Wonderful! SSN#s are trouble, everybody knows that. There's just no need for the state to be collecting the number for these sorts of things. Plus, this is easier on the state -- a security breach that results in SSN#s being leaked is way more serious than a bunch of driver's license numbers.

This is wonderful...but do we need a law for this? I thought all consumer credit agencies already offered this. Aren't they even compelled to do so under federal law?

I don't know what to make of laws banning talking on mobile phones while driving, but this prohibition makes sense to me. That said, I think it's a little weirdly specific. Why "text" on a "wireless telecommunications device"? If it's bad to read text on a mobile phone, isn't it bad to read it on anything while driving? And why just text on phones? What about sending and receiving photographs? Video teleconferencing?

Rather than updating this law every couple of years to keep up with new technologies, can't we come up with something a bit broader?

Excellent idea. I don't know why we have this magic number of $100. The deal with Virginia's crazy campaign finance laws is that any individual or business can donate an unlimited amount of money to an unlimited number of campaigns, but everything must be reported. Except, of course, not everything -- only contributions of $100.01 or more. I don't see any compelling reason why we should have a floor on that. Let's take it to any level of contribution and get some true transparency here.

Can we also print up the penalties for officials who refuse to let qualified individuals cast their ballot, or for people who engage in voter intimidation?

It's even pointed out in the bill summary that this is being challenged in the Supreme Court. These sorts of laws have a far greater impact on poor and minority voters than wealthy, white voters. That's not even in dispute. The question -- the one facing the SCOTUS -- is whether that effect rises to the level of being unconstitutionally discriminatory. Can't we have a higher bar than what is or is not unconstitutional, and agree that we want lots of people voting. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the State Board of Elections didn't even request this legislation -- that it's fixing an nonexistent problem.

I'd like somebody to explain this. I worry that it's an undue first amendment restriction, but I get the sense that I'm not understanding it entirely.

I can't see any way that this would be fair. I live in a county that would probably do pretty well under this, but there are lots of really massive counties with low populations (Buckingham comes to mind) who need to maintain pretty sizable road networks. Surely there's a funding algorithm that can be arrived at using hard data on roads and populations per county. This sort of throwing-darts approach is no good.

This is a really bad idea. I can't understand why we'd want to take away a parent's license for the crime of giving their adult child a glass of wine with Thanksgiving dinner.

This is a great example of a bill that makes absolutely no sense when divorced from its context. That's being charitable -- I have no idea of what the context is in which this bill is logical. I can only hope that Del. Cosgrove has a compelling tale to tell about why this is necessary, because I can't envision those circumstances.

You know those "We Buy Houses" signs you see stapled 20' up telephone poles? That's what this is to stop. Those things are all scams, created to prey on people when they're about to lose their homes and are at their most vulnerable. This is an important bill, and I'm really pleased to see Del. Oder introduce it.

Wonderful. I've spent years researching how I can buy clean power, but I only recently discovered that I can get clean power through Dominion. They never once volunteered that information. There's no information on their website or the state's website. It's really asking very little for them to provide a sentence or two on the bills description clean power options.

This is long overdue.

It's not the nonpartisan redistricting that I want, but this would certainly be a big step forward.