Revisit how Va. makes laws

Average citizens should be able to access the business of lawmaking in Virginia

Lawmaking. There are different ways to go about it and Virginia’s habits in this regard are deeply engrained. We’ve been at the work of representative democracy for a long time.

Accordingly, reforms to the legislative process — rearrangements of the mechanics of making laws, all those levers, buttons and cogged wheels — have been incremental, at best, and frequently elusive.

At the core, change is resisted for what it might precipitate. No true Virginian wants to lose the “citizen” aspect of its citizenlegislature. No one (mostly) wants to see the commonwealth jettison its amateur status for the sake of professionalism.

So why bother to editorialize on the subject, knowing full well that come next January, another legislative session will commence that will resemble, in majesty, content and chaos, the last January and the January before that and the January before that?

Just mark this down as a normative argument, about what-ought-to-be, not what is.

There ought to be a rational process, moderately accessible to average Virginians who wish to speak to an issue or merely be informed about legislative intentions.

We ought to give citizens a fighting chance, in other words. Do not force them to join a special interest group or hire an expensive lobbyist to be heard.

Which is not to devalue the importance of lobbyists to Virginia lawmaking. No, not at all.

To the contrary, the role of industry/ interest representation before the

General Assembly has been crucial to the maintenance of continuity in Virginia, especially during a period of quick turnover in legislative membership.

That said, average citizens, on their lonesome, should be able to access the business of lawmaking in Virginia and discover a reasonably orderly, reasonably coherent, reasonably comprehensible process.

What you discover today in Richmond, during the regular legislative sessions, falls somewhat short of all that.

You can always open up the Virginia Constitution and provide more time, more structural assurance that the General

Assembly possesses the capacity to handle the legislative chores that a complex state of 8.5 million people requires.

Only, no one seems to have a whole lot of enthusiasm for doing that.

Instead of making the container larger, you could of course try stuffing less into it. You could limit the amount of legislation introduced.

But that approach immediately bangs up against some core principles involving the powers and duties of representation.

It may be largely forgotten, but in 1982 the following question was put before the Virginia electorate: “Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize the General Assembly to limit the introduction of legislation in the odd-year short session?”

The answer was a resounding “no,” by 65% to 35%. Halifax County and a smattering of other jurisdictions liked the idea, but that was about it.

The “odd-year short session?” That device got hatched during the general overhaul of the Virginia Constitution in 1970 and, suffice to say, it did not work as envisioned.

So, what to do?

How about this: In the spirit of the day, with the new Democratic Party rulers constantly singing praises to themselves, how about if they apply that “new day borning” mentality to this particular subject?

Get something organized on this.

Blow some trumpets. Create a commission. A study. Anything.

As it happens, a brand-new legislative office building will come online in less than two years, providing additional meeting space and physical improvements.

That will make the lawmakers comfy, presumably.

Show the same level of enthusiasm for Virginia’s citizens. Explore all technological possibilities to ease and facilitate the flow of information. Support staffing needs.

(You know, so fewer of them walk out the door.) Address scheduling. Look at it all.

And see — please — if we might avoid midnight debates on “crossover day” for major legislation. When that happens

(it did in the House this year) we are not coming close to what “ought to be” in the realm of democratic lawmaking.