THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 17, 1995 TAG: 9509170126
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
SERIES: ELECTION '95
POWER AND THE PARTIES
SOURCE: BY MARGARET EDDS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 198 lines
A few years ago, one of state Sen. Virgil Goode's fellow Democrats in the General Assembly chided him on his voting record.
``Is Virgil following the Republicans, or are the Republicans following Virgil?'' the Rocky Mount attorney recalls his colleague asking.
The reason for such banter shows up in an analysis of partisan voting in the 1995 General Assembly session. On closely contested Senate votes, Goode was more likely than any other Democrat to side with the Republican opposition.
That independence is a distinction shared with Sen. Jane H. Woods, R-Fairfax, who led Republican senators in independent-minded floor votes, and with four members of the House of Delegates: Joseph Johnson Jr., D-Abingdon; A. Victor ``Vic'' Thomas, D-Roanoke; Thomas G. Baker Jr., R-Dublin; and Del. Clinton Miller, R-Woodstock, who led the House in nonpartisan voting.
At a time when many Virginians say they're fed up with partisan politics, the analysis of more than 2,000 1995 floor votes shows that party members - particularly in the House of Delegates - are remarkably like-minded on most controversies.
Only seven of the 99 House members affiliated with a political party split with their partisan colleagues 20 percent or more of the time on closely contested bills. Thirty-five House members split with the majority only once or not at all.
Even so, a few individuals in both parties regularly side with the opposition in philosophical disputes. Such independence means that a political party which controls a slim majority of votes cannot assume that all of its agenda will pass.
Such Democrats have made it possible for Republicans to win a few legislative victories, as with welfare reform in the latest session, despite slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Independent-minded Republicans might also keep their party from enacting its entire agenda if legislative control switches hands this November.
Both lawmakers who usually vote with their party's majority and those who sometimes break with it say they are guided by their consciences and their constituents, not party dictates.
``I don't vote on that basis,'' said Sen. Yvonne Miller, D-Norfolk, who matched her party's majority every time on closely contested votes. ``It's critical for me to reflect the expressed desires of the people I represent.''
Similarly, Sen. Woods - who broke with fellow Republicans about half the time on close votes in the latest session - said her opinions reflect those of her Northern Virginia constituents.
While she votes consistently with the GOP on procedural votes involving the order of business and rules of the Senate, ``one reserves the right on philosophy to vote his or her conscience or constituency,'' she said.
``Any political party that demands lock step is probably in some serious trouble,'' she added.
But Woods and others acknowledge that it can, at times, be unpleasant to be viewed as a renegade.
Del. Clinton Miller, R-Woodstock, said pressure to conform to party dictums has intensified as Republican chances of taking over the legislature have grown.
``It was never, in all my years in the General Assembly, any problem until the last two years,'' added Miller, whose independent votes this year included supporting the federal Goals 2000 education program and the National Voter Registration Act.
Miller said such hassles are among ``20 or 30'' reasons he decided not to seek re-election this year.
One independent-minded lawmaker who asked not to be identified by name or party added: ``It's just pressure galore. . . . It's just a constant sending of messengers when one has said `no.' ''
The lawmaker's response: ``What is it about `no' that you don't understand? Is it the `n' or the `o'?
Some other legislators said that if most Democrats and most Republicans vote alike, it is because of shared philosophy, not partisan demands.
``I've never noticed any particular pressure,'' said Del. Clifton A. ``Chip'' Woodrum, D-Roanoke, who split with Woods' Democrats on only one close floor vote last session. ``I try to vote the issue and if it works out that way, it works out that way.''
To establish a partisanship index, The Virginian-Pilot reviewed all 2,000-plus House and Senate floor votes in the 1995 session. The newspaper singled out those House votes in which a swing of five or fewer delegates would have changed the outcome and those Senate votes in which a swing of three or fewer senators would have changed the outcome.
Any close votes that didn't divide along party lines were eliminated. That left 50 votes in the House and 53 in the Senate that were used in the partisanship assessment.
Listed on this page is the number of times each delegate or senator split with the majority in his or her party in those closely contested votes. ILLUSTRATION: Graphics
VOTE FOR ME!
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]
Photos
Del. Thomas W. Moss, D - Makes committee assignments, helps set
procedures.
Del. George H. Heilig, D - Head of committee that oversees business
regulations.
Del. Howard E. Copeland, D - Head of Chesapeake and Its Tributaries,
influential in environmental matters.
De. William P. Robinson Jr., D - To be chairman of panel that
oversees transportation.
Sen. Stanley C. Walker, D - Influential in rules; taxing and
spending; committee assignments.
Jay Sherrill, R - Seeks to oust Moss; disputes Democrats'
effectiveness against Norfolk's problems.
CASE STUDIES
As Virginia begins a rigorous campaign for the fall General
Assembly election, a critical question is whether it matters which
party controls the Assembly. Examples of the way legislative clout
can sway the state's philosophical direction:
PARENTAL CONSENT LAWS
Why aren't Virginia doctors required to notify parents before
performing abortions on women 17 and under? The reason is simple.
For 10 years in a row, the legislation has been stymied by
Democrats on the Senate Education and Health Committee.
The annual effort to pass a parental notification law has become
one of the most emotionally charged issues in the General Assembly.
Supporters say it is a fundamental issue of parental rights.
Physicians, they say, are required to receive permission from
parents before performing almost any medical procedure on a child.
They argue that abortion, with all of its potential physical and
psychological side effects, should be no different.
Bowing to that logic, the Democratic-controlled House of
Delegates has overwhelmingly passed notification bills over the
years. But when the legislation is introduced in the Senate, the
same thing always happens: The clerk of the Senate, who is
appointed by the Democratic majority, refers it to the Education and
Health Committee. Then the panel either kills the bill or waters it
down so severely that it's unpalatable to proponents of parental
consent.
Democrats occupy 10 of the 15 seats on the committee. Five senior
Democrats on the panel have voted against the measure in each of the
past 10 years: Hunter B. Andrews of Hampton, Stanley C. Walker of
Norfolk, Elliot S. Schewel of Lynchburg, Richard L. Saslaw of
Fairfax and Edward M. Holland of Fairfax.
They argue that the notification law would drive some teenagers
to despair and suicide. Several also fret that passage of the law
would encourage abortion opponents to seek further restrictions in
Virginia.
If Republicans gain control of the Senate, it's almost a sure bet
that a parental notification bill would be passed next year. The GOP
would gain control of committee assignments and would refashion the
panel with a solid Republican majority. Many of the senior Democrats
who have blocked the legislation probably would be reassigned.
- Warren Fiske
RIVERBOAT GAMBLING
Virginia has no floating casinos, but the pro-gambling lobby once
had its glimmer of hope - enough that it bombarded the General
Assembly with cash, and is expected to do so again.
The break came in 1994. The House of Delegates' General Laws
Committee, a bipartisan panel that gets the first whack at statewide
issues like gambling, voted 12-10 to approve it. The full House
later killed the riverboat bill, but some provocative progress had
been made.
At the committee's helm was Alan Diamonstein, a Newport News
Democrat who sees riverboat gambling as an economic development
issue.
And controlling the entire House of Delegates was Norfolk Del.
Thomas W. Moss, another pro-riverboat lawmaker who thinks it's just
a matter of time before the state approves gambling in Hampton
Roads.
But if Republicans win three seats in the House this November and
wrest away control of the chamber, most agree you can forget about
wagering on the waterways for a while.
In Moss' place would probably be Amherst Republican Vance
Wilkins, a member of the General Laws committee who has opposed
floating casinos with vigor.
And in Diamonstein's seat would be Del. Kurt Cox, a young George
Allen disciple from Colonial Heights. When others simply opposed
riverboat gambling, he made a point to attack.
Under his watch, Cox acknowledged, riverboat gambling would
``certainly be in trouble.''
``I'm adamantly opposed to it,'' said Cox, a six-year legislator.
``But the key to being a committee chairman is to be fair. I
wouldn't resort to parliamentary maneuvering to kill a bill. That's
not the way it ought to be.''
- Robert Little
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION VIRGINIA HOUSE OF
DELEGATES RACE by CNB