2012 Virginia General Assembly Outlook -- Immigration Policy Issues

Virginia General Assembly

2012 Pre-Session Report

by Claire Guthrie Gastañaga

October 31, 2011

Virginia has a long history of passing legislation to identify and seek removal of unauthorized immigrants, beginning with a law enacted during the eugenics movement that required Virginian's mental health institutions to check immigration status on admission and report to the federal authorities anyone not in the country legally.  Beginning in 2003 and reaching a crescendo in 2008, legislation has been introduced in every session of the General Assembly that directly or indirectly affects Virginia's immigrant communities and those who serve. 

The number and scope of bills has varied depending on political and environmental factors.  The peak year to date, 2008 when over 130 bills were introduced, was driven by hotly contested legislative elections in certain legislative districts in which Democrats and Republicans, alike, made immigration related issues a key part of their campaign platforms and voter communication.  The 2011 election cycle has seen some of the same rhetoric we saw in the 2007 election cycle, and the tone reflects increasing national attention on enforcement only approaches to immigration reform and passage of draconian, wide-reaching legislation in Arizona, Alabama and Georgia.

Over the years, Virginia has enacted nearly 50 laws with direct effects on immigrants and aliens. While positive legislation has passed that deals with human trafficking and wage theft, most of the laws now on the books in Virginia are restrictions on the rights or benefits of "aliens" or immigrants, including the rights and benefits of persons lawfully present in the United States.

Here's a summary of key laws in effect in Virginia and the outlook for legislative action in the 2012 General Assembly Session:

I. Law Enforcement

There have been a series of bills enacted to increase the ability of law enforcement to identify and move toward deportation "criminal aliens" -- documented and undocumented immigrants charged with and/or convicted of criminal violations of Virginia law.  Prior to 2008, Virginia law required immigration status checks after conviction of a crime upon entry into a jail or prison and again as a condition of probation or parole.  Since 2008, Virginia law also requires that immigration inquiries be made of every person taken into custody on a criminal charge. In addition, Virginia is a statewide participant in the Secure Communities program that forwards fingerprints of those arrested to federal authorities for an immigration status check. Another law passed in 2008 establishes a presumption against bail for persons in the country without authority who are accused of committing certain serious criminal offenses.

Passage of legislation increasing the focus on determining the status of individuals taken into custody by police is seen as likely to deter people from coming forward to report crimes or to seek services if they are victims of crime. Legislation intended to mitigate this adverse effect by protecting victims and witnesses to crime has passed the Virginia Senate three times unanimously, but has been rejected in a committee of the House of Delegates. This legislation would have established a statewide policy against routine inquiries into the immigration status of individuals who are victims or witnesses to crime and are cooperating with authorities.

Outlook for 2012 General Assembly Session:

Legislation defeated in the past but likely to be introduced again:

1) bills that give line officers increased authority to take people into custody on minor offenses, including driving without a license;

2) legislation to require or permit immigration status checks whenever someone is stopped lawfully by the police (not enjoined by the Alabama Court); and

3) legislation to provide additional 287g authority at the state and local level.

New legislation likely to be copied from other states:

1) legislation to require that persons caught driving without a license be taken into custody if the police officer cannot confirm, have their status checked by a magistrate and, if found to be in the country without authority, be detained until trial or turned over to federal authorities (not enjoined by the Alabama Court); and

2) legislation to make it a state crime not to carry immigration documents (not enjoined by the Alabama Court).

II. Business and Employment

Demands continue to increase that the General Assembly impose sanctions on employers who hire persons in this country without the legal authorization to work.   To date, Virginia has enacted the following laws that affect Virginia employers and contractors:

1) a longstanding law making it a misdemeanor to hire an unauthorized worker (in effect since1977 but likely unconstitutional);

2) a  requirement that every state and local contractor sign an agreement to abide by federal  immigration laws;

3) authority for the State Corporation Commission to revoke the right of any employer to do business in Virginia if convicted of federal immigration law violations;

4) a requirement that state agencies use e-Verify to check new workers; and

5) a requirement that state contractors with more than 50 employees seeking contracts in excess of $50,000 use e-Verify to check new workers.

Outlook for 2012 General Assembly Session:

The following bills defeated in past sessions are likely to be reintroduced this year:

1) legislation to require all employers, all state and local contractors, and all state license holders (like doctors and lawyers) regardless of size of business to use e-Verify;

2) legislation to authorize private lawsuits or lawsuits by the Attorney General against employers who are alleged to have hired undocumented workers (currently enjoined from going into effect in Alabama);

3) legislation to limit the use of foreign languages in the workplace;

4) legislation to require proof of legal presence to get a business or professional license; and

5) anti-harboring legislation that makes it a state crime to transport or conceal a person who is in the country without authority (currently enjoined from going into effect in Alabama).

New proposals likely to be copied from other states:

1) A bill to establish a state crime applicable to immigrants soliciting work or working without legal authority (an anti-day laborer bill) (currently enjoined from going into effect in Alabama);

2) legislation to prohibit tax deductions for wages paid to an unauthorized immigrant (currently enjoined from going into effect in Alabama);

3) legislation to ban enforcement in court of any contract made with an unauthorized immigrant (with limited exceptions for medical care, food) (not enjoined by the Alabama Court); and

4) legislation to make it a crime to enter into a business transaction with an unauthorized immigrant (not enjoined by the Alabama Court).

III. Social and Medical Services

Virginia passed a law in 2005 requiring proof of legal presence for state welfare and medical benefits.  Other legislation to limit access to services by undocumented immigrants has been unsuccessful, but remains a perennial topic of legislators.

For the first time in the 2011 legislative session, there was interest on the part of some legislators, immigrant advocates and health care providers in closing the loophole that disqualifies legal immigrants for Medicaid until after 5 years of residence.   Preliminary studies show that investing in preventive care, particularly for pregnant women, can reduce long term costs imposed on the health care system.

Outlook for the 2012 General Assembly Session

Bills considered in past sessions and likely to be reintroduced this year include:

1) legislation to require all recipients of state and local funds to insure no services paid for with such funds were made available to anyone not lawfully present;

2) legislation to restrict the ability of state and local agencies to offer services or print materials in languages other than English, potentially driving up the cost for service providers that are recipients of federal assistance required to provide language access;

3) anti-harboring legislation that would impact the ability of charities to offer food, shelter or transportation to anyone in the country without authority (currently enjoined from going into effect in Alabama);

4) "anti-sanctuary" laws that authorize individual state and local employees to report alleged immigration law violations and prohibit interference in such private action by state or local officials; and

5) positive legislation to expand eligibility for Medicaid benefits for some legally present immigrants.

IV. Education

Virginia has long had in place strict domicile requirements that make it impossible for undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition at Virginia colleges.  All of the four year institutions currently have policies against admitting students who are undocumented, even as out of state students.

Efforts to pass legislation prohibiting admission to public post-secondary education and to codify prohibitions on in-state tuition have been introduced year after year and defeated.

Similarly, legislation to require local school divisions to count students who are foreign born and to require proof of legal presence has been defeated.

A state level "Dream Act" passed the Senate with bi-partisan support but died in the House.  This legislation would have offered tax-paying undocumented Virginia residents who graduate from Virginia schools the chance to be eligible for in-state tuition if they are in the process of adjusting their status.  It would not have overridden policies at the state institutions against admission of such students, however. 

There has been enhanced recognition that there is a need for increased state support for programs to help immigrants along the path to citizenship and full civic engagement, and for additional resources to help local school divisions address limited English proficiency both among school age children and adults.  Ongoing budget shortfalls have crushed hopes for passage or funding of such initiatives but there is continued interest among legislators from impacted localities across Virginia.

Outlook for the 2012 General Assembly Session:

Legislation introduced and defeated in the past likely to be reintroduced includes:

1) legislation to ban attendance at Virginia public colleges by undocumented students;

2) legislation to prohibit undocumented students from qualifying for in-state tuition;  

3) legislation to require local school divisions to ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of all students and to make reports to state authorities regarding the number of undocumented students, the number of foreign born students and the number of students needing English as a second language courses (not enjoined by the court in Alabama); and

4) possibly, the state level "Dream Act," although the negative focus during the 2011 elections on the votes of legislators who previously supported the state level "Dream Act" make it highly improbable such a bill would pass the Senate in the 2012 Session.  There continues to be no chance it would get out of committee in the House of Delegates, even if it were to pass the Senate.

V. Housing

In past legislative session, lawmakers, particularly those from Northern Virginia, have focused significant legislative efforts on measures to "crack down on" those who violate overcrowding ordinances, including giving enhanced enforcement tools to zoning administrators, increasing fines for violators and enacting new limits on the number of unrelated persons who may live in a single family home.

Little thought has been given to the precedent set in each of these areas, the probability of disparate enforcement or the likely long term adverse effect on the availability of affordable housing of such measures. As the availability of affordable housing continues to atrophy, there are quality of life implications that have not been carefully considered in the emotionally charged atmosphere that continues to permeate this discussion.

Outlook for the 2012 General Assembly Session

Legislation copied from other states likely to be introduced this session:

1) restrictions on contracting by or with undocumented persons that would make unenforceable contracts for sale or lease of real estate (not enjoined by Alabama court); and

2) legal presence requirements for real estate sales or leases.

Was Columbus Really a Jewish Nobleman?

Columbus Day and the Jewish high holy days are just behind us.  Got me thinking about a note I posted to Facebook last year, and I decided it was worth republishing in my blog this year. 


Here it is:


I just finished reading a Da Vinci Code type book about Columbus, Codex 632, by Jose Rodriques Dos Santos, translated from Portuguese. While not a great book and a sometimes tedious read, the book, reviewed in the Post here, posits the theory that Columbus was a Portuguese nobleman with Jewish heritage who was forced to hide his real identity.

But there were some historic facts to learn along the way. Among other things, the book taught me something that I didn't know before ... that Columbus' voyage to America was launched at the same time Jews were expelled from the Iberian peninsula by the Spanish monarchs. His diary of the voyage to discover American begins: "In the same month in which their Majesties [Ferdinand and Isabella] issued the edict that all Jews should be driven out of the kingdom and its territories, in the same month they gave me the order to undertake with sufficient men my expedition of discovery to the Indies."

The Spanish expulsion order of 1492, forced 200,000 Jews to leave the Iberian peninsula or convert (or pretend to convert) to Christianity (hence the term New Christians used to descibe some Jews remaining in Portugal in the 15th century).

Once again it becomes clear that religious intolerance and persecution is not a sometime thing. Nor is it a fault of one religion. So, even bad fiction can open your eyes to new learning that provides additional perspective from which to view current events.

Steve Jobs: How to live before you die | Video on TED.com

Steve Jobs commencement speech at Stanford. Worth watching. A man of keen insight, vision and a strong, integrated sense of self.
Steve Jobs: How to live before you die Video on TED.com

Mandatory E- Verify: A tale of strange bedfellows?

So, there was a markup on the new federal  E-Verify mandate bill in Congress this week. Most national employer groups have now decided to throw in the towel and lobby for a single national E-Verify mandate with substitution of the electronic system for the paper I-9 system and preemption of state/local mandates. 

In an interesting turn of events, however, tea partiers and their allies have warned Republicans not to push the bill, though.

According to the report from the American Independent ("state politics in context"), their arguments seem so far "right" that they are "left":

The letter, which identifies its signatories as “pro-freedom, limited government, and Constitutional government organizations,” lists five reasons for opposing E-Verify:

We are alarmed that E-Verify poses a threat to both the Constitution and every law-abiding citizen of this country because it:

1. Creates a de facto national I.D. System – even for citizens;

2. Violates individual civil liberties such as the right to work and free speech;

3. Mandates a costly job-killing regulatory burden that cripples small business

4. Requires employers to become enforcement agents of the federal government;

5. Encourages identify theft of law-abiding citizens

While the letter reflects fears of an overreaching federal government typical of modern conservative ideology, many of the points raised in the letter are echoed by liberal Democrats and immigrant rights activists who have consistently opposed mandatory implementation of E-Verify.

For more on how "liberals" see the E-Verify issue, see the Immigration Policy Institute's assessment of the impact of mandatory E-Verify on Virginia' s economy.

Thinking About the Budget -- Some Voters See Fairness Where Others ... Not So Much

The new Quinnipiac University poll is out today. The results getting the most attention concern voter support for the proposed rules the Board of Health will vote on tomorrow that will require doctors and clinics providing abortion services to have facilities comparable to hospitals.

But unreferenced in the press release and not highlighted in the press conference on the poll held today are some interesting disparities that the poll reveals regarding the way women and black voters see the state budget. These disparities were also evident and uncommented upon in the first Quinnipiac poll done in Virginia in June.

Both the June poll (question 19) and the one released today (question 23) asked registered voters whether they "think that the state budget is fair or unfair to people like you." The overall trend among all voters surveyed is toward "fair" with the twelve point increase in voters who see it as fair coming largely from voters who said in June they didn't know or didn't have an answer. There are, however, striking disparities between women and men and black and white voters surveyed.

In the poll released today, only 43% of women said they think the budget is fair to them (vs. 67% of men), a 24 point disparity, and only 35% of black voters (vs. 60% of white voters), a 25 point disparity, think the budget is fair to them. While slightly more women voters now think the budget is fair to them than did so in June (43% of women vs. 36% of women in June), a smaller percentage of black voters do (35% of black voters vs. 38% in June). And, a higher percentage of black voters now thinks that the budget is unfair to them 57% vs 40% in June, with the increase in those thinking it is unfair coming from those who said in June they didn't know if it was fair or unfair to them.

Both the June poll (question 20) and the one released today (question 24) also asked "what do you think about the cuts in state spending in the budget? Do you think the cuts in state spending go too far, not far enough or are they about right?" Again, the overall trend is toward "about right" with 40% of those surveyed responding "about right" in September and only 29% giving that answer in June.

Nonetheless, black voters views have remained virtually unchanged with 42% saying "too far" in September vs. 41% in June, 18% saying "not far enough" vs. 19%, and 29% saying "about right" vs. 27%. What has changed, however, is the disparity between their views and those of white voters. The percentage of black voters responding that the cuts have gone "too far" is now 21 points higher than white voters, up from 16 points in June ( 42% of black voters responded that the cuts had gone "too far" in September vs. 21% of white voters).

  Similarly, there is an increasing disparity in the percentage of women vs. men who think that the cuts have gone "too far." 30% of women vs. 20% of men responded that way in September and 33% of women vs. 25% of men responded that way in June. And, although the percentage of women who think that the cuts are "about right" has risen, the disparity between women and men who think that the cuts are "about right:" has risen from 9 points in June to 12 points in the poll released today.

So, the question is what accounts for these disparities in the way people think about the state budget? The simplest answer may be what you see depends on where you stand.

Perhaps it is the case that women and African Americans in Virginia are more likely to experience the real impact when the strands of the safety net are being cut out from under them, so they may "feel" the cuts more directly. I don't know, but I do think it is important to ask the question and seek to discover the answer.

A Decade in the Wlderness-Senate Redistricting Outcomes

Incumbent-centered, partisan redistricting has all but guaranteed that Virginia progressives will be lost in the legislative wilderness for the next decade or more even as the majority of the Virginia voting public becomes more centrist, or even left of center.

The reality is that, as the Virginia Senate moved to a fragile Democratic majority, progressives actually lost ground on progressive issues, in part because the partisan ground gained by Democrats was at the expense of moderate Republicans. The erosion of moderation on one side of the aisle and the fragility of the majority on the other deprived progressives of the ability to build a bi-partisan issue majority in the Senate on which to move an issue into the much more conservative and more partisan House. Positive legislation progressives were able to get through the Senate on party-line votes was dead on arrival in the House.

With the Democratic majority, progressives were able to hold the line on some issues (notably immigration) by wielding the partisan power of the majority in committee. At the same time, however, the line broke on others because a partisan majority isn’t necessarily an issue majority (e.g., on choice issues) or because fears about the loss of the majority or desires to gain the majority allowed fractional interests to control. Thus, progressives entered redistricting with the best hope for the future being a plan that allowed more contested elections to take place, i.e., a plan that devalued incumbency and set aside party for purpose. That hope was not to be realized.

Now, the outlook for a continued Democratic majority in the Virginia Senate is increasingly bleak, and that outcome, even if it could be achieved, will come at the expense of the further erosion of the possibility of gaining an issue majority on progressive issues. Republican centrists are increasingly rare, having previously been ousted in primaries (like Senator Marty Williams), redistricted out of their seats (like Senator Fred Quayle) or scared “right” by threatened nomination challenges. In the future, so-called “safe,” partisan-drawn districts will elect candidates at the extremes of both parties, and the few swing districts likely will elect candidates focused first on preserving their ability to get re-elected. This is a prescription for a fractious and fragile majority whichever party achieves it.

Looking at the Virginia Senate races, the Republican path to a more conservative majority in the Senate than previously held sway is relatively clear. The path to a continued Democratic majority of any description less so. So far the contested elections in the Senate are all in districts currently held by Democratic Senators except one.

As of now, thirteen (13) Republican incumbents are running without opposition or with only primary opposition within the party: Blevins, Hanger, Martin, McDougle, McWaters, Newman, Norment, Obenshain, Ruff, Stosch, Stuart, Vogel, and Wagner.

Republicans also currently are running without announced opposition in two redrawn open Senate seats (the 13th and the 19th) that lean Republican. Dick Black, John Stirrup and Bob Fitzsimmons are contesting for the nomination to run in the 13th. Incumbent Senator Ralph Smith is moving from the 22nd district to the 19th, where he is currently the only announced candidate. And, to date, Delegate Charles Carrico is the only announced candidate in the Republican leaning 40th Senate District to replace retiring Senator William Wampler.

The number of incumbent Democratic Senators currently running without Republican opposition is eight (8) : Colgan, Deeds, Locke, Lucas, Marsh, McEachin, Miller, Y.B., and Saslaw.

Incumbent Democratic Senators facing announced Republican challengers number twelve (12): Barker, Edwards, Herring, Houck, Howell, Marsden, Miller, J, Northam, Peterson, Puckett, Puller, and Reynolds. Of these twelve, nine (9) (Marsden, Miller, J, Northam, Houck, Reynolds, Herring, Peterson, Puckett, and Barker) are running in districts where more than 50% of the voters supported Governor McDonnell in 2009.

Democrats running in hotly contested primaries to replace Senator Patsy Ticer in the 30th and Senator Mary Margaret Whipple in the 31st will also face announced Republican opposition in the general election. The competition in the 31st will be driven by a self-funding candidate, increasing the expense of defending what should be a relatively safe Democratic seat.

There will be a contested election in the new Republican leaning 22nd Senate District, where Bert Dodson (D Lynchburg) has announced he will run against the winner of what is now a five way Republican primary.

Putting the map together, then, Republicans are currently on their way to electing 16 Senators without opposition compared to 8 Democratic Senators. In addition, the Republican candidate also must be considered the favorite in the new 22nd Senate District which voted almost 64% for Governor McDonnell. That means Republicans need to pick up just four seats in contested elections to take the majority from the Democrats. Of the nine Democratic incumbents running in districts that voted for Governor McDonnell, the most vulnerable incumbent Senators appear to be Senators Reynolds (who will be facing incumbent Senator Stanley), Puckett, John Miller, Houck and Herring.

Added to the dismal district demographics and current political trends is the money advantage Republicans already have, which will only be magnified by their ability to redirect funds from uncontested contests to the contested races.

The sum then is a scenario in which, without more announced competitive candidates (either Democrats or independents) surfacing before August 23rd to challenge incumbent Republican Senators and vie for the currently uncontested open seats, the possibility for a return to a Republican majority in the Senate becomes increasingly likely as we move from summer into fall.

The really sad news for progressives is that any new Republican majority will be decidely more conservative than the previous Republican majority, and a Democratic majority is likely to be preserved, if at all, by a continued shift to the right by threatened downstate and outer ring suburb Senators. Either way, the composition of the Senate in the 2012 General Assembly Session (and for the next decade because of way districts were drawn) will make the possibility of cobbling together a bi-partisan issue majority for any positive forward movement on issues like health care, immigration, civil rights, and eliminating poverty remote. The shift to the right will also challenge efforts to hold back hallmark legislation on the agendas of the Virginia Tea Party and the Family Foundation.

UPDATE: June 20, 2011
Good news: It appears that there will be a Democratic candidate in the 13th Senate District, Shawn Mitchell. It remains to be seen how competitive he will be or how progressive.

Bad news: The number of incumbent Senate Democrats running without opposition drops to seven. Robert Sarvis is challenging Majority Leader Dick Saslaw. It remains to be seen how competitive he will be, but just his presence in the race will keep some of the $$ Saslaw can raise from aiding others with contested races.

George Allen and Women .... Flashback to 1995 and 2000

2011 Update:
So, the issue of Allen and women continues to be a viable concern. Webb's own record (i.e., "Women Can't Fight") kept him from making this as much of an issue in 2006 as it could have been.
It's not like he's changed any since I first wrote about Allen and women in 1995. In 2004, he added votes against extending Family Medical Leave to victims of domestic violence, and against legislation to allow victims of sexual violence in the workplace to sue rather than be limited to recovery under worker's comp.
I suppose that there's some sort of "rewrite history" tour he can do with women like he's doing with folks in the Jewish community, but my guess is he's kinda proud of his record here.
Question is ... will his opponents, and women voters, give him a free ride on his hostility to women again in 2012.

2006 Update:
I've posted up below a commentary on George Allen that I wrote in 1995 and updated in 2000. There might be more to say now... but my complete absorption in the multi-partisan campaign against the Marshall/Newman amendment means that I'll be leaving that to others.
Suffice it to say that when one starts looking for the woman-friendly candidate in the Virginia Senate race, Norm's wife may have a lot of company.

George Allen's Message to Virginia Women
copyright 1995 and 2000
by Claire Guthrie Gastañaga

George Allen's record, as a candidate and as an elected official, demonstrates a lack of understanding of or commitment to many issues that matter to women in Virginia: family leave, protection for work-related injuries, nondiscrimination and equitable treatment, prevention of unnecessary injuries and deaths from guns and other dangerous activities, consumer protection and reproductive choice. In each case, Allen’s record clearly demonstrates that his views are outside the mainstream and contrary to those of most Virginia women.
George Allen has failed to support working women and their families. As a member of Congress, George Allen voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act. Family and medical leave, alternative work schedules, and employer provided day care improve productivity, reduce turnover and absenteeism, and enhance morale -- all factors that can produce reduced costs and enhanced profits for business. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, George Allen voted against legislation allowing a woman, who was sexually assaulted in the workplace and could identify the attacker, to sue the attacker for damages instead of being limited to benefits under workers' compensation laws (1988).
As Governor, George Allen vetoed a bill that would have defined carpal tunnel syndrome as a disease for purposes of eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. Carpal tunnel syndrome is caused by repetitive motion and affects workers in meat and poultry processing, the textile industry, retail check out positions and certain clerical positions. Most of the affected workers are women in part because women are more susceptible to this work-related condition than men and in part because more women work in the affected jobs.
In his veto message, Allen rationalized his action by stating erroneously that "this legislation would substantially increase the costs of workers' compensation coverage to the businessmen and businesswomen of Virginia.” What Allen’s argument concealed, however, was that Virginia has consistently ranked nearly last of all fifty states in the cost of workers' compensation premiums. After Allen left office, the legislature passed a bill covering carpal tunnel syndrome and the workers’ compensation premiums went down the year the legislation passed.
George Allen has consistently opposed legislation designed to prevent discrimination and assure equitable treatment for all Virginians. As a Virginia Delegate, George Allen voted against a Martin Luther King holiday; against the Human Rights Study Commission and the Human Rights Act; against amendments to the Fair Housing Law to prohibit discrimination based on elderliness, parenthood, or disability and against removing restrictive covenants that discriminate against disabled citizens. He even voted against changing the name of Virginia's workers' compensation law from "workmen's compensation" to "workers' compensation." While running for Congress, George Allen said he was inclined to vote against the Republican 1991 Civil Rights Act (which President George Bush supported and signed into law) because he considered it a racial quota bill.
While Governor, George Allen rewrote compromise civil rights legislation authorizing the courts to award up to 12 months salary as back pay and limited attorneys fees to an individual discharged because of race, color, religion, national origin or sex or age (if the employee is 40 years or older). As rewritten by Allen, the bill would have left all employees working in businesses with fewer than 15 employees without any protection from discriminatory discharge. The House of Delegates refused to accept Allen’s amendments and sent it back to him without his changes.
George Allen also rewrote legislation proposed to establish the Virginia Plan for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education Commission. Allen’s amendments would have added strictly limited any consideration of race or ethnicity in decisions relating to admissions, faculty appointments or employment at Virginia colleges and universities and asserted strong gubernatorial authority over the work of the Commission and over the state's universities. No affirmative action programs could be implemented, even for explicit remedial purposes, by colleges and universities under Allen’s language without the Governor’s authority and the Attorney General's approval. The bill with Allen’s proposed amendments was sent back to committee where it died.
George Allen routinely voted against safety and injury prevention measures as a Virginia Delegate. Delegate Allen voted against raising the drinking age to 21 because he said it would hurt the profits of bar owners in Charlottesville (1983, 1984). He voted against requiring hunters to wear blaze orange in 1987 and against requiring passengers in cars to wear seat belts in 1985, 1986 and 1987. He opposed the Motorcycle Rider Safety Act (1984) and a bill to educate servers of alcohol in bars and restaurants on how to recognize and cut off drinkers who have had enough to drink (1989). As Governor, George Allen twice vetoed legislation prohibiting the transportation of children under 16 in the back of pickup trucks. Each of the measures Allen opposed is now the law in Virginia.
George Allen has consistently opposed even the most limited and reasonable gun safety measures. As Governor, he tried unsuccessfully to amend Virginia’s concealed weapons law to take out a provision that prohibits a person carrying a concealed weapon from entering events and establishments where alcohol is being served, and to change the law to require two (instead of one) convictions for drunk driving before a person could be deemed ineligible for a concealed weapon permit. As a Delegate, Allen also tried to amend a bill to make it a crime to leave a loaded gun around children so that no one could be prosecuted unless someone was injured (1991).
George Allen is no friend of the Virginia consumer. As a Virginia Delegate, Allen voted against the Health Spa Act that gave consumers (mostly women) the right to cancel their contracts and provided remedies for fraud (1984). As a member of Congress, he voted against the conference report to cap basic cable rates and improve competition.
As Governor, George Allen amended and vetoed legislation that would have strengthened Virginia consumer laws. Allen recommended amendments to weaken proposed penalties for willful violations of the Commonwealth's consumer protection laws. When the legislature rejected his amendments he vetoed the legislation.
In his veto explanation, Allen said that the new tougher penalty could be misused by individuals who do not speak English to hurt "mom and pop" retailers. Allen's stated concern had no basis in law or fact. Allen's veto has only served to disadvantage untold numbers of consumers who are the intentional victims of financially rewarding, deceptive practices by truly "fly by night" businesses. Among other things his action provides a safe haven for those who intentionally prey on elderly consumers. Moreover, his veto took away a powerful deterrent to shady business practices that damage other legitimate businesses who take seriously their responsibility to comply with the law.

As a candidate and as Governor, Allen has said consistently that he wants to burden women's choices regarding reproductive health. He has consistently supported waiting periods for adult women seeking abortions and intrusive, government-dictated informed consent requirements applicable only to women patients seeking abortions. He also vetoed legislation that would have imposed more stringent penalties on persons who harass and obstruct patients seeking health care. Allen's veto message equated access to health care with access to a grocery store.

It is important for all Virginia women and their families to ask questions of both candidates that relate to current history and not past history ... has George Allen earned our votes with a solid record of accomplishment as a Senator on issues that matter? Is Jim Webb committed to action that will move us forward on education, health care, equal pay? Is either candidate's claimed progression from prior juvenile (and sexist? racist?) acts/commentary credible?
Clearly, there is much at stake in this Senate race, and women should make sure they register and vote on November 7th. We need to make our voices heard by both candidates. We need to get them both talking about current issues that matter to us and our families.

Adoption Discrimination--Roanoke Times Raises Important Questions about Broader Implications of Recent State Action

Interesting that none of the stories about the State Board of Social Services' action on the adoption rules focused on the larger questions raised by the decision to strip out of the nondiscrimination rules, not only protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation but also stripped protections against discrimination based on gender, religion, disability, age, family status and political beliefs.

Shouldn't all of us be talking about the implications of policies of some faith based adoption agencies who said during the public comment period on the rules and in written comments filed with the agency that they refuse (or want to be able to refuse) to place children with families of other faiths?

Is it an act of charity or an act of institutional self-preservation or proselytization for a faith-based adoption agency to require a pledge of faith to use their adoption services?

Is this an act in the best interests of the child they are placing or of the placing agency?

And, since the courts must approve every adoption, isn’t their discriminatory policy actually being effected by the state, rather than by a private party?

The Roanoke Times has begun the debate.

I hope it continues.

ADOPTION DISCRIMINATION
Gays were the focus of debate, but proposed adoption regulations went much further.

Roanoke Times Editorial, April 23, 2011

On Wednesday, the Virginia Board of Social Services, at the urging of Gov. Bob McDonnell, chose not to grant equality to unmarried couples and gay Virginians in the adoption process. Private adoption agencies may continue to discriminate against them. Loving homes will remain largely unavailable for kids in search of a family.

The debate leading up to the decision framed things primarily as a gay rights issue, but there was much more to it. The proposed regulations also would have made gender, age, religion, political beliefs, disability and family status non-issues in adoption.

The opposition primarily came from religious-based adoption agencies whose faith tells them gays are unfit parents.

Current regulations say only race, color or national origin may not be considered by agencies, no matter their religious teachings. Those rules exist for the simple reason that race should have nothing to do with adoption, even if in some twisted way one claims that religion demands it. A black parent should be able to adopt a white child from any agency; a white parent, an Asian child; and so on.

An adoption agency's faith tradition might also dictate that people of another religion are unfit parents. Maybe Democrats, too, or Republicans. People who vote for pro-choice candidates. People in wheelchairs. All remain viable, albeit distasteful, reasons an adoption agency might cite to reject parents. Yet because those groups' interests were caught up in a broader gay-rights fight, they too will continue to be potential objects of discrimination.

When it comes to finding good families for children, sexual orientation, faith, politics and all the rest have no place in the discussion. The surprising thing was not that the governor chose not to extend equal rights to gay people, but that he did not get behind the rest of the changes.

"Making Sense of Immigration" .. Homework for the 2011 General Assembly Session

The fall 2010 issue of Virginia Issues and Answers: A Public Policy Forum published by Virginia Tech is now on the “newsstands” and online. In the issue are two perspectives on state policy issues related to immigration written by me and Jack Martin, the director of special projects at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Neither Mr. Martin nor I had the opportunity to see each other’s submission before publication, and, now, having read his submission, several points are worth making.

Virginia already has more than 40 laws on the books dealing with immigration related issues, and has led the nation in addressing the issue of unauthorized immigration at the state and local level.

Accordingly, I conclude my article, titled “Making Sense of Immigration: Keeping State and Federal Roles in Balance,” with the following:

Most of the 40 laws now on the books were said to be needed to keep Virginians safe, reduce costs or improve the ability and authority of law enforcement to combat gang activity, drug trafficking, and terrorism. None of these programs has yet been proven to be effective. Some have, however, been shown to affect adversely working people and their families who have committed no crimes. No further legislative action should be taken unless and until the laws now in place have been shown to be inadequate to address any discernable adverse impacts of unauthorized immigration on Virginians. To do otherwise is simply to continue making political points at the expense of human rights and dignity.

After seven years of going over and over the same ground, including election year 2007 in which over 130 pieces of immigrant-related legislation were introduced, I believe those who will ask the 2011 Virginia General Assembly to enact additional laws (and take valuable legislative time to replay failed arguments from the past) have a high standard of proof to meet when it comes to showing why more legislation is needed or will be effective and why its benefits outweigh its costs (both financial and social). Mr. Martin’s piece, entitled “Why Immigration is an Issue for Virginia Lawmakers” doesn’t do that.

Let’s start with the fact that Mr. Martin repeats FAIR’s oft-cited shibboleth about the 9/11 terrorists that seeks to inflame deep-seated fears by conflating terrorism and immigration and tying 9/11 to the “illegal immigration” debate. It is true that seven of the 9/11 terrorists had Virginia driver’s licenses and may have used them as identification to board airplanes. It is also true that, after 9/11, Virginia led the nation by enacting a legal presence requirement in 2003 to bar anyone in the country without authority from getting a Virginia driver’s license or ID. What Mr. Martin doesn’t point out, however, is that every one of the terrorists had entered the country legally and almost all (except possibly three) were still in the country legally. The immigration status of these evil men had nothing to do with their evil purpose nor their access to licenses. They did commit fraud to obtain the licenses; they were in the country legally but not residing in Virginia, as required. However, since Virginia law continues to allow anyone who can show that he or she is in the country legally to get a Virginia driver’s license for the duration of their authorized stay, the reality is that similarly-situated evil-doers would still be able to get Virginia licenses and ID’s today if they were able to establish (truthfully or fraudulently) that they were living in Virginia.

Mr. Martin then goes on to recount FAIR’s disputed “facts” about the “impact of illegal immigration” to bolster his otherwise unsupported argument that “combating illegal immigration is an important and legitimate interest for states.” The impacts of immigration (legal and illegal) are much debated, as testimony before the House of Representatives by Mayor Bloomberg and others shows. For Virginia-specific data, read the report of The Commonwealth Institute on Tax Contributions of Undocumented Immigrants.

Relying on FAIR’s time-worn rhetorical flourishes, Mr. Martin makes no specific recommendations for additional changes he thinks are needed in Virginia law (beyond the 40 laws already on the books), but simply exhorts lawmakers to “do more” to “exercise their authority to discourage illegal immigration.”

Mr. Martin does not say how current Virginia law is inadequate to meet his stated objective of getting “illegal immigrants” to leave Virginia. Data released recently by the Pew Hispanic Center show that the number of unauthorized immigrants in Virginia fell 65% between 2008 and 2009, one of the highest percentage declines in the country during the same period. If Mr. Martin’s real objective is to encourage a reduction of unauthorized migration to Virginia, this data would appear to show that Virginia’s efforts to date are working.

Before we add to the growing fear and distrust among immigrant community members and growing hostility toward new Virginians among our residents, by replaying old “us” vs. “them” arguments, I hope the members of the General Assembly will take a deep breath and ask Mr. Martin and his allies: “what exactly is it that you want us to do, what will it cost for us to do it, and why should we invest our scarce resources doing it at a time when we are seeking to balance our budget and cut taxes?”

Note: Want to know more? A good resource is "Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions" by the Immigration Policy Center.

Current Virginia Laws Applicable to Aliens

Virginia State Laws Applicable to Aliens and Immigrants

Updated: includes laws in effect on July 1, 2011

Drivers’ Licenses

2003 – Mandates proof of legal presence to obtain a Virginia drivers’ license or a state id card, § 46.2-328.1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-328.1 [This law was updated in 2009 to more fully comply with the federal REAL ID law, see SB 1046, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+sum+SB1046]

2010 (HB 513) – Permits police to choose whether to charge a person previously convicted of driving without a license either under a local ordinance or a state statute. If the officer charges under the state statute, he must impound the car of the person cited for second offense driving without a license. Under the local ordinance no impoundment is authorized. The impoundment is for 3 days or until the person can obtain a valid license. Teens and persons whose licenses have been expired for a year or less are exempt from impoundment. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+HB513ER2

Employment and Business

1977 -- Crime for employers to knowingly hire illegal aliens (although there is some question now if it is constitutional because of a federal law passed in 1986) §40.1-111 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+40.1-11.1

1977 – Proof of legal presence required for unemployment compensation benefits, § 60.2-617 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+60.2-617

Pre-1980 – Agricultural employment of workers present on agricultural visas excluded from definition of employment for purposes of unemployment compensation but employers required to count these employees in determining whether the employer is responsible for unemployment taxes for his other farm workers. §60.2-241 of the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+60.2-214

2000 – Workers’ compensation law amended to treat unlawfully employed alien workers the same as unlawfully employed minors except no payments for partial incapacity or vocational rehabilitation authorized. Law overturned Virginia Supreme Court decision holding that unlawfully employed aliens were not “employees” under the workers’ compensation law and were, therefore, free to sue in tort for injuries incurred on the job. §§65.2-101, 65.2-502, 65.2-603. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+CHAP1018

1950 (as amended in 2006 and 2007) -- Crime to extort money from aliens by withholding immigration documents or threatening to report them to ICE, §18.2-59 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59;

2006 – Person who threatens to report someone as unlawfully present in order to extort money or pecuniary benefit is guilty of a class 5 felony, §18.2-59iii of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

2007 – Person who destroys another’s passport or other immigration document in order to extort money or pecuniary benefit is guilty of a class 5 felony, §18.2-59iv of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

2008 – Allows the State Corporation Commission to terminate the corporate existence of a business upon conviction of the corporation of a pattern and practice violation of federal immigration laws. §13.1-753iv of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0588

2008 – Requires all public bodies in Virginia (state and local) to include in written contracts for goods and services a requirement that the contractor agree that it does not and will not during the contract term knowingly employ an “unauthorized alien,” §2.2-4311.1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0702

2009 (HB 2016) – Defines abduction to include circumstances in which someone is intimidated into forced labor or services by having his or her immigration documents withheld or by threats to report their immigration status; authorizes prosecution of two or more such acts as racketeering. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+ful+CHAP0662

2010 (HB 737) – Requires state agencies to begin using E-Verify program for new employees effective December 1, 2012.  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+CHAP0633 Governor issued an executive order requiring all state agencies to begin using E-Verify effective July 1, 2011.

2011 (HB 1859, SB 1049) Provides that any employer with more than an average of 50 employees for the previous 12 months entering into a contract in excess of $50,000 with any agency of the Commonwealth to perform work or provide services pursuant to such contract shall register and participate in the federal E-Verify program to verify information and work authorization of its newly hired employees performing work pursuant to such public contract. Any such employer who fails to comply shall be debarred from contracting with any agency of the Commonwealth for a period up to one year. Such debarment shall cease upon the employer's registration and participation in the E-Verify program.  Effective on December 1, 2013.  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+ful+CHAP0573

Education

1975 – Consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, Virginia law amended to permit disclosure of school records of alien students to federal officers and employees seeking this information in the course of their government duties. §22.1-187 of the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-287

Pre-1994 -- Strict domicile requirements for in-state tuition prohibit illegal aliens from qualifying for in-state tuition at our colleges and universities, §23-7.4 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+23-7.4

2002 – All Virginia colleges required to “inform the Attorney General of the Commonwealth whenever a student who has been accepted for admission to such an educational institution pursuant to a student visa fails to enroll or who has been attending such an educational institution pursuant to a student visa and withdraws at such institution or violates the terms of his visa.” Attorney General required to report names to ICE. §23.2-2 of the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+23-2.2

Health and Social Services

1950 -- Mental health department required to determine the nationality of any person admitted to a state facility and to report to immigration anyone determined to be an alien, §37.2-827 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+37.2-827

2005 -- Proof of legal presence required to obtain state benefits including welfare and Medicaid, §63.2-503.1 and §32.1-325.03 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+63.2-503.1 and http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+32.1-325.03

2011--Department of Social Services required to develop a plan to address delivery of services to victims of human trafficking.  No due date specified. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+ful+CHAP0258

Housing

2007 -- Penalties for residential overcrowding violations increased, §15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2286

2007 – Local zoning administrators in NOVA given unprecedented authority to subpoena birth certificates and other personal documents in order to enforce local housing ordinances, §15.2-2286 4 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2286

2008 – Expands the power to subpoena documents to all zoning administrators statewide, 15.2-2286 4 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0581

2008 – Gives zoning administrators the power to seek an inspection warrant allowing them to search private dwellings for zoning violations, §15.2-2286 15 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0777

Law Enforcement and Corrections

1950 (last amended in 1994) -- Sheriffs and the department of corrections required to identify criminal aliens in Virginia jails and prisons and report them to the Central Criminal Records Exchange, §53.1-218 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+53.1-218

1950 (last amended 1982) Clerks of court required to furnish court records to ICE regarding any alien committed to a correctional facility after conviction, 53.1-219 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+53.1-219

1985 – Provides for transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody or to be held pending deportation, §53.1-220.1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+53.1-220.1

1985 (last amended in 1994) – Probation and parole officers required to ask about citizenship status and report to the State Police anyone who fails to produce evidence of citizenship; State Police required to review arrest reports from law enforcement and reports from probation and parole and report to ICE the identity of all convicted offenders suspected of being illegal aliens, § 19.2-294.2 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-294.2

1993 – Aliens (except lawful permanent residents) prohibited from owning, possessing or transporting assault firearms, §18.2-308.2:1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C01 and dealers prohibited from selling assault firearms to aliens (except lawful permanent residents), §18.2-308.2:2, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C2

1995- Aliens (except those lawfully admitted to permanent residency) prohibited from obtaining concealed weapons permits, §18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

2000 – Gun dealers prohibited from hiring illegal aliens to sell firearms, §18.2-308.2:3 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

2004 – Persons not lawfully present in the United States prohibited from owning, possessing or transporting any firearm, §18.2-308.2:1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C01

2004 - Police officers given authority to arrest without a warrant anyone committing a crime who is an illegal alien previously deported after a felony conviction. § 19.2-81.6 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-81.6

2004 – Compensation Board required to maintain records re: citizenship of inmates and to encourage local jails to participate in the USDOJ State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Appropriations Act of 2004.

2006 – Juvenile justice intake officers required to report to ICE any juvenile charged with a violent juvenile felony being detained in a secure facility who the intake officer has probable cause to believe is not lawfully present, §16.1-309.1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-309.1

2006 -- Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice required to coordinate with the Dept of Corrections requests for compensation from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program for the costs of incarcerating undocumented aliens, § 66.3.2 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+53.1-219

2006 – Person who falsely identifies himself to a law enforcement officer guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, §19.2-82.1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-82.1

2007 – Allows the courts to assess as part of the costs taxed to the defendant the costs of any interpreter appointed for the defendant when the defendant fails to appear for trial and is convicted of a failure to appear and the interpreter appears in the case and no other case on the date the defendant is convicted, §19.2-164 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-164

2008 – Judicial officer may presume, subject to rebuttal, that a person charged with certain criminal offenses should not be entitled to bail if the person is found to be in the United States without authority, §19.2-120.1 of the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0469

2008 – Requires the sheriff or other officer in charge of a jail to inquire into the citizenship and immigration status of every person taken into custody at a jail, §19.2-83.2 of the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0180


2011-- Requires the Department of Criminal Justice Services, in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General, to advise law-enforcement agencies and attorneys for the Commonwealth regarding the identification, investigation, and prosecution of human trafficking offenses using the common law and existing criminal statutes in the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+9.1-102

Voting Rights

2006 – DMV required to send info it gets on noncitizens to State Board of Elections and State Board directed to remove names from election roles, §24.2-404 and §24.2-410.1 of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-404 and http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-410.1

2008 – Requires general registrar of a county, city or town to cancel the voter registrations of any person who does not respond within 14 days to a notice from the registrar that they have been reported by the DMV not to be United States citizens, §24.2-427 B.1 of the Code of Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0382

Miscellaneous

1996 - English is the official language of the Commonwealth, § 1-511 of the Code of Virginia http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+1-511

2007 – Established the Commission on the Prevention of Human Trafficking, §30-287 et seq of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+30-287

2007 Established the Virginia Commission on Immigration, §2.2-2530 et seq of the Code of Virginia, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-2530 (Commission sunsetted in 2009).

2011--Establishes January 11 as Global Human Trafficking Awareness Day in Virginia. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+ful+HJ561ER

McDonnell and Cuccinelli at Odds Over 14th Amendment Protection for GLBT People?

When Governor McDonnell issued his executive directive prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, he said that GLBT people are protected by the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution:

The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution
prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Today, Ray Reed reported in the The Lynchburg News and Advance this exchange between a student attending Boys State and Attorney General Cuccinelli that strongly suggests that the AG and the Governor do not agree on this fundamental legal principle:

"I'm sure you are aware of a letter that was sent to state universities regarding discrimination policies based on sexual orientation," a student said to Cuccinelli. "How is that not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?" the student asked.

"I know about it," Cuccinelli replied. "I signed the letter. It was legal advice we gave to universities that was consistent with what five attorneys general before me had given. [This is a matter of debate as former Governor and Attorney General Gerald Baliles has pointed out. Prior AG's were focusing on local governments, not universities, in their opinions.]

"State universities are not free to create any specially protected classes other than those dictated by the General Assembly," Cuccinelli said.

"Your question is, why is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Frankly, the category of sexual orientation would never have been contemplated by the people who wrote and voted for and passed the 14th Amendment," he said.

"There are judges who think these things 'evolve,' is the word they like to use," Cuccinelli said, but the correct approach to making such a change would be a constitutional amendment, he said.

The Attorney General's answer to the student prompts two follow up questions: "Would the AG or his office would defend the Governor if someone the Governor disciplines under the Executive Directive were to sue him?" "Would the AG defend a university nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation?"

The AG has said in an unpublished statement given to a Washington Post reporter in response to attacks on his office's defense of George Mason's on campus gun prohibition that it's his job to defend state law and state officers and agencies unless their acts are unconstitutional.

How would he apply this standard if asked to defend either university nondiscrimination policies or the Governor's executive directive that protect GLBT Virginians from discrimination?

Bob Marshall -- More Labeling and Stereotypes

When it comes to a willingness to label and stereotype to serve his cause, Bob Marshall appears to have no limits.

Casting aside his penchant for papering over his personal agenda with cites to peer reviewed studies and research, Marshall shot from the lip again yesterday in an AP story by Bob Lewis about Equality Virginia's legislation to protect state workers from discrimination.

This time his target was gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender Virginians.

Lewis' story says opponents of SB 66, which would prohibit discrimination in state employment, believe it is unnecessary and, then, quotes Delegate Marshall:

"I think there first should be some finding that homosexuals, as a class, are being discriminated against," said Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, an ardent social conservative. "In all of my experience and reading, gay individuals seem to have more income, to attend more cultural events, to take more vacations than the rest of us. Show me where this discrimination is going on."

So, Bob, what do the studies show?

Took me less than two minutes to find these facts this morning:

Workplace protection is linked to higher earnings for gay men. Median earnings for gay men are $3,000 below the income of men with female partners, though the gap shrinks in states with workplace-protection laws and increases where none exist. Among less-educated men in the 11 states that protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation, earnings of partnered gay men come closer to earnings of men with female partners.
For more information:
Gates, Gary. 2003. "Income of Gay Men Lags Behind that of Men Partnered with Women." Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Gates, Gary. 2003. "Workplace Protection Linked to Higher Earnings for Less-Educated Gay Men." Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Gates, Gary. 2001. "Domestic Partner Benefits Won't Break the Bank." Commentary in Population Today. April 1.

I know there's more "evidence" out there, and, Bob, if you'd talk to the GLBT people who live in your district, I'm sure they'd provide many personal stories of discrimination, and confront your offensive stereotype of them as the ballet going, beach partying, comfortably rich.

Bob, here's my question for you ... what would you say if I had been quoted as saying, "in all my reading and experience, social conservatives are all poorly educated, hard drinking people whose idea of entertainment is to stay home and make babies?" You'd be righteously outraged, wouldn't you?

So, why shouldn't your ignorant use of gross stereotypes to defend your indefensible objection to granting all Virginians the basic human right of a workplace free from discrimination provoke the same outrage among fair minded people?

The answer is, it should, and it does.

Video Coverage of Equality Virginia's Press Conference on SB 66, March 1, 2010

Thanks to Rick Sincere of the Republican Liberty Caucus you can watch video of Equality Virginia's press conference today focused on the need to pass SB 66, the bill that would codify protections against discrimination for all Virginia state employees.

Watch Viola Baskerville, former Secretary of Administration in the Kaine Administration; Equality Virginia CEO, Jon Blair; Glen Pond on behalf of the Virginia Governmental Employees Association, and Dr. Patricia Cummins on behalf of the AAUP here.

Watch Rick Sincere on behalf of the Republican Liberty Caucus;Andres Tobar on behalf of the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations; Irving Taylor on behalf of the AARP; Ben Greenberg of the Virginia Organizing Project; Lawrence Webb, member of the Falls Church City Council and first out gay African American elected official in Virginia; and Delegate Adam Ebbin, the first out gay member of the Virginia House of Delegates, here.

Watch Senator Donald McEachin and questions and answer session, here.

The "Natural Consequences" of Hate

Christina got this exactly right. Once you let "hate" define your views (even if it is just to "hate the sin"), you can't control how it eats away at your soul and undermines your humanity. (See, Keeping it Civil re: hate as the language of politics).

Bob is a friend whose inability to accept responsibility for the natural consequences of his own actions and choices erodes his credibility as a messenger to others on the consequences of theirs.


EMBATTLED DELEGATE FACES CONSEQUENCES OF RANT ON ABORTION

By Christina Nuckols

The Virginian-Pilot Column

DEL. BOB Marshall looked haggard and bewildered as he searched his cluttered desk Wednesday for a way to explain and soften the hurtful words he had spoken a few days earlier.

“The Bible regards barrenness as a curse, not children,” he muttered as he leafed through the Encyclopedia of Judaism, then reached for a medical journal. “I should have used the term 'physical complications.’ ”

The Prince William County Republican insists his comments at a Feb. 18 press conference were taken out of context, but that rant against Planned Parenthood isn’t easily explained away.

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first-born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” he said in a videotaped speech. “In the Old Testament, the first-born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment, Christians would suggest, and with (sic) the knowledge that they have from faith has been verified by a study from the Virginia Commonwealth University. First abortions of the first pregnancy are much more damaging to a woman than latter abortions.”

Advocates for the disabled were enraged when they learned of the remarks, but there was a delayed reaction. Early media reports didn’t include the quote, in part because Marshall was sandwiched between other speakers accusing Planned Parenthood of racial genocide. But the slow response may also stem from Marshall’s split personality. Journalists and fellow legislators struggle to reconcile the rumpled, self-deprecating fellow most genuinely like with the steely crusader who too often wages misplaced attacks on the innocent.

When I first met Marshall in 1998, he handed me a computer disc filled with pornography. It was a startling introduction, but 12 years later he can walk up to me and start discussing the evils of bestiality without inspiring a blush, much less a call to 911. I’ve grown accustomed to his campaigns against abortion and gay rights, but also his work for autistic children. I know all of his tales about tormenting nuns at Catholic school, taking judo lessons from a bodyguard of Chiang Kai-shek and meeting Harry Truman.

His kids have grown from teenagers to adults. Except Chris, who died at age 19 when the pickup truck he was a passenger in struck a tractor-trailer one night in 2001. Since then, I’ve rarely seen Marshall without a camera around his neck.

“I just wanted people to have memories,” Marshall said. “I cried for nine months after his death. A friend of mine who’s a photographer said I needed therapy.”

If I sometimes feel a little protective toward him, I’m also troubled by that other, darker side of Marshall, the one he presents to the rest of the world. My own religious beliefs make it easy to understand his opposition to abortion, but I cannot condone his harshness toward the women who have made that difficult choice.

“I feel sorry for these women,” he said. “I’m the occasion of an unresolved conflict for some women who’ve had an abortion. It’s still bothering them.”

His words are far from convincing, and it’s even harder to explain his attitudes toward gay people. Some of the unborn whose lives he says he is fighting to save would certainly grow up to be gay and therefore second-class Virginians under the laws he has written.

Marshall is consumed by a moral code that blinds him to the consequences of his own actions and words. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a nice-sounding mantra that is rarely achieved. Hate isn’t something so easily contained and channeled. It’s a corrosive force that eats away at both the guilty and the innocent, even disabled children and their parents.

I still believe there’s a part of Marshall who understands that and would do anything to retract his malevolent words. But he won’t find it flipping through his theology and medical books.