Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 16, 1995 TAG: 9511160022
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-17 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
What Prime Minister Henry Asdquith said of Lord Lansdowne could be equally applied to Andrews: "The mould is broken, it will never be recast."
As a native Hamptonian, graduate of William and Mary and the University of Virginia Law School, naval officer in World War II, eminent Episcopalian and former Rotary president, Andrews seemed the very embodiment of conservatism. But he came to the Senate in 1964 resolved to challenge the penny-pinching passion that ruled state politics.
While always appearing the very antithesis of liberalism, Andrews seized every opportunity to increase state funding for education and highways. And he was always the cop-on-the-beat cracking the heads of those who promoted tax breaks or concessions, such as giving federal retirees their money back, which he opposed as long as possible despite having many federal pension-holders in his district.
If you know the growth Andrews lived with every day, both in Hampton Roads and along Interstate 64 going to Norfolk or Richmond, you might understand why he was no fiscal conservative. The ideas that guided his view of state government might be summarized this way: "Conservatism is all well and good in theory, but we are faced with facts - millions more Virginians in my lifetime - and the facts compel a greater liberality." It is ironic that Andrews went down while the philosophy he so ably represented narrowly prevailed.
Senate Democrats must now choose a new leader, but no name obviously presents itself. And among those who will be considered, none has Andrews' stature or is likely to obtain it.
But which party controls a Senate divided between 20 Democrats and 20 Republicans? The conventional view has been that Lt. Gov. Don Beyer will vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate and control the membership of standing committees. But it isn't so cut and dried as all that. While the state Constitution gives the lieutenant governor the sole duty of presiding over the Senate, casting a vote only "in the case of an equal division," his office is defined as coming under the executive branch.
On that point, the Constitution states unambiguously that the legislative, executive and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct, "so that none exercises the powers properly belonging to the others." In organizing itself for business, the Senate is performing what seems a purely legislative function that should be independent of the influence of an officer of the executive branch.
University of Virginia Professor A.E.D. Howard, who served as principal consultant to the 1969 special session of the legislature that last made substantial revisions in the Constitution, and has since functioned as chief expert on the document, professes himself not entirely sure. But, he adds, the Constitution, like nature, abhors a vacuum. That is, in the absence of a specific stricture, it probably can be assumed the lieutenant governor is empowered to break any impasse and move business forward.
Since it's doubtful the state Supreme Court would rule on any challenge to Beyer's authority until he actually exercised it, that couldn't happen until well past the time when the 1996 assembly should be conducting business.
Of course, Republican Attorney General James Gilmore may be asked to render an opinion. But what standing an attorney general's opinion would have on a question so internal to the legislature itself isn't clear. Normally, it would have the force of law until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise.
Because a challenge to the courts on the question of Beyer's right to cast a deciding vote in organizing the Senate is likely to fail, or come too late to be relevant, Republicans might be well advised to obtain what concessions they can and graciously concede Beyer's right to make Democrats the Senate's official majority party.
Aside from those 16 senators who were either unopposed or faced only a token independent, the hot competition in this election was very much found in Senate races. Seven incumbent senators were defeated and 10 members were elected with less than 54 percent of the vote.
It was a different picture in the House of Delegates: 29 candidates either unopposed or facing only an independent, and 36 members elected with at least 60 percent of the vote. A close inspection of the returns reveals fewer than a dozen House seats, out of 100, truly competitive between the two parties at this time.
This marks the first election in which Republicans competed for more seats than the Democrats. In the Senate, Republicans offered candidates for 35 of 40 seats, compared with 28 for Democrats. The numbers were closer in the House, where Republicans nominated 84 candidates compared with 80 for Democrats. But many of these GOP candidates had only a forlorn hope, which is a main reason why Republicans got a slightly smaller share of the total vote in all two-party contests.
While the GOP gained two seats in the Senate, and received an absolute majority of all votes cast, Democrats polled more votes in those races contested by both parties. In two-party Senate races, Democratic candidates won 460,000 votes to 432,000 for Republicans. In two-party House races, 516,000 votes were cast for Democrats and 489,000 for Republicans.
You are forced to a conclusion that as of this moment, at least, Virginia's political sentiment is balanced on a knife's edge.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
by CNB