Senator Whipple's Richmond Report

Wednesday, April 21, finds the General Assembly in Richmond for the Reconvened Session. More commonly known as the Veto session, it is always held the sixth Wednesday after the adjournment of the regular session.

The session is held to consider the amendments and vetoes sent down by the Governor. Although some of these amendments are controversial, many of them are described as “technical in nature” and may simply improve the wording, correct cross-references or conform language to another section of the Code. For example, on one bill dealing with public health threats, on line 1097 the word “quarantine” was changed to “isolation”. c

Today the Senate of Virginia considered the Governor’s amendments to 21 Senate bills. On 17 of those bills, the amendments were technical amendments and received unanimous approval.

Others were more controversial. One bill provides for separate felonies in the murder of a pregnant woman, one for the woman and one for the fetus. Supporters repeatedly stated that there was no intent to include abortions in this legislation. In order to make that perfectly clear, the Governor submitted an amendment that said “Nothing in this section is intended nor shall be construed to limit a woman’s right as recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973).” Regrettably this amendment was rejected by the Senate on a 15-25 vote.

The Senate completed work on the amendments to its bills in less than an hour. The House was not so speedy so the next hour found the Senate in recess,”awaiting communications from the House”, a frequent occurrence at this end of the Capitol.

Finally the bills started coming in from the House. As for the Senate, a number of the bills had purely technical amendments that were quickly approved.

The House had rejected the Governor’s amendments to a bill banning civil unions. The amendments would have left the ban on civil unions in place but removed language that would ban “partnership contracts or other arrangements” between persons of the same sex “purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage”. This overly-broad language could void rights of inheritance, child custody arrangements, healthcare directives, powers of attorney, and so forth entered into by members of the same sex when neither individual is homosexual.

Further, the Governor’s amendment would have removed language that could void existing contracts. A number of legal opinions indicated that the unamended bill is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of contract. The U.S. Constitution provides that “No state shall …pass any…Law impairing the obligation of Contracts.”

Nevertheless the bill was passed without the Governor’s amendments.

By mid-afternoon confusion reigned supreme because the House adjourned without waiting for four bills to be transmitted from the Senate. It was unclear whether the Senate could continue acting on House bills. We continued to do so, and legal opinions will be forthcoming as to the validity of our action.