Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 30, 1995 TAG: 9512010001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Was the governor graciously accepting defeat in the recent election, despite leading Republicans to a gain of two seats in the Senate and an absolute majority of all votes cast? Or was he sobered by fiscal estimates showing that even a considerable gain in state revenues over the next two years will hardly suffice to cover the rising cost of existing obligations?
One thing that conciliatory performance did signal was that soon all political eyes will shift to the battle to succeed Allen. For the first time since 1981, the gubernatorial nominees of both parties are all but set well in advance of the big show. No sensible observer sees any reasonable alternative to the scenario in which Republican Attorney General James Gilmore faces Democratic Lt. Gov. Don Beyer.
For a quarter-century now, it has been assumed that all occupants of the offices of attorney general and lieutenant governor were running for governor. It was even assumed that the only reason people ran for them in the first place was to position themselves to run for governor.
The record on winning the top job is mixed, with some advantage appearing to reside with those who first became lieutenant governor. Since 1969, three lieutenant governors (John Dalton, Charles Robb and Doug Wilder) have been elevated to the purple while two (Henry Howell and Dick Davis) tried and failed. By contrast, three attorneys general (Andrew Miller, Marshall Coleman and Mary Sue Terry) fell well short of the brass ring while only one, Gerald Baliles, claimed the governorship.
Two of the past seven governors (Linwood Holton and Allen) never served in either subordinate post; and one, Mills Godwin, was both a former governor and a former lieutenant governor.
This may suggest that the public believes the lieutenant governor functions as a kind of assistant governor, while not exactly knowing what it is the attorney general does. In reality, of course, the attorney general presides over a large, busy and important department, while the lieutenant governor is limited to presiding over the state Senate and breaking an occasional tie vote - hardly the stuff of which heroic records are made.
If there's a jinx at work here, it attaches to those who take a second term in a supporting role. Both Miller and Terry decided upon what seemed the safer course of a second term as attorney general, only to discover that those who seek safety first often end up in danger. When they ran for governor - and were heavily favored to win - both fell down in a heap. Beyer, first elected in 1989, deferred to Terry in 1993 just as she had deferred to Wilder four years before. He will now prove whether the two-term jinx is real or merely a pundit's fantasy.
The size and relative importance of the two jobs can be found in the state budget. For 1994-96, the office of lieutenant governor was allocated just over $300,000 a year, compared with $17 million for the attorney general. In recognition of his larger job, the attorney general is paid $97,500 a year to supervise 258 full-time employees and some 235 private lawyers doing contract work for the state. By comparison, the lieutenant governor collects $32,040 and has a small personal staff of five or six people.
During sessions of the General Assembly, the lieutenant governor is busy several hours a day presiding over the Senate, hardly a job for the easily bored. For most of the year, he has only those official duties assigned by the governor or arising from membership on a few study commissions.
While I may be wrong, I see Holton as the only modern governor enjoying a close relationship with his lieutenant governor. The others have seemed to keep their understudies decidedly at arm's length. Certainly, Beyer was allowed only small glory by Wilder and has been cut absolutely no slack by Allen.
That isn't to say lieutenant governors are idle. They have their own campaigns to occupy their time and are called upon to perform routine political and ceremonial chores. As a statewide officeholder of wide acquaintance, they surely receive numerous calls for constituent service. All of this would be especially true for Beyer as the titular leader of state Democrats in a time of Republican ascendancy.
But such modest chores can hardly be compared with the vast catalog of duties that are the lot of a Virginia attorney general. By law, he must provide counsel for the governor and all agencies of state government. His office also polices Medicaid, collects debts due the commonwealth and represents the people in all criminal appeals. It also serves as chief consumer advocate, which makes it a party to most issues before the State Corporation Commission. And every member of the legislature as well as many local officials are entitled to ask for an official opinion on questions of law or policy.
Such opinions, numbering about 100 a year, carry the force of law until a court of competent jurisdiction (or an act of the legislature) says otherwise.
The attorney general also dispenses a fair amount of patronage when he hires private counsel to do legal work for the state - primarily involving the department of highways. Upon taking office, Gilmore estimated such fees at between $5 million and $10 million a year.
If voters in 1997 are looking for a governor with the greatest experience in state government, that would logically be the attorney general. Logic, of course, will have little to do with it. What will is the overall political environment, which neither man can do much to ordain, despite his best efforts. Those efforts will be considerable, as you will shortly notice.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB