Form of ballot; party identification of candidates. (SB767)

Introduced By

Sen. David Suetterlein (R-Salem)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Form of ballot; party identification of candidates. Provides that any candidate nominated by a political party or at a primary election shall be identified on the ballot by the name of his political party. Currently, only candidates for federal, statewide, and General Assembly offices are so identified. Amends § 24.2-613, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Status

03/11/2016: Passed the General Assembly

History

DateAction
01/22/2016Presented and ordered printed 16103756D
01/22/2016Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/26/2016Impact statement from DPB (SB767)
02/02/2016Reported from Privileges and Elections (7-Y 6-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2016Read second time and engrossed
02/08/2016Passed by temporarily
02/08/2016Read third time and passed Senate (22-Y 18-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2016Reconsideration of passage agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2016Passed Senate (24-Y 16-N) (see vote tally)
02/11/2016Placed on Calendar
02/11/2016Read first time
02/11/2016Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
02/11/2016Assigned P & E sub: Campaigns
02/18/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting (4-Y 3-N)
03/04/2016Reported from Privileges and Elections (13-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
03/07/2016Read second time
03/08/2016Passed by for the day
03/09/2016Read third time
03/09/2016Pending question ordered
03/09/2016Defeated by House (46-Y 52-N)
03/09/2016VOTE: DEFEATED (46-Y 52-N) (see vote tally)
03/09/2016Reconsideration of defeated action agreed to by House
03/09/2016Passed by for the day
03/10/2016Read third time
03/10/2016Amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G. rejected
03/10/2016Amendment by Delegate Minchew agreed to
03/10/2016Engrossed by House as amended
03/10/2016Passed House with amendment (50-Y 45-N)
03/10/2016VOTE: PASSAGE (50-Y 45-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2016House amendment agreed to by Senate (22-Y 17-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2016Enrolled
03/11/2016Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB767ER)
03/11/2016Impact statement from DPB (SB767ER)
03/11/2016Signed by President
03/11/2016Signed by Speaker
03/16/2016Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on 3/16/16
03/16/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, April 10, 2016

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 7 clips in all, totaling 31 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THE BILL PASSES. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RETURN TO 767? YES, MR. PRESIDENT. SENATE BILL 767 BEFORE THE BODY IS PREMISED ON THE IDEA IF YOU ARE NOMINATED BY A POLITICAL PARTY RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMONWEALTH IT OUGHT TO BE APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AS SUCH. AND I MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL -- THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSON. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROANOKE COUNTY YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: YES, SIR. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS OF GETTING ON THE BALLOT. WE HAVE ENDORSEMENT FOR PARTIES BY SCHOOL BOARD. WOULD THAT BE REQUIRED BY THIS THIS BILL ENVISIONS NOMINATIONS NOT ENDORSEMENTS SO SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES IN FAIRFAX COUNTY,


Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg): CONVENTION. IF THEY WERE NOMINATED BY A POLITICAL PARTY, IT WOULD -- REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, IT WOULD SHOW AN R OR A D BY THEIR. IF THEY FILED AS AN INDEPENDENT, IT WOULD JUST INDICATE THAT. IT ONLY APPLIES TO ELECTIONS THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE NOMINATED BY A POLITICAL PARTY. SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS, IT DOES NOT AFFECT CITIES AND TOWNS AT HAVING THEIR CHARTER THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE NONPARTISAN. ALL THOSE CANDIDATES MUST FILE AS INDEPENDENTS. SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE PASS THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MS. BOYCECO.

[Unknown]: -- BOYCECO. THANK YOU -- MS. BOYCECO -- BOYSKO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEWOMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: I VOTED FOR THIS BILL IN COMMITTEE AFTER WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION, BELIEVING EXACTLY WHAT THE GENTLEMAN DISCUSSED A MOMENT AGO. HOWEVER, FOLLOWING THAT, I WAS CONTACTED NOT ONLY BY MY OWN TOWN, BUT BY THE VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, WHO HAD SIGNIFICANT HEARTBURN OVER THIS. THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT SB767, SAYING THAT THE LOCALITY'S ABILITY TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES IS IN JEOPARDY WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTISAN ELECTIONS. THEY BELIEVE AND OTHER LAWYERS HAVE TALKED TO ME SAYING THAT THE LAST BILL THAT PASSES IS THE ONE THAT HAS PRECEDENCE, SO THIS COULD ACTUALLY PRECLUDE A TOWN OR CITY FROM HAVING A NONPARTISAN ELECTION UNLESS IT WERE IN THEIR CHARTER. THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT ONLY FIVE TOWNS IN VIRGINIA WHO HAVE POPULATIONS OF 1000 PEOPLE OR MORE, BLACKSBERG, DUMB FREE, VIENNA, HAVE PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. THE OTHER 95 TOWNS DO NOT HAVE IN THIS. AND AS WE KNOW, I'M A MEMBER OF THE COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS, WE DON'T ALWAYS APPROVE CHARTERS AUTOMATICALLY. IT CAUSES SOME HEARTBURN FOR THEM. MY LOCALITY IS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, WHERE THERE ARE A GREAT NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WORKING, AND THEY ARE COVERED UNDER THE HATCH ACT, SPECIFICALLY PRESENTING -- PREVENTING THEM FROM GETTING INVOLVED IN A POLITICAL OFFICE, AND THAT WILL, AS MY TOWN BELIEVES AND THE VML BELIEVES, COULD PUT THEM IN HARM OF NOT BEING ABLE TO SERVE IN PUBLIC OFFICE. I BELIEVE IN THIS BODY WE ALL AGREE THAT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT POTHOLES AND LAND USE, POLITICS DOESN'T REALLY BELONG THERE. THE VML HAS VERY STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE TOWNS AND THE CITIES ARE BEING PROTECTED ADEQUATELY, AND THEREFORE, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO AGAINST THIS. I HOPE THE REST OF YOU ALL WILL AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM HOPEWELL, MR. INGRAM.

Del. Riley Ingram (R-Hopewell): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE BILL?

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE

Del. Riley Ingram (R-Hopewell): THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. FLOOR. MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, MANY OF US HERE CAME FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT. VICE MAYORS, MAYORS, CHAIRMEN OF BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS, AND I RAN AS AN INDEPENDENT. I ALWAYS DID. I SERVED IN THE CITY OF HOPEWELL FOR ALMOST SIX YEARS. AND I DO NOT THINK THAT PARTISAN POLITICS SHOULD BE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND I THINK THAT THIS BILL WOULD JUST CREATE MORE PROBLEMS. AND I AGREE WITH WHAT THE LADY SAYS, AND I THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM HENRICO, MR. O'BANNON.

Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond): THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. SPEAKING TO THE BILL?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond): I WAS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HEARD THIS BILL, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT TO MY SATISFACTION, I THINK THE HATCH ACT ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED. YOU KNOW, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT TRANSPARENCY DOWN HERE. ALL THIS BILL DOES IS SAY THAT IF YOU PARTICIPATE IN A POLITICAL PROCESS THAT'S ORGANIZED, EITHER A MASS MEETING, A CONVENTION OR A PRIMARY, WHERE IT'S PERMITTED IN VIRGINIA, THEN YOUR NAME WILL HAVE THE D OR R ON THE BALLOT. I THINK IT'S REAL SIMPLE, AND I HOPE WE WILL SUPPORT THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA, MR. LANDES.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE BILL?

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND FLOOR. GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, LET ME JUST EMPHASIZE ONE THING THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE SAID, AND THAT IS THAT THIS BILL ONLY AFFECTS THE OFFICES FOR WHICH THE COMMONWEALTH ALREADY ALLOWS CANDIDATES TO BE NOMINATED BY THE BIPARTISAN PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS RELATED TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT IT ONLY ALLOWS WHERE THERE IS AN OFFICE THAT'S HAD A PROCESS WHERE SOMEONE HAS BEEN NOMINATED BY EITHER PARTY -- IT DOESN'T AFFECT INDEPENDENTS, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THOSE CANDIDATES THAT RUN BY OTHER PARTIES, BY OTHER PROCESSES. IT ONLY AFFECTS THE PARTISAN NOMINATION PROCESS, AND THOSE OFFICES. I HOPE THE HOUSE WILL SUPPORT THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM STAFF -- THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM STAFFORD,O THE GENTLEMAN FROM STEF ARRESTED, MR. DUDENHEFER.

Del. Mark Dudenhefer (R-Stafford): MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE BODY, I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT A STATEMENT MADE CONCERNING THE HATCH ACT, AND VIOLATIONS OR THE PRECLUDING THEREOF OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RUNNING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT PRECLUDE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT. IT JUST PRECLUDES THEM FROM BEING A PARTY NOMINEE. IN STAFFORD COUNTY, FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, WE'VE HAD A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WORK FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHO RAN AS AN INDEPENDE CONTINUOUSLY, AND SERVED HONORABLY THROUGHOUT THAT TIME. AND THEN MY LAST COMMENT IS THAT ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT BY NOT PUTTING A D OR R OR WHATEVER BEHIND A NAME STOPS IT FROM BEING PARTISAN IS IS NOT IN THE REAL WORLD, THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM POWHATAN, MR. WARE.

Del. Lee Ware (R-Powhatan): THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. I RISE FOR A MOTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN MAY STATE IT.

Del. Lee Ware (R-Powhatan): MR. SPEAKER, MY MOTION IS THAT WE MOVE THE PENDING QUESTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM POWHATAN, MR. WARE, MOVES THE PENDING QUESTION. -- THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE, THOSE OPPOSED, NO.

Del. Lee Ware (R-Powhatan): THE MOTION, WHATEVER IT WAS, IS AGREED TO. SHALL THE BILL PASS?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE


[Unknown]: SPECIFIED OFFICE SHALL NOT BE IDENTIFIED BY POLITICAL PARTY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHAL.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): ADDRESSING THE AMENDMENT, MR. SPEAKER.

[Unknown]: PLEASE.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A YOUNG WOMAN FROM VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND SHE INFORMED ME THAT SHE WENT THROUGH 134 CHARTERS THAT ARE IN VIRGINIA, BOTH FOR TOWNS AND CITIES. 5 OR 8 HAVE EXPRESSED PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT INDIVIDUALS RUN AS NONPARTISAN CANDIDATES. THE OTHERS HAVE THIS PRACTICE. AND SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT I AM CONCERNED THAT MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AMENDMENT NOW, THE OTHER PART ABOUT SCHOOL BOARDS, I'M JUST TRYING TO ANTICIPATE WHAT MISCHIEF SOMEONE MIGHT TRY TO DO DOWN THE ROAD WITHOUT THIS PRO VISION SO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THAT, I'M PUTTING THAT IN HERE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS AMENDMENT, THERE IS ONE COMING AFTER THIS SOME FOLKS WILL LIKE LESS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HOPE WE CAN KEEP THIS NONPARTISAN NOT JUST FOR THE ONES WHERE THE CHARTER MENTIONS THIS, BUT ALLOW THE CONTINUATION WHERE THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN, NOT TO HAVE PARTISAN ELECTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE THIS, MATTER IS UP YESTERDAY, I VOTED FOR THE UNDER LYING BILL. BUT I HOPE THE MEMBERS WILL OPPOSE THE PENDING FLOOR AMENDMENT. FIRST, THE LANGUAGE IN THERE RELATIVE TO SAYING THAT SCHOOL BOARDS SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN NONPARTISAN EXISTING LAW AND COULD CREATE, I THINK, CONFUSION IN THE JURD YISHL PROCEEDING THAT SINCE WE DON'T USE IT THROUGHOUT THE CODE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, RELATIVE TO ELECTION, MAYBE WE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT APPLIED TO SCHOOL BOARDS AND ALLOWED OR CREATED A MECHANISM FOR ELECTING SCHOOL BOARDS, SECONDLY, THE REST OF THE AMENDMENT DOES IS SAYS NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF A CITY OR TOWN DID YOU NOT A COUNTY HAS A CHARTER, THAT SAYS ELECTIONS HAVE TO BE NONPARTISAN. WE ALSO SAY, AND, ANY CITY OR TOWN, BUT NOT A COUNTY, CAN AFFECT AN ORDINANCE AT ANY TIME SAYING LOCAL ELECTIONS CAN BE NONPARTISAN. THIS GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO TRUMP, WHAT WE HAVE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY. THERE IS A FURTHER AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CLARIFY ANY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY THAT HAS IN THEIR CHARTER NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THIS PROVISION. I THINK THAT IS A PREFERABLE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BE PERSPECTIVE IN THAT ANY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY COULD COME TO THIS ASSEMBLY, REQUESTING A CHARTER THAT WOULD, IF APPROVED GIVE THEM THAT SAME PROVISION. I HOPE IT BE THE PLEASURE OF THE BOD YES TO REJECT THE CURRENT FLOOR AMENDMENT, APPROVED SUBSEQUENT FLOOR AMENDMENT AND PASS THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM SPOTSYLVANIA, MR. COLE, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg): YES, MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): I ASKED THE BODY TO ADOPT THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM'S AMENDMENT. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, HOWEVER, I CAN COUNT VOTES AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE ADOPT THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM'S AMENDMENT.

Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg): ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHAL. THOSE IN FAVOR WILL SAY AYE, OPPOSED, NO. THE FLOOR AMENDMENT IS REJECTED.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): FLOOR AMENDMENT OFFERED BY DELEGATE MINCHEW TO THE ENGROSSED VERSION. ON LINE 14, AFTER THE STRICKEN THROUGH WORD "EACH", STRIKE THE WORD "EACH" AND INSERT EXCEPT WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF A LOCAL CHARTER PROVIDE TO THE CONTRARY, EACH AND THE SENTENCE CONTINUES.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM LOUDOUN, MR. MINCHEW.

Del. Randy Minchew (R-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, I RISE TO ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Randy Minchew (R-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, BACK IN LAW SCHOOL I TOOK A COURSE CALLED CONFLICTS OF LAWS. I KNOW CHAIRMAN ALBO TOOK THE COURSE BECAUSE HE CAN NEVER TURN DOWN A COURSE WITH A TITLE THAT I NOTICED BACK WHEN WE ADOPTED COOL. THIS BILL, I NOTED WHAT I WILL CALL A LATENT CONFLICT OF LAWS QUESTIONED, THAT IS WHERE YOU HAVE SPECIFIC TOWN OR CITY CHARTER LEGISLATION THAT SAYS ELECTIONS SHALL BE NONPARTISAN AND WE ADOPT THIS BILL, THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO WHICH ONE WOULD, DARE I USE THE VERB, TRUMP, AND I COULDN'T THINK OF A AND THIS SPECIFIES SOMETHING THAT SIMPLY SAYS WHERE YOU HAVE A LOCAL TOWN OR CITY OR NOW COUNTY CHARTER, TO THE CONTRARY THAT PROVIDES FOR ELECTIONS TO BE NONPARTISAN, THAT WOULD BETTER WORD, MR. SPEAKER. CONTROL OVER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, AND I YIELD BACK.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEWOMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MISS WATTS.

Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale): THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD THE FLOOR FOR PURPOSES OF A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale): I MOST CERTAINLY WILL, THANK YOU.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I AM VERY PUZZLED. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING LIKE A COUNTY CHARTER. WE HAVE COUNTY FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE CODE, AND UNDER THOSE WE ENACT ORDINANCES TO CARRY FORTH THE SUBJECT OF THIS BILL, WHY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE COUNTIES IN YOUR AMENDMENT? MR. SPEAKER, I ADVISE THE GENTLE LADY FROM FAIRFAX WITHIN THE CODE THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR CHARTER COUNTIES. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO COUNTY ADOPTED ONE. THE GENTLE LADY IS FROM A COUNTY THAT AS URBAN COUNTY SECULAR GOVERNMENT THAT FEELS LIKE A CHARTER BUT IS NOT. THE REASON WE DO THAT IS OUR MUNICIPALITIES, TOWNS APRILED CITIES WITH CHARTERS BUT THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO COUNTY HAS YET TO COME FORWARD FOR ADOPTION OF A COUNTY CHARTER. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? I WILL YIELD. MY QUESTION IS, OF THE GENTLEMAN WHY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE COUNTY ORDINANCES SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE ENACTED SUCH NONPARTISAN PRO VISIONS BY ORDINANCE WOULD BE COVERED BY YOUR AMENDMENT? MR. SPEAKER, THE REASON WHY I DID NOT DO SO AS A GENERAL RULE, I WORRY ABOUT THE PRECEDENT OF HAVING STATE LAW BEING SUBJECT TO BEING RULED SECONDARY TO A COUNTY CHARTER THAT MAY BE FOURTH COMING. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE SECONDARY TO THE LAWS OF THE BOD YES. IF WE'RE TO PUT A PROVISION THAT SAYS THIS LAW IS SECONDARY TO A COUNTY ORDINANCE, I THINK THAT IS KIND OF MESSING UP THE PRIORITY OF LAWS. THAT IS WHY I DID NOT PUT THAT IN THERE. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF OF THE FLOOR AMENDMENT WILL SAY AYE, OPPOSED, NO. FLOOR AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. SHALL THE BILL PASS? CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYE, 50, NO, 45. THE BILL IS PASSED. CONTINUING WITH THE CALENDAR, SENATE BILLS THIRD READING. SENATE BILL 270 A BILL TO AMEND OF CODE OF VIRGINIA RELATED TO SANCTUARY POLICIES REPORTING TO COMMITTEES OF COURTS OF JUSTICE WITH A SUBSTITUTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. ALBO.

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield): MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, LET ME EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BILL AND ASK TO ADOPT THE SUBSTITUTE. SO, WHEN THIS BILL STARTED IT WAS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN, LIKE A TWO COMPUTERS HERE, SO I LOOK REALLY SMART. SO LET ME CONSULT THIS COMPUTER. OKAY. THE ORIGINAL BILL SAID THAT NO


Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): GO BYE TEMPORARILY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WITHOUT OBJECTION, SENATE BILL 612 WILL GO BYE TEMPORARILY.

Sen. Tom Garrett (R-Lynchburg): THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE

[Unknown]: SENATE BILL 657. COUNTY, SENATOR SUETTERLEIN. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THAT SENATE BILL 767 BE PASSED IN ITS ENROLLED FORM NOT OUTSTANDING THE ONLY CORRECTIONS OF GOVERNOR. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. SENATE BILL 767 WAS A BILL WE DELATED ON THIS FLOOR AND PROVIDES BALLOT TRANSPARENCY SO THAT THOSE THAT RECEIVE PARTISAN NOMINATIONS THROUGH TAXPAYER FUNDED STATE-RUN PRIMARIES ARE REFLECTED AS SUCH ON THE BALLOT. THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT AFFECT A SINGLE LOCAL OFFICE THAT DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE PARTISAN NOMINATIONS. THE GOVERNOR'S COMMENTS ABOUT LOCAL ELECTIONS SAYING ADDRESSED PURELY LOCAL MATTERS CONTRADICT HIS OWN ACTIONS. BETWEEN THE DAY HE ANNOUNCED HIS VET TOE AND TODAY WHEN HE CONSIDERED HE CAMPAIGNED FOR A CANDIDATE RUNNING IN A NONPARTISAN ELECTION FOR MAYOR. AN ELECTION MOST OF US ARE HOPING THAT THE CANDIDATE WINS HIS NONPARTISAN RACE THERE AND I DON'T BEGRUDGE THEM THAT BUT THAT WAS A NONPARTY TAN SELECTION THAT HE INJECTED PARTISAN POLITICS INTO THAT. HE SAYS HE DOES NOT WANT TO INJECT PARTISAN POLITICS INTO RACES THAT ARE ALREADY PARTISAN POLITICS AND I THINK THAT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY. I ALSO EXPECT HE MIGHT INJECT SOME PARTISAN POOL TICKS IN A RICHMOND MAYORAL RACE. MAYBE, MAYBE, I KNOW, I WILL THINK THAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO. BUT I DON'T BEGRUDGE HIM ANY OF THESE ACTIONS BUT THREE THESE ARE PARTISAN ACTIONS IN NONPARTISAN RACES AND HE IS SAYING THAT WE CAN'T HAVE THE SIMPLE TRANSPARENCY OF PARTY LABELS FOR OFFICES THAT ARE ALREADY PARTISAN. AND WHEN WE DEBATED THIS BEFORE, WHICH WAS AWHILE AGO I POINTED OUT THAT TAXPAYERS FUND THESE PRIMARIES AND THERE WERE 25 SUCH TAXPAYER FUNDED PRIMARIES LAST YEAR ALONE THAT WERE NOT REFLECT ON THE BALLOT AND SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT SPOKE AGAINST THAT OR SPOKE AGAINST MY BILL SAID THAT WE SHOULDN'T INJECT PARTISAN POLITICS INTO THESE LOCAL RACES. SOME OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY RUN FOR THESE LOCAL OFFICES UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S NOMINATION. WHICH WOULD CONTRADICT THE VERY THING THAT THEY SAID WE OUGHT TO NOT BE DOING AND THE MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS THAT DID NOT SHARE MY BELIEF THAT THIS SHOULD BE ON THE BALLOT HAVE ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED MONEY FROM THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS POLITICAL MONEY, NOT THEIR PERSONAL MONEY INTO THESE LOCAL RACES. SO, GIN, THESE RACES ARE ALREADY PARTISAN ELECTIONS JES NOMINATIONS ARE PARTISAN. THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THE METHOD BY WHICH THEY ARE WON OR LOST AND SEVERAL IN THIS BODY HAVE SOUGHT THOSE NOMINATIONS, SUCCESSFULLY WON THOSE NOMINATED NATIONS AND CAMPAIGNED AND WON THOSE OFFICES BEFORE THEY CAME HERE AND THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DOING THAT THE MAJORITY IN THIS BODY HAVE INJECTED THEMSELVES IN THOSE RACES WITH THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN FUNDS AS WELL. WITH THAT I HAVE AN ADEWHAT IS COMING UP ON THE BOARD. BUT I ASK THAT IT PASS NOT WITHSTANDING THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM BATH COUNTY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I ASK YOU TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT RAN FOR A LOCAL OFFICE BUT I HAD RUN AS A PARTISAN. THERE WASN'T A NOMINATION AND UNLIKE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROANOKE COUNTY SAYS THIS WOULD ALIE NOT JUST TO THOSE WHO WIN PRIMARIES BUT THOSE WHO WIN NOMINATING BATTLES WITHIN THE LOCAL PARTY STRUCTURE, HOWEVER, IT EXISTS HAVE, THIS IS BASICALLY LOW INFORMATION VOTE ARE TYPE BILL AND IT WILL INJECT UNNECESSARY DIVISIVENESS INTO THE LOCAL ELECTIONS WHERE WE OUGHT TO BE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET ALONG AND GET STUFF DONE. WE HAD A PAPER BALLOT IN VIRGINIA SINCE 1870 AND ELECTING LOCAL OFFICIALS SINCE 1870 AND NEVER HAD PARTY I.D. AND I ASSURE THAT EVERYBODY WHO REALLY NEEDS OR WANTS TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION IN A LOCAL ELECTION IS GOING TO KNOW HOT LOCAL NOMINEES ARE IF THERE ARE LOCAL NOMINEES. THE BILL EXEMPTS LOCALITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY EXCLUDED PARTISAN ELECTIONS BY A CHARTER BUT THERE ARE ONLY FIVE OUT OF 190 TOWNS THAT HAVE CHARTER PROVISIONS THAT PROHIBIT PARTISAN ELECTIONS ELECTIONSAND 15 OF 38 CITIES SOL APPLY TO JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY AND THIS WILL ALSO IN MY VIEW INCUR -- INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE CALLING FOR LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS THAT WILL INCREASE THE LOCAL EXPENSE REPORT TAXPAYER EXPENSE FOR ELECTIONS. THIS WILL INJECT CONFUSION INTO THE -- CONFUSION, COSTS AND DIVISIVENESS INTO THE LOCAL ELECTIONS AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSEN.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I ALSO ASK THAT YOU SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. I JOIN MY COLLEAGUE FROM BATH. I ALSO SERVED IN LOCAL OFFICE BACK IN THE 1990s. I ALSO RAN AS AN IN DIE PENDENT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE -- INDEPENDENT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE PARTY NOMINATED NATIONS AND I WAS ABLE TO REACH OUT TO EVERYBODY AND NOT EXCLUDE ANYBODY AND WAS ABLE TO GET ELECTED. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT TRADITION THAT WE HAVE INDEPENDENT LOCAL I UNDERSTAND SOME LOCALITIES OFFICIALS. PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE LARGER YOU WILL HAVE PARTY COMMITTEES GET INVOLVED AND NOMINATING PROCESSES. IT IS GOOD TO HAVE INFORMATION OUT TO THE VOTER NEW HAS TO DO WITH WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT. YOU CAN STAND OUTSIDE THE POLLING PLACE AND HAND OUT THE SAMPLE BALLOTS AND PROCURES AND CIRCULARS BUT THIS TALKS ABOUT WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT. I FRANKLY I THINK YOU OUGHT TO PUT HEIGHT, WEIGHT AND I.Q. ON THE BALLOT. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING ACTUALLY RELEVANT. BY STATE LAW WE ONLY DESIGNATE PARTY FOR FEDERAL AND STATE OFFY IS. I HAVE KNOCKED ON A BUNCH OF DOORS AND NEVER HAD SOMEONE SAY WE NEED MORE PARTISANSHIP IN THE STATE. I WOULD ALSO ADD IN MY PART OF THE STATE THE HATCH ACT IS A LARGE FACT OF WHAT GOES ON. A NUMBER OF LOCAL OFFICIALS THAT WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ONE OF OUR CITY COUNCILMAN IS A SUPERVISOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. MY FATHER WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE WHEN HE WAS A CITY COUNCIL BACK IN THE 1970S. THEY CAN SERVE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DESIGNATED BY PARTY AND WE WOULD LOSE A TREMENDOUS BRAIN DRAIN IF WE WENT TO THIS WAY. I HOPE WE DO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNORS VETO, THANK YOU.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE COUNTY, SENATOR SUETTERLEIN.

Sen. David Suetterlein (R-Salem): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IF IN ONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK I JUST WANT TO CLOSE UP ON A FEW OF THOSE THINGS. ONE, GUIDANCE BY FEDERAL ATTORNEYS, THE FELL OWN ATTORNEYS SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE IS AN R OR D LABEL ON THERE REGARDING THE HATCH ACT. IF MATTERS IF THE PARTISAN ARE ALREADY INVOLVED. NO ONE WOULD BE HATCHED OUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WE KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT. WILL IS THEY TALK ABOUT LOW INFORMATION VOTERS. REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING I HEAR ON THE RADIO FROM TIME TO TIME AS I AM SWITCHING STATIONS I DIDN'T EXPECT TO HEAR THAT FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. BUT THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PAPER BALLOT TO BEGIN WITH. BACK IN THE 19TH CENTURY FOLKS SAID IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES RUNNING YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING. SO WHY EVEN HAVE THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT IF THE PEOPLE CARE THEY WILL RESEARCH US AND PUT US OUT THERE. THAT COULD BE THE THINKING ON THAT. IT MAYBES SENSE TO HAVE THE TRANSPARENCY ON THE BALLOT AND ONE LAST THING I WILL CLOSE SINCE I ONLY HAD TWO FOLKS SPEAK AGAINST IT ALTHOUGH I IMAGINE THERE WILL BE MORE VOTES TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO THAN I POINT OUT THE FAIRFAX COUNTY THAT. LAST YEAR HAD A PRIMARY, DEMOCRATIC PARTY DID, TAXPAYERS HAD TO PAY FOR THAT. DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF APPEARING ON THERE. AND CHARLOTTESVILLE THEY ACTUALLY EVEN HAD CITY COUNCIL RACES WHERE IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A TIE ELECTION AND SO BOTH HAD THE BENEFIT OF NOT ONLY GETTING TO PAY FOR THE STATE RUN PRIMARY BY CHARLOTTESVILLE EVEN GOT TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE RESOURCES BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A CLOSE RACE THERE. I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO TIP CONTINUE TO ALLOW THIS WE OUGHT TO HAVE BALLOT TRANSPARENCY. IF AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE THERE IS A WAY TO GET AROUND BUT NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT. I ASK THAT IS PASS NOT WITHSTANDING THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE REQUEST HE IS SHALL THE BILL PASS IN THE ENROLLED FORM NOT WITHSTANDING THE OBJECT,S OF THE GOVERNOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Sen. David Suetterlein (R-Salem): AYES 21, NOS 18.

[Unknown]: AYES 21, NOS 18.