The Schmookler & Huffman Show (Episode XCVI)

This morning, 550 AM, WSVA aired Andy and my monthly political radio discussion. Although it was supposed to take place later in August, a scheduling conflict prevented us from doing so. As such, the program was recorded last week and then broadcast today. We discussed the ongoing issues regarding Covid and the vaccine, Biden’s presidency, and foreign policy.

If you missed this show this morning, you can catch it here.

A Return to 2013?

Greetings readers.

It has been a while since last I wrote. As you may know, I’ve been quite busy searching for positions teaching political science. However, a topic recently came up that I felt needed to be highlighted.

Although I haven’t been particularly active on this site since I started graduate work in political science back in the fall of 2017, I still regularly follow politics, especially Virginia politics given that it is still my home and we still have our regular political discussions of 550 AM, WSVA. As such, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that I read a lot about the candidates running statewide this year.

Glenn Youngkin, the Republican nominee for governor, is a relative newcomer in Virginia politics. He has never run for office before this year and thus I can’t say that I know a whole lot about him. Therefore, whenever his campaign or the Republican Party of Virginia put out a new email about him, I read it hoping to learn more about the candidate. However, as of last week, I unsubscribed from his campaign emails. Why did I do this you may ask. Well, because in many ways his campaign is retreading the ground set by the Cuccinelli campaign eight years ago.

In some ways, 2021 is a repeat of 2013. Terry McAuliffe is once again the Democratic nominee for governor. However, this time instead of running against the well-known Republican attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, he squares off against a more or less unknown candidate, Glenn Youngkin. Unfortunately, the Youngkin campaign and the RPV seem to think the strategy that Cuccinelli employed that resulted in his defeat all those years ago is one worth adopting.

When I spoke to the Cuccinelli campaign in the summer of 2013, they told me that they were using a negative campaign strategy whereby their primary focus was to spread negative information about Terry McAuliffe to, in their words, “make him unelectable to the average Virginian by Labor Day”. The goal was not to build up Cuccinelli and his accomplishments, of which there were quite a few given his record as both Attorney General and as a State Senator, but rather demean McAuliffe (or McAwful as some of Cuccinelli’s supporters began to call him. This tactic resulted in, up to that point, the nastiest campaign that I had ever seen. They sought to tear Virginia apart, vilifying their Democratic opponent and his supporters. In my experience in Virginia politics up to that point, this sort of campaigning wasn’t the norm. Take the 2009 governor race for example. Sure, there were negative points about both Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds, but ultimately it was more or less a race between two Virginia legislators and gentlemen who had differing visions for the future of the Commonwealth.

In the early days of the campaign, Cuccinelli and McAuliffe ran fairly evenly in the polls. But once the Cuccinelli campaign took this negative, scorched earth tactic, they never led in another poll. Although the Republicans used to campaign on a message of liberty and limited government, including in Cuccinelli’s 2009 run for attorney general, this message was absent in the 2013 season. Instead, the idea was that Democrats are bad and thus Republicans, I guess, must be better. Fortunately, at this time Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for governor stepped in to fill the void.

By October of 2013, Ken Cuccinelli was trailing badly in the polls with Sarvis capturing as much as 12% of likely voters. On October 19th, he invited me and a handful of other folks to speak with him in Lynchburg in the hopes of improving his chances. I remember telling him that his campaign needed to focus on a positive message, explaining to Virginians what good he had done and not simply that he was the lesser of two evils when compared to McAuliffe. He replied that his campaign didn’t have the money to change messaging at that point. As a result, the next day I publically endorsed Robert Sarvis for governor.

Cuccinelli lost on Election Day to McAuliffe by 2.6 points with Sarvis garnering 6.5% of the vote. Many Republicans blamed Sarvis for costing Cuccinelli the election, which the late Rick Sincere addressed at Bearing Drift but the simple fact was that the Cuccinelli campaign lost the election due to their poor strategy and it was important that they lost in order to serve as a warning to future campaigns.

Returning to the present, I regret to say that the Republican Party of Virginia and the Youngkin campaign have adopted the exact same tactic that the failed Cuccinelli campaign employed eight years ago. They have learned nothing from history. They attack Terry McAuliffe almost daily while rarely saying anything positive about Youngkin or how he will improve the Commonwealth if elected. They flood the internet with scare tactics regarding critical race theory and McAuliffe’s supposed cronyism while remaining silent about curtailing the power of the state government and promoting liberty in Virginia. For example although the Democratic legislature recently decriminalized cannabis, Youngkin calls it “another problem that’s going to be dumped at my feet”. Is he an anti-liberty, big government Republican? Is there nothing positive to say about Glenn Youngkin?

Although there is a third-party candidate running for governor, as was the case in 2013, unfortunately, she seems to be an independent Green who doesn’t share many conservative/libertarian values. Regrettably, the Libertarian Party of Virginia isn’t fielding any statewide candidate this year.

If Republicans and the Youngkin campaign continue to employ this lesser of two evils and the demonization of Terry McAuliffe that failed in 2013 while refusing to promote the ideals of liberty and limited government, then I’m not interested in what they have to say and I’d wager that many other Virginians think likewise. Some of us will stay home, others will write-in a candidate, and a few will vote for Terry McAuliffe. Continue down this path, and you shouldn’t be surprised when Virginia Republicans continue their unbroken cycle of statewides losses they’ve maintained since 2013.

The Schmookler & Huffman Show (Episode XCI)

Yesterday, Andy Schmookler and I spoke about politics on 550 AM, WSVA for the 91st time. The biggest topic of the day concerned the Republican Party of Virginia and their continued struggles with how to nominate their statewide candidates this year. If you were unaware, the Republican Party has voted repeatedly on this issue with some of them favoring a convention and others a primary. It is a dispute that they fight most years though this year has been more contentious than usual. Although they have selected a convention, it seems that their venue at Liberty University in Lynchburg did not approve the location. In addition, Andy and I also spoke about continuing issues with COVID and the government response.

If you missed the show live, you can listen to it here.

Independents in the General Assembly?

Photo of Delegate Wilt and Senator Obenshain. Used with permission from The Citizen https://hburgcitizen.com/

For much of the recent history of the Virginia General Assembly, the House of Delegates has been comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. In fact, the longest-serving member of the body, Lacey Putney, was, for most of his time in office, an independent. The same doesn’t hold true for the Virginia Senate, however, as independents and third-party candidates have been unable to win any seats in the upper house. But, due to circumstances as a result of the 2020 elections, it is possible that we will see at least one independent in both the House and Senate of Virginia.

Before you ask, no, you haven’t missed a special election where independents won office. Instead, this outcome centers around another election, the 2020 Harrisonburg City Council elections. How could a city council race change the makeup of the General Assembly in Richmond? Let me explain. In that race, six candidates sought three seats on the council. Three ran as Democrats, one as a Republican, and one as an independent. Two members of the General Assembly, Senator Mark Obenshain and Delegate Tony Wilt, both Republicans from Rockingham County made donations to the independent candidate as opposed to his Republican challenger. According to VPAP (the Virginia Public Access Project), Obenshain made two donations to George Hirschmann, one in June and one in August totaling $586. His campaign chipped in another $250. Wilt also made two donations to Hirschmann, one in June and one in September totaling $500. In addition, Wilt’s business, Superior Concrete contributed $500.

Why does this matter? According to Article I, section 2, part A of the Republican Party of Virginia Party Plan,

“A voter who, subsequent to making a statement of intent, publicly supports a candidate in opposition to a Republican nominee shall not be qualified for participation in party actions as defined in Article I for a period of four (4) years.”

In addition, there is Article 7, Section C of the Party Plan.

A member of an Official Committee is held to a higher standard of support for nominees of the Republican Party than an individual who merely participates in a mass meeting, party canvass, convention or primary. Therefore, a member of an Official Committee is deemed to have resigned his Committee position if he (a) makes a reportable contribution to and/or (b) knowingly allows his name to be publicly used by and/or (c) makes a written or other public statement supporting the election of a candidate in opposition to a Republican nominee in a Virginia General or Special Election, and/or (d) becomes a member or an officer of or makes a reportable contribution to any other political party. A majority of the elected officers of an official committee are charged with recognizing when this provision is in effect.

Although such statements seem fairly clear, when I learned of this matter prior to the November election, I spoke to the chairman of the RPV, Rich Anderson, to see if my understanding is correct, that if a Republican supports a candidate who is running against a Republican, he or she would be expelled from the party.

Here is the exchange.

Good morning, Mr. Anderson.

I think you may have misunderstood my message to you on Facebook.  This fall, the city of Harrisonburg is holding elections for city council.  As such, the Harrisonburg Republican committee has nominated Dr. Kathleen Kelly as their candidate.  However, there is also an independent candidate running for re-election to the council.  Quite a few local Republicans are openly supporting the independent and, according to VPAP, have donated to his campaign.  My understanding of the RPV Party Plan is that such an action would expel this person from the Republican Party.  As section A, paragraph 2 states “A voter who, subsequent to making a statement of intent, publicly supports a candidate in opposition to a Republican nominee shall not be qualified for participation in party actions as defined in Article I for a period of four (4) years.” Is that not the case?

As such, I am curious about what actions the RPV will take about this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Here is the chairman’s reply:

Thanks for emailing, and your interpretation of the RPV State Party Plan is correct.

This involves members of a local Republican committee, so I think that this is the purview of the local party. I’m copying our RPV General Counsel for his comments.

Many thanks, Joshua.

     Rich

RICHARD L. ANDERSON

Chair, Republican Party of Virginia

Member, Virginia General Assembly (2010-2018)

Colonel, United States Air Force (1979-2009)

In addition, here is what the RPV General Counsel Chris Marston added:

Two provisions of the plan are implicated. For anyone who is currently a member of the Harrisonburg City Committee, they are subject to immediate removal if a majority of the elected officers of the committee find that they have supported a candidate in opposition to a Republican nominee. That’s in Art. VII.

The provisions in Art. I relate to subsequent nominating events. If any of the folks supporting the independent participated in the nominating process that made Kathleen Kelly the nominee AND as part of that process were required to sign a statement of intent, those folks can be prohibited from participating in future Republican nominating events. There’s not a central list of folks subject to that prohibition maintained by RPV. It’s up to the unit committee when administering subsequent nominating processes to enforce that prohibition.

Hope that helps.

Thanks
Chris

Given the information which is publicly available, this matter seems rather straightforward, doesn’t it? Senator Obenshain and Delegate Wilt, through their donations during the Summer of 2020, supported an independent candidate who was running against a Republican. As such, both are no longer members of the Republican Party and thus would be serving as independents in the General Assembly. Clearly, if any rank and file member of the party engaged in this behavior the party would be quick to remove them, right?

For example, this is an issue with which I have had personal experience. In early February of 2014, I received a phone call from the Harrisonburg Republican Party chairman who told me that I had been expelled from the party due to my support of a candidate who ran against a Republican in the 2013 election cycle. He stated that I was to have considered having resigned from my position. I would not have an opportunity to appeal this decision and if I attempted to attend a meeting of the Harrisonburg Republican Party I would be physically barred from doing so. Afterward, I called the Obenshains about this matter and was told “a good Republican” was someone “who supported all the Republican candidates.”

Unfortunately, however straightforward the rules might be, I’ve found during my decades in politics that they are often bent, skirted, or outright violated based upon the position, power, and connections of those involved. In this case, as both Delegate Wilt and Senator Obenshain are members of the Rockingham County Republican Party, you would assume the local unit would follow the RPV Party Plan and be quick to release them from the bonds of the party. However, it seems unlikely that the party will do anything about this matter. I know this because according to VPAP the Rockingham County Republican Party also donated to the independent candidate over the Republican. The local unit could not take action without revealing their own violation of the Plan and expelling both Wilt and Obenshain from their ranks without castigating themselves would be gross hypocrisy.

So, although if the rules were followed fairly and uniformly when the General Assembly starts tomorrow, we would have at least two independents in the chamber, instead it is almost certain that the political party will sweep this matter under the rug and take no action as these kinds of prohibitions only apply to the little people.

Towards Presidential Dictatorship

Whether your preferred candidate for president ultimately wins the 2020 election or not, the power of the president has grown with each new administration. The president wields considerable powers that are far beyond the limits set forth in the Constitution and unfortunately, most politicians and political activists seem to be okay with this situation so long as their party controls the White House.

Here’s a video that a graduate student at West Virginia University sent me which explains this increasing problem.

Vote No on Amendment 1!

So much of the attention surrounding the 2020 election revolves around the race for president. However, here in Virginia we have a multitude of other contests such as U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, city councils, school boards, and the like. In addition, there will be two amendments to the Virginia Constitution on the ballot.

The first amendment deals with the issue of redistricting. Presently, the General Assembly draws the lines for the legislative districts in the state. The House of Delegates draw the maps for the 100 House of Delegate seats and the Virginia Senate does likewise for their 40 member body. However, given the rules, whichever political party holds a majority of the seats in that chamber more or less has a blank check to draw the lines as they see fit. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that as part of my graduate research at WVU, I found a statistically significant increase in the number of Republican seats gained after the last two redistricting sessions in the House of Delegates as compared to other elections where there was no redistricting. Who controlled the House of Delegates during the last two redistricting sessions? The Republicans. Now if the tables were turned, I’m relatively certain that the Democrats would have done the same. After all, that is the Virginia way. Nevertheless, it doesn’t sound particularly fair, does it? Legislators choosing their voters as compared to the other way around.

In order to learn more about Amendment 1, I reached out to several pro-Amendment 1 people (FairMapsVA, the League of Women Voters, and Delegate Sam Rasoul D-Roanoke) and several anti-Amendment 1 people (Vote No on #1 and Delegate Mark Levine D-Alexandria) to hear their arguments. I’m still waiting to hear back from Del. Rasoul.

Supporters of Amendment 1 claim that if the people pass the legislation in November then Virginia will no longer suffer from partisan gerrymandering. The process will be fairer and some add that it will be free from the control of political parties. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But are these statements true?

To answer that question, it is important to read Amendment 1 rather than let me or anyone else tell you what it says. You can find the text on the Department of Elections website but I will also post it here.

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission, consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth, that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor’s involvement and to give the responsibility of drawing districts to the Supreme Court of Virginia if the redistricting commission fails to draw districts or the General Assembly fails to enact districts by certain deadlines?

It doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Including citizens into the process ought to make the process more fair, shouldn’t it? But there are many unanswered questions here. Who are the legislators involved? How are the citizens selected for the commission? Do they need a simple majority of the commission in order to approve the districts? Fortunately, the Department of Elections includes all of these answers if we simply read further.

The eight legislative commissioners are appointed by the political party leadership in the state Senate and the House of Delegates, with an equal number from each house and from each major political party. The eight citizen commissioners are picked by a committee of five retired circuit court judges. Four of the retired judges are selected by party leaders in the Senate and the House from a list compiled by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia. These four judges pick the fifth judge from the same list. This selection committee then chooses citizen commissioners from lists created by party leaders in the Senate and the House.

For starters, we see that according to the amendment, the commission, by law can only include Republicans and Democrats. There will be no independents or third-party legislators or citizens. As for their selection, we see that party leaders get to create the list of citizens who are eligible to serve. That doesn’t sound very good, does it? Rather than a fair, nonpartisan commission, they create a body with the political parties’ fingers all over the selection process. Given what you know about politics, do you think the parties will select good, honest citizens who are fair-minded or instead select party loyalists who are more than happy to advance their party’s wellbeing at the expense of their fellow Virginians? I know which one I think would be far more likely.

Moving on, we find

For a plan to be submitted for the General Assembly’s approval, at least six of the eight citizen commissioners and at least six of the eight legislative commissioners must agree to it. Additionally, for plans for General Assembly districts to be submitted, at least three of the four Senators on the commission have to agree to the Senate districts plan and at least three of the four Delegates on the commission have to agree to the House of Delegates districts plan.

Given that four of the eight citizens are Republicans and the rest are Democrats and four of the eight legislators are Republicans and the remainder are Democrats, it seems highly likely that compromise maps would not occur as each side jockeys for an advantage, carving the largest number of favorable districts for his or her political party. In addition, if one political party thinks that they may get a better deal through the Supreme Court drawn maps, members of one political party could intentionally scuttle negotiations in order to shift full responsibility to an unelected and unaccountable branch of the government.

I have found that Republicans generally favor Amendment 1 while Democrats are opposed to it. This makes sense from a political perspective. After having a free hand to gerrymander Virginia for the last two cycles (except for one instance with the Virginia Senate lines), Republicans are now in the minority. If this amendment doesn’t pass then Republicans will have no say in redistricting. By contrast, now that Democrats hold the majority in the entire General Assembly for the first time since the 1990s they would be eager to draw lines that will help ensure their party’s dominance for the next election cycle.

Make no mistake. The redistricting system we have currently in Virginia is bad. The maps are gerrymandered by legislators in the majority party in order to favor the majority party. But, unfortunately Amendment 1 doesn’t really address or fix any of these problems.

Does Amendment 1 establish a nonpartisan commission to draw the boundary lines? No

Does Amendment 1 prevent legislators from choosing their voters? No

Does Amendment 1 put redistricting in the hands of the people, not the politicians? Given that the politicians get to choose which people are involved, definitely not.

Does Amendment 1 include independent or third party voices in the commission? No

Does Amendment 1 make it easy for one of the two major political parties to stonewall the commission and force judicially-drawn maps? Yes

Is there any language whatsoever in Amendment 1 that forbids gerrymandering, that prevents the commission from carving up Virginia like a Christmas ham, doling out as many safe districts as possible to each of the two major political parties? I can’t find it, can you?

Don’t get me wrong. Virginia needs redistricting reform. And although Amendment 1 might sound nice at first glance, it does not address or correct the major flaws with our current system. The players may have changed but the rotten gerrymandering system remains. Sure, it would be great to have citizens involved, but when you realize that these citizens will be chosen based upon their loyalty to a political party and that legislators and political parties will still have their fingers in the pie, Amendment 1 looks like a bait and switch to confuse Virginia’s voters and trick them into supporting a system which doesn’t actually do what its supporters claim it does.

After examining the arguments both in favor and opposition, for the reasons I list above I strongly encourage you to vote no on Amendment 1. We need to do better. Fortunately, there are better ideas and options out there. One such example is HJ143. Go give it a look and tell me it isn’t better than Amendment 1.

The Schmookler & Huffman Show (Episode LXXXVI)

With less than a month to go before the 2020 Presidential Election, Andy Schmookler and I discuss our predictions for the November contest. We both predict that Biden is favored in the presidential race, easily winning Virginia, but that doesn’t mean that his victory is a sure thing. Although I would have liked to spend more time on the subject, I also spoke about Amendment 1 to the Virginia Constitution and why, if you support free and fair redistricting, you ought to vote no.

If you missed the show live, you can catch it here.