www.roanoke.com

In this week’s Point/Counterpoint, two local lawmakers weigh in on this question:

 With the Virginia Senate split 20-20, which party should lead the chamber?

Sen. John Edwards, a Roanoke Democrat, argues that senators should follow a precedent set in 1996 and establish a power sharing arrangement.

Sen. Ralph Smith, a Roanoke County Republican, contends that the state constitution gives Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling a vote on procedural issues, and thus the GOP has a working majority.

Their columns and responses to each other’s views are below. You can join in the discussion by posting your comments.

 Precedence requires power sharing

By John S. Edwards

 Edwards of Roanoke is a Democrat and represents the 21st District in the Virginia Senate.

Given the recent elections resulting in a 20-20 split between the parties in the Senate of Virginia, some Republicans have suggested that they have the upper hand in drawing the rules, assigning chairmanships and controlling committees because the lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate and breaks tie votes on legislation, is a Republican. However, this is not so.

The last time the Senate was split 20-20 in 1996, the precedent was established to share power between the parties. This was successfully and amicably done when the lieutenant governor was a Democrat. Power was shared; committees and committee chairs were divided to accommodate in a reasonable way each party regardless who might be the lieutenant governor.

 Read more.

Constitution tips balance to the GOP

By Ralph Smith

Smith of Roanoke County is a Republican and represents the 19th District in the Virginia Senate.

Elections have consequences. In 2009, Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling won re-election with 57percent of the vote. This year, Republican state Senate nominees received 57percent of the vote (enough for 23 seats if they were awarded proportionately). Though the Democrats’ hyperpartisan gerrymander blunted the intensity of the GOP victory, it still produced a 20-20 Senate in which Bolling holds the tie-breaking vote.

Having lost their majority and the accompanying committee chairmanships at the ballot box, Democrats are now suing. Democrats are asserting that the lieutenant governor does not get to vote on the organization of the Senate, and this is why the Democrats adopted a power sharing agreement with Republicans in 1996 (the only other time the Senate was 20-20).

 Read more.

Edwards’ rebuttal:

Senator Smith ignores the plain language of the Virginia Constitution that “[e]ach house” shall select its officers and settle its “rules of procedure” in suggesting the Lieutenant Governor can break a tie in this quadrennial process. Clearly, the Lieutenant Governor — unlike the Speaker of the House of Delegates — is not a member of the body charged with making its rules of procedure. He is in fact an executive official elected at the same time as the Governor and the Attorney General, which is in a different year than the year in which Senators are elected. This alone suggests that it is illogical for him to participate in making rules of a newly elected Senate which is done by newly elected Senators every four years.

The provision giving him the right to vote “in case of an equal division” only applies to certain — but not all — legislative business on the floor after procedures are settled because of the plain language that only elected members of the body “shall select its officers and settle its rules of procedure.”

In 1996 Democratic Senator Virgil Goode was not the only senator to urge power sharing. Republican Senator Bo Trumbo also insisted on a sharing arrangement; thus, both sides agreed to an equitable arrangement. Sen. Goode could have been the 21st vote for Republican written rules then if he and all 20 Republicans had agreed to do so. This did not occur. Both sides agreed to a power sharing precedent when the Senate was 20-20. The irony is the present Lieutenant Governor — a Republican Senator in 1996 — has reversed his position, namely, that the Lieutenant Governor cannot vote on reorganizational issues.

The fact remains that the citizens voted for an equally divided Senate this year. Elections do have consequences; the will of constituents should be adhered to and not ignored in a power grab as suggested by my Republican colleague. Thus, adherence to the voice of the voters as well as equity, logic, established precedent — and a plain reading of the constitution — requires power sharing procedures be established in the same manner as occurred in 1996.

Smith’s rebuttal:

Since submitting my op/ed earlier this week, Richmond Circuit Court Judge Beverly W. Snukals agreed with my argument and denied the Democrats’ Motion for Temporary Injunction. The Democrats have hinted that they might pursue more law suits, but Republicans are moving forward to organize the Senate in the best interest of Virginia and consistent with November’s election in which Republicans received 57% of the vote. The chief legal architect of the Constitution and leaders in both parties agreed in 1995 that the Lt. Governor has the authority to break ties on organization. The Democrats refusal to accept these legal realities now is a cynical attempt to cling to power after being rejected by 57% of the voters. I hope the Democrats will give up their attempt to overturn the will of the voters and look for ways work with the new Republican majority for the benefit of Virginia.