Still a citizen assembly?
Virginia lawmakers steadily creeping toward a full-time legislature
This falls under the broad heading of the Virginia lawmaking process. File it under “things thought about, but yet to be acted upon.” That’s a little cryptic, but keep reading. An explanation requires some history on how Virginia structures its legislative work.
“In the beginning” (after the American Revolution), Virginia harbored no enthusiasm for a strong executive and the “citizen” legislature annually met to keep a firm hand on the tiller.
The passage of time brought new thinking, based on changing circumstances. A stronger executive emerged; legislative sessions grew less frequent. Delegates to the 1901-02 Virginia Constitutional Convention nearly reduced legislative sessions to once every four years.
Then the 20th century rolled in and Virginia’s agriculture-based economy yielded to urban/suburban growth. The 1970 revisions to the Virginia Constitution — a concerted effort to modernize a tradition-enthralled state government—established annual sessions for the General Assembly.
That took some selling.
“Virginia is already approaching a population of 5 million,” argued Hampton Sen. Hunter B. Andrews during the floor debates. “All states of the nation, for whatever it may be worth, that are in our population bracket and higher have gone to annual sessions.”
Unimpressed, Sen. Bill Stone of Martinsville responded, OK, do annual sessions and “you are going to have two classes of people in this legislature, only the rich who can afford to come down here every year and the poor who want a professional job.”
“You are going to have big office buildings going up,” Stone prophesized. “With two or three assistants, four or five staff, and a great big office building!”
Yes, he said it twice. Big office buildings. Stone lost the argument that day — Virginia adopted annual sessions — but the senator earned lasting soothsayer status.
Because, by1980, the General Assembly had bulked up its internal bureaucracy and got an itch for more space. From the cramped quarters of the old Hotel Richmond, it moved across Ninth Street to a stitched together collection of structures that once housed the Life Insurance Company of Virginia.
The new General Assembly Building came complete with more adequate committee space, offices for constituents to meet and plenty of room for legislators and support staff.
Sen. Stone also got that part right, too. A generation or so earlier, it would have seemed a self-indulgent waste of taxpayer money to have more than a single legislative aide and a shared secretary.
This was, after all, a citizen legislature. But the assembly kept growing and, today, it’s common for delegates and senators to have a chief of staff and assorted subalterns running about to service the Honorable Whoever.
The General Assembly Building, a marvel in1978, is kaput. Torn down. Under construction to replace it is the first designed-from-the-ground-up legislative office and meeting facility.
But here’s where the story gets interesting, because the more recently elected lawmakers, especially those in the House, have begun to realize that a 50-year-old legislative structure — providing 45- or 60-day sessions each year — may be wholly inadequate to existing demands.
Not only that, why should we (they may be thinking to themselves) be doing all this work for so little money, now that the ongoing late summer “special session” rivals in length last winter’s regular session?
This line of thinking likely occurred, as well, to the Republicans when they held legislative majorities. But breaking from traditional practices was never terribly attractive to them, regardless of how much the legislative sessions got jammed.
But a different mindset rules now. Don’t be surprised if there are brewing thoughts “yet to be acted upon.”
There’s more than passing truth in the contention that Virginia loads too much legislative work into too short a period of time. It’s not1970 anymore and conditions often compromise public access and participation. That’s a significant problem.
These “history-making” Democrats may feel less constrained by ancient concepts of “citizen” lawmaking. Something, say, more professional could prove alluring.