some imagined "handicap" of a
one-term governor that makes it impossible for him
or her
to provide the necessary financial management or
governmental planning. As indicated above, the
evidence from other states decisively undercuts the
claim made on behalf of the two-term law in that
regard.
Let me ask you: Do these business and other leaders
believe "Deficit Jim" Gilmore would have
been any less fiscally recklessness if he had been
allowed to seek reelection? Of course not.
Moreover, the two-term advocates see politics
through the prism of political access, not through
the viewpoint of the average citizen who only has
his or her vote to make their wishes known. Powerful
business leaders, politicians, and editorial writers
will always have unfettered access to whomever is
governor -- regardless of party -- as long as they
have enough money, votes and printers ink. Thus, the
lack of competition is not a great concern to them.
So, there it is: my confession. They say
confession is good for the soul. Here is hoping it
also will be good for our Commonwealth, too, by
opening up some eyes as to what is really behind
this sudden private sector initiative for a
seemingly benign proposal.
-- January 20, 2002
(c) Copyright. All rights reserved. Paul Goldman.
2003.
|
