[0:20] The Senate will come to order.

[0:21] The senators will please take

[0:24] their seats. Those persons not

[0:25] entitled to the privileges of

[0:28] the floor will please retire to

[0:29] the gallery. Good morning,

[0:33] senators. Good morning. Guests.

[0:36] Good morning, the senators. And

[0:38] all in attendance. If you are

[0:41] able, please rise. We will be

[0:42] led in prayer this morning by

[0:44] the Reverend Doctor Lisa

[0:46] Johnson of Saint Paul's Baptist

[0:48] Church in Richmond. Following

[0:50] the prayer, if everyone will

[0:52] please remain standing and we

[0:55] will be led in the Pledge of

[0:56] Allegiance to the flag of the

[0:58] United States of America by

[1:02] Tara Hamilton Perkinson, Chief

[1:04] Deputy Clerk in our Senate

[1:06] Clerk's office.

[1:09] >> Let us pray. Oh wise and

[1:11] eternal GOD, how grateful we

[1:13] are that you trust us to lead

[1:16] your people in the state of

[1:18] Virginia. We thank you, GOD,

[1:19] for this session, that we will

[1:21] make some decisions that will

[1:22] impact lives. And so we ask for

[1:25] your wisdom and your guidance,

[1:27] your direction. We ask that you

[1:28] would lead us, that we would be

[1:31] reminded to put our personal

[1:32] agendas on the back burner and

[1:34] do what is necessary for the

[1:36] people of Virginia. You have

[1:37] taught us what we are to do. In

[1:39] Micah six verse eight, you said

[1:43] that we are to act with justice,

[1:45] that we are to love and show

[1:47] mercy, and that we must walk

[1:49] humbly before you and in your

[1:50] sight. We thank you for the

[1:52] privilege to be your your

[1:54] mouthpieces in this room. So

[1:57] GOD, our words, GOD our hearts,

[1:59] and remind us that we are in

[2:00] this work together and we

[2:02] promise we will give your name

[2:04] the praise. It's in all of your

[2:07] holy names. In the name of

[2:14] Jesus is what I would say. Amen.

[2:17] >> I pledge allegiance to the

[2:19] flag of the United States of

[2:21] America, and to the Republic

[2:23] for which it stands. One nation

[2:26] under GOD, indivisible, with

[2:31] liberty and justice for all.

[2:34] Bless you.

[2:51] >> One more.

[2:56] >> The clerk will call the roll

[2:58] all those present. Please vote

[3:05] I. The clerk, will close the

[3:08] roll.

[3:10] >> You have a quorum, MADAM

[3:12] PRESIDENT. Senate Journal for

[3:16] Thursday, OCTOBER 30th, 2025.

[3:20] >> The Senator from Mecklenburg,

[3:21] Senator Mulkey, moves that the

[3:23] reading of the journal be

[3:25] waived. All in favor of waiving

[3:26] the reading of the journal will

[3:28] record their votes. Aye. Those

[3:30] opposed? No. Are the senators

[3:31] ready to vote? Have all the

[3:33] senators voted? Does any

[3:34] senator desire to change their

[3:37] vote? The clerk will close the

[3:38] roll.

[3:40] >> Ayes 20. Nos 17.

[3:43] >> Ayes 20. No 17. The reading

[3:44] of the journal is waived. The

[3:47] clerk will report any

[3:48] communications from the House

[3:48] of delegates.

[3:51] >> We do not have any. MADAM

[3:51] PRESIDENT.

[3:53] >> The clerk will report any

[3:54] communications from the

[3:55] governor.

[3:56] >> We have a communications

[3:57] from the governor.

[3:58] >> MADAM PRESIDENT.

[4:00] >> Senator Surovell, the

[4:01] Senator from eastern Fairfax

[4:01] County.

[4:02] >> Good morning.

[4:04] >> Good morning.

[4:08] >> I'm sitting down now.

[4:11] >> Good morning sir. MADAM

[4:14] Clerk, if you will please read

[4:17] the communication from the

[4:17] governor.

[4:20] >> Dear senators and delegates,

[4:24] by now you have heard this week

[4:26] that I firmly believe this

[4:29] special session is wrong to, on

[4:34] all fronts, and the scenes,

[4:42] including. Sorry, I'm. But I

[4:44] want to thank the teams behind

[4:46] the scenes, including MADAM

[4:50] Clerk, MR. Clerk, the House and

[4:52] Senate Clerk's office staff,

[4:54] the Capitol Police, Legislative

[4:57] Services, and all those who

[4:59] serve at our state Capitol.

[5:02] Thank you in your for your

[5:04] service to our Commonwealth.

[5:17] Respectfully, Glenn Youngkin.

[5:19] >> We are in our morning hour

[5:22] and we have the honor of

[5:25] welcoming our guests to your

[5:28] Senate. I will give my reminder

[5:31] that your normal procedure is

[5:34] your senator will stand and

[5:35] recognize you. And if you will

[5:38] wait to hold your applause

[5:39] until after I officially

[5:41] recognize you, then we'll

[5:43] applaud you together. And so I

[5:47] do. Now call on. Senator Lucas,

[5:49] the Senator from Portsmouth.

[5:51] >> Good morning.

[5:52] >> MADAM PRESIDENT. And thank

[5:53] you, MADAM PRESIDENT. The

[5:55] prayer was given this morning

[5:57] by Doctor Johnson, who was her

[5:58] former training includes more

[6:00] than 30 years of teaching and

[6:02] service in the Richmond Public

[6:03] School system, a master of

[6:05] Divinity from Virginia Union

[6:06] University, and doctorate in

[6:08] ministry from Ashland

[6:09] Theological Seminary, Doctor

[6:11] Johnson serves a life stage

[6:14] pastor at Saint Paul's Baptist

[6:15] Church in Richmond, as well as

[6:16] chaplain of the Henrico County

[6:19] Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma

[6:20] Theta Sorority, incorporated.

[6:23] MADAM PRESIDENT. Yes, ma'am.

[6:24] MADAM PRESIDENT and members of

[6:25] the Senate, I would appreciate

[6:27] it if you would extend to her

[6:29] the very warm welcome of the

[6:29] Senate.

[6:31] >> Yes, doctor Johnson, thank

[6:33] you for coming again and

[6:33] blessing us with your presence

[6:35] and with your prayer in

[6:37] reminding us there are very

[6:38] important things, and one of

[6:41] them is to recognize that we

[6:43] are not it. Thank you very much.

[6:45] Your 30 years as a teacher.

[6:47] Thank you for teaching the

[6:49] future, because that's who our

[6:51] children are, the future, and

[6:52] also for your other ministry,

[6:55] because teaching is a ministry,

[6:56] but then your spiritual

[6:57] ministry in our community.

[6:59] Thank you very much for your

[7:00] sacrifices to us senators. Let

[7:03] us give her the warm welcome of

[7:14] her Senate. Senator Sturdivant,

[7:16] the senator from Colonial

[7:17] Heights.

[7:18] >> Good morning, MADAM

[7:20] PRESIDENT. I rise for an

[7:20] introduction.

[7:22] >> Good morning.

[7:23] >> MADAM PRESIDENT. Joining us

[7:26] in the gallery today is Camilla

[7:28] Simon and her husband Jack.

[7:31] Single. They are residents and

[7:33] voters here in the Richmond

[7:35] area. I met them this morning,

[7:37] spoke with them briefly. And

[7:39] the reason they're here is MISS

[7:43] Single voted early in this

[7:46] election that began on

[7:49] SEPTEMBER 19th. And she voted

[7:53] in a way that she now regrets.

[7:55] Following the introduction and

[7:58] at least the initial passage of

[8:00] this constitutional amendment

[8:02] to partially undo the

[8:04] redistricting commission here

[8:06] in the Commonwealth. And so she

[8:10] is the face of what a lot of

[8:12] voters in the Commonwealth have

[8:13] experienced as a result of this

[8:15] process. And she's here to

[8:18] watch over the debate and the

[8:20] vote today, and we're happy to

[8:21] have her and her husband, MR.

[8:25] Single. And we ask that the we

[8:26] offer them the warm welcome of

[8:26] the Senate.

[8:28] >> Thank you for coming and

[8:30] seeing your Senate in action.

[8:32] We're so glad to have you and

[8:34] that you're part of the process,

[8:36] the legislative, all of the

[8:37] processes. And we're glad that

[8:41] you have participated in it.

[8:44] Senators, let us give them the

[8:53] warm welcome of their Senate.

[8:55] >> MADAM PRESIDENT.

[8:57] >> Again, the senator from

[8:58] Colonial Heights.

[8:59] >> I'd also ask that the

[9:00] journal reflect that my

[9:01] seatmates, the senior senator

[9:02] from Virginia Beach and the

[9:03] senator from Isle of Wight are

[9:05] away from the Capitol on

[9:07] pressing personal business.

[9:09] >> The Journal will so reflect.

[9:15] Thank you, Senator. The senator

[9:16] from central Fairfax County,

[9:18] Senator Saleem.

[9:20] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[9:21] I rise for an introduction.

[9:22] >> The Senator has the floor.

[9:24] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[9:25] Joining us in the gallery today

[9:26] are the Virginia High School

[9:28] Democrats. The Virginia High

[9:29] School Democrats is a student

[9:32] run advocacy and campaign

[9:33] organization dedicated to

[9:35] supporting Democratic

[9:36] candidates and policies. With

[9:38] over 700 members and chapters

[9:40] across every corner of the

[9:42] Commonwealth, it is its mission

[9:44] is to empower the next

[9:45] generation of young leaders and

[9:47] advocate for the issues that

[9:49] matter the most to students.

[9:51] They made the trip down here

[9:52] bright and early this morning

[9:54] to be with us, to show support

[9:57] for the passage of H.J. 6007,

[10:00] and to be part of the defense

[10:01] of American democracy. I ask

[10:03] that you give them the warm

[10:05] welcome of their Senate.

[10:08] >> Well, I'm supposing that you

[10:09] are the there that we are

[10:11] talking about, but you

[10:13] represent your high school of

[10:15] Democrats. And thank you so

[10:17] very much for participating and

[10:18] at your age for being involved

[10:19] in the process and

[10:20] understanding that this is

[10:23] about your future as well.

[10:25] Senator, let us give him the

[10:33] warm welcome of his Senate. The

[10:35] senator from Franklin County,

[10:37] Senator Stanley.

[10:37] >> Good morning, MADAM

[10:38] PRESIDENT.

[10:39] >> Good morning.

[10:41] >> MADAM PRESIDENT. MAY the

[10:42] Senate Journal reflect that my

[10:44] seatmate, the senator from

[10:45] Spotsylvania, is away from the

[10:47] Capitol today on pressing

[10:49] personal business.

[10:50] >> Thank you, Senator. The

[10:56] journal will so reflect. Is

[10:58] there any other business for

[11:02] the morning? Our hearing? None.

[11:03] The clerk will call the

[11:04] calendar.

[11:07] >> Senate calendar for Friday,

[11:11] OCTOBER the 31st, 2025. Happy

[11:13] Halloween. Regular calendar.

[11:16] House joint resolution on third

[11:25] reading. Hjr. 6007. Proposing

[11:28] an amendment to section six of

[11:30] article 11 of the Constitution

[11:32] of Virginia. Proposing an

[11:34] amendment to the Constitution

[11:37] of Virginia by adding in the

[11:42] schedule a schedule a section

[11:48] numbered six, relating to to

[11:49] apportionment. Congressional

[11:52] districts, limited authority of

[11:56] the General Assembly in.

[11:57] >> To modify.

[12:00] >> To modify sorry classes

[12:02] reported from the Committee on

[12:03] Privileges and Elections.

[12:05] >> And we have.

[12:09] >> And there's three floor

[12:14] amendments.

[12:18] >> Senator head. The Senator

[12:25] from.

[12:27] >> Amendment number one.

[12:29] >> Your microphone. Senator.

[12:30] >> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT. Is it

[12:32] on now?

[12:34] >> Yes. There we are. The new

[12:36] system is a little a little

[12:39] difficult. We have have floor

[12:41] amendment number one that I'd

[12:42] like to present, and we can

[12:44] waive the reading of that.

[12:45] We'll be fine.

[12:46] >> The question is shall the

[12:50] reading of the floor amendment.

[12:51] The head floor amendment number

[12:53] one be waived? Those in favor

[12:56] of that motion will say aye.

[12:57] Those opposed? No. The reading

[12:59] of the floor amendment is

[13:00] waived. Senator head.

[13:01] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT

[13:02] and members of the body. This

[13:04] amendment does. It makes a very,

[13:06] very simple change the

[13:09] consternation some of the

[13:10] biggest consternation of this

[13:12] action, aside from the fact

[13:14] that we don't need it and that

[13:15] it goes against the will of the

[13:17] people, and that we have a

[13:18] perfectly good system in place

[13:21] as it is, simply ensures that

[13:23] if this is successful, and that

[13:25] if this goes forward and is

[13:27] approved by the voters of the

[13:29] Commonwealth, that the

[13:31] redistricting would not be done

[13:33] by the Partizan members of the

[13:36] General Assembly, but would

[13:38] also go to the redistricting

[13:40] commission. Very, very simple

[13:52] amendment. So.

[13:55] >> And present.

[13:58] >> Senator head, just a matter

[14:01] of.

[14:03] >> Order. I move the amendment

[14:03] so.

[14:05] >> All of them together are one

[14:05] at a time.

[14:08] >> I only have the one. So just.

[14:09] >> Okay.

[14:09] >> Just this one.

[14:10] >> All three together. All

[14:12] right. The senator from eastern

[14:14] Fairfax County, Senator

[14:15] Surovell.

[14:16] >> MADAM PRESIDENT,

[14:17] parliamentary inquiry.

[14:20] >> The senator has the floor.

[14:21] >> I think there might be a

[14:23] little confusion. I just want

[14:25] to make sure we're clear. Floor

[14:25] amendment number one refers to

[14:27] all three amendments, and we're

[14:28] going to do them all together

[14:30] as a bloc. Is that correct?

[14:31] >> That is correct, Senator.

[14:33] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[14:34] Speaking of the amendment.

[14:35] >> The senator has the floor.

[14:36] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[14:37] MADAM PRESIDENT, I encourage

[14:39] the body to vote against this

[14:39] floor amendment. Aside from the

[14:41] fact that it would probably

[14:43] prolong this process by another

[14:47] who knows how long, it's

[14:48] substantively flawed. Number

[14:51] one, it's a poison pill because

[14:53] the purpose of the amendment is

[14:55] for a redraw to be done not by

[14:58] the Commission, but by the

[15:00] General Assembly. And so it

[15:01] completely defeats the purpose.

[15:02] Number one. Number two, I just

[15:05] want to note for the record,

[15:06] I've been hearing a lot of

[15:07] things about this commission

[15:09] that are inaccurate. I want to

[15:10] make sure the record is clear.

[15:12] First of all, I'm the only one

[15:13] here that's pure. Or maybe

[15:15] Senator Van Valkenburg. No, no,

[15:16] he's not. He's not pure. He was

[15:18] a big supporter, but I think

[15:21] I'm the only one here that

[15:22] actually voted against this. Oh,

[15:24] okay. There's a few other

[15:25] people that moved up from the

[15:26] other chamber. A couple

[15:28] senators from Henrico and a few

[15:30] others, but oh, and one from

[15:33] Prince William. But but in any

[15:34] event, I voted against this at

[15:35] the time because I thought it

[15:37] was a bad idea at the time. I

[15:39] voted for it the first time

[15:41] when we had about two hours to

[15:42] read it. When it came out on

[15:43] the floor that day in a

[15:46] conference report. But after I

[15:48] had a year to reflect on it and

[15:49] listen to people, I changed my

[15:51] mind. The first of all, this

[15:52] commission that we have right

[15:55] now, first of all, is not

[15:57] independent. It's not

[15:59] independent. It's made up of

[16:00] half legislators and half

[16:03] people that are picked by

[16:04] legislators. That's not

[16:05] independent. That is a

[16:07] political commission full of

[16:10] politicians and people picked

[16:11] by politicians. And if you look

[16:13] at the people that actually

[16:14] served, they're all very, very,

[16:16] very political people. So the

[16:17] commission itself was not

[16:19] independent, number one. Number

[16:21] two, I've heard some people say

[16:23] in the last week that it was

[16:25] Nonpartizan. It's not

[16:27] nonpartizan, it is a partizan

[16:28] commission. It could not be any

[16:30] more Partizan. If you go look

[16:32] at the people who served on it,

[16:33] they were either politicians or

[16:34] extraordinarily partizan people.

[16:38] Third thing is that it's not

[16:40] bipartisan. Well, it might be

[16:41] half Democrats and half

[16:43] Republicans. There's a big

[16:45] voice missing because about 40%

[16:46] of Virginians identify

[16:49] themselves as independent. So

[16:52] the idea that this commission

[16:54] in some way reflects some kind

[16:57] of a better way, I thought at

[17:03] the time, and as proved out. It

[17:05] was it was not. In fact, it was

[17:08] a process that was designed to

[17:09] generate gridlock, which is

[17:11] exactly what happened, which is

[17:12] why our Supreme Court ended up

[17:13] having to draw the maps,

[17:14] because nobody could agree on

[17:15] anything, because it was full

[17:17] of partizans. And I would

[17:19] submit that even if we were to

[17:20] adopt this amendment, we'd

[17:20] probably see the exact same

[17:22] result and the Supreme Court

[17:23] would be probably be drawn maps

[17:27] again. And so it's this is not

[17:28] advancing this purpose at all.

[17:31] It's a poison pill. I would ask

[17:34] that we vote against it.

[17:35] >> Senator Obenshain, the

[17:37] senator from Rockingham.

[17:40] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, speak. I

[17:40] speak to the bill.

[17:42] >> Senator MAY continue.

[17:44] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[17:46] What we've heard is Senate

[17:48] Majority Leader thumbing his

[17:49] nose at two thirds of

[17:53] Virginia's voters, 66% of

[17:56] Virginia's voters voted for

[17:57] this constitutional amendment.

[18:00] And I get he's philosophically

[18:03] pure. He voted against it every

[18:05] step of the way, and he

[18:07] continues to be against it. The

[18:08] rest of us here presumably

[18:11] support the constitutional

[18:13] amendment, although that has

[18:15] come into question by virtue of

[18:16] the introduction of this

[18:19] particular bill. You know, who

[18:20] are we kidding? You know, we

[18:22] either respect the will of the

[18:24] people of the Commonwealth of

[18:25] Virginia or we don't. You know,

[18:28] I hear the majority leader

[18:30] suggest that, you know, yes,

[18:32] this is a political body and

[18:35] that they couldn't possibly be

[18:38] expected to work together to

[18:39] generate a result. Heaven

[18:42] forbid that we actually link

[18:43] arms and work together on

[18:45] something. You know, I tell

[18:47] people all the time that dirty

[18:47] little secret about the way

[18:50] that we work down here is that

[18:53] we have 90% of the bills, 90%

[18:55] of the stuff that we work on

[18:57] are just fixing problems. You

[18:58] know, they're not Republican

[18:59] problems. They're not

[19:01] Democratic problems. They're

[19:02] not Partizan problems. They're

[19:04] just problems that we need to

[19:06] fix. And we link arms and work

[19:08] together extremely well to get

[19:09] those things done across

[19:13] Partizan lines. All of us have

[19:13] worked with our colleagues on

[19:15] the other side of the aisle on

[19:18] bills, and I'm proud of that.

[19:20] The other 10% of the things we

[19:21] work on, I call cats and dogs

[19:23] bills. You know, they're the

[19:25] reasons we have Democrats and

[19:26] Republicans, liberals and

[19:27] conservatives. They're the

[19:29] things we're supposed to

[19:31] disagree on. And what the

[19:35] voters of Virginia said is we

[19:37] expect redistricting to be an

[19:39] issue that we work across the

[19:41] aisle on, that we link arms

[19:45] that it not be a cats and dogs

[19:46] bill, that it be something that

[19:50] we expect you to work with your

[19:53] colleagues to get resolved. And

[19:55] while I think that the I

[19:58] respect the majority leader's

[20:00] opinion that it didn't work, I

[20:03] take issue with that. I you

[20:05] know, I think it worked exactly

[20:06] like it was supposed to work.

[20:09] You know, we both sides

[20:12] introduced or advocated for,

[20:15] you know, their own view of

[20:16] redistricting and first time

[20:19] out of the gate, they couldn't

[20:21] come to an agreement and it

[20:23] broke down, you know, during

[20:25] that process, what happened?

[20:26] Some of the legislative

[20:29] proposals were advanced. I mean,

[20:31] the, the, the commission

[20:32] proposals that were advanced

[20:34] were clearly designed to

[20:37] protect incumbents looking at

[20:39] where everybody lived and drawn

[20:40] circles around their houses and

[20:43] making sure that we didn't

[20:44] interrupt or disrupt the

[20:47] service of sitting members, you

[20:49] know, and and it broke down

[20:52] over that. And it the way that

[20:56] it was artfully drafted by the

[20:58] patrons of that constitutional

[21:00] amendment, there was a way to

[21:02] fix it. And it goes to the

[21:03] Supreme Court. And the Supreme

[21:06] Court did its job. I don't know

[21:07] that any of us love the way

[21:10] that the Supreme Court did it.

[21:11] There were an awful lot of

[21:12] people double and triple bunked

[21:14] my friend and seatmate over

[21:15] here and one other member of

[21:17] the Senate, I was put in a

[21:19] district with three sitting

[21:20] members of the Senate of

[21:23] Virginia. I didn't love it.

[21:24] Senator from Charlottesville

[21:25] probably didn't love it. The

[21:28] senator from Augusta County

[21:30] didn't love it. But you know

[21:33] what? And I think a large

[21:34] number of us were in that

[21:36] situation. My friend, the

[21:39] senator from Hanover was double

[21:40] bunked with somebody else. The

[21:43] senator from the the PRESIDENT

[21:46] Pro tem was put in a district

[21:47] with somebody else. And, you

[21:50] know, we lived with it. And we

[21:52] came out of that with a bunch

[21:53] of new members. And let me tell

[21:56] you, the next time

[21:56] redistricting goes to

[21:57] redistricting commission, I

[21:59] think there's going to be an

[22:01] attitude adjustment. I don't

[22:03] think that the members of the

[22:04] redistricting commission are

[22:06] going to be very excited about

[22:07] having that go to the Supreme

[22:09] Court again, and I suspect that

[22:11] the intention of the drafters

[22:14] of this artfully drafted

[22:16] constitutional amendment would

[22:19] probably agree that that it's

[22:21] going to cause the members of

[22:23] that commission to do exactly

[22:24] what the citizens of the

[22:25] Commonwealth of Virginia expect

[22:29] them to do. And that is work

[22:30] across the Partizan aisle to

[22:33] come up with districts that

[22:36] make sense. Not for the

[22:38] incumbents, not for the people

[22:41] who are staking a claim to an

[22:42] elected office. It is not my

[22:44] office. It is not your office.

[22:46] It is not the office of any

[22:47] member of Congress. They are

[22:50] the people's offices, and they

[22:52] expect it to be treated that

[22:55] way. So I do not. I can't

[22:57] fathom why there would be any

[23:00] objection to enforcing to

[23:02] adopting the will of the people

[23:05] of Virginia. 66% of the people

[23:07] of the will, of the will, of

[23:09] the of 66% of the people of

[23:10] Virginia who voted for this

[23:12] constitutional amendment to

[23:15] give this decision, important

[23:18] decision to the redistricting

[23:22] commission, as opposed to hyper

[23:23] politicizing it, going back to

[23:26] what we had before, you know,

[23:28] there were a lot of good people

[23:28] who were involved in that

[23:32] process before creating this

[23:34] redistricting commission. You

[23:35] know, a group called One

[23:38] Virginia 2021 spent enormous

[23:40] energy. I don't know where they

[23:41] are. I hope they're in the

[23:44] gallery today watching. I hope

[23:45] they're if they're not here

[23:47] watching, I hope they are

[23:51] online watching because this

[23:54] this amendment, you know, if

[23:55] we're going to go down this

[23:57] road, if we're going to go down

[23:58] this road and change the will

[24:01] of 66% of the people of

[24:03] Virginia, the least we can do.

[24:06] And what we owe to them is to

[24:08] at least give it to the

[24:09] redistricting commission. So I

[24:10] would hope that we'd show our

[24:12] commitment to the the process

[24:16] that we created, along with the

[24:17] people of the Commonwealth of

[24:19] Virginia, and give this to the

[24:23] redistricting commission.

[24:25] >> Senator Favola, the senator

[24:27] from Arlington.

[24:29] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[24:30] Good morning.

[24:30] >> Good morning.

[24:33] >> I am speaking to the

[24:33] amendment before us.

[24:35] >> Senator has the floor.

[24:37] >> Thank you. Ladies and

[24:38] gentlemen, I would encourage

[24:40] you to vote no for the three

[24:43] amendments before us. And for

[24:46] two simple reasons. We do have

[24:49] the experience of the 2023

[24:50] redistricting commission.

[24:55] Actually, it was 2022, perhaps

[24:57] by the time they did their

[24:58] actual work and they and they

[25:00] couldn't do their work, they

[25:02] could not come to agreement. So

[25:04] we have the example that the

[25:06] redistricting commission did

[25:08] not operate the way many of us

[25:10] had expected and did not

[25:12] produce the results that voters

[25:15] had expected. One, two, I think

[25:16] it is incredibly important that

[25:19] we are not overruling the will

[25:23] of the people for this, for the

[25:26] resolution before us, absent

[25:29] these amendments to take effect,

[25:30] there's an entire process ahead

[25:33] of us. The General Assembly

[25:35] would have to adopt this

[25:37] constitutional amendment

[25:39] language in 2026, and then the

[25:40] constitutional amendment

[25:42] language would go before the

[25:43] voters, so the voters can

[25:46] decide if the General Assembly

[25:48] can have the limited authority

[25:50] to redraw congressional

[25:52] districts one time mid-cycle.

[25:56] So this in no way takes away

[25:57] any decision making authority

[26:00] from the public. We're giving

[26:02] them an option, and it is an

[26:04] option. I can tell you that

[26:06] many of my constituents have

[26:08] asked for. They're wondering

[26:10] why the PRESIDENT Of the United

[26:13] States is asking so many states

[26:16] to redraw their districts to

[26:18] minimize the vote or voice of

[26:20] many communities, because he

[26:23] and his allies on Capitol Hill

[26:27] are intent on actually

[26:28] memorializing policies that are

[26:32] hurtful. Our voters are asking

[26:34] to have that voice, and they're

[26:36] asking that we protect

[26:39] democracy, that we not allow

[26:39] gerrymandering to happen

[26:41] throughout the country. And we

[26:44] sit back. So at the end of the

[26:45] day, they're going to have the

[26:48] decision. Nobody else. And I

[26:50] think that's what we have to

[26:51] remember. Again, I ask this

[26:54] body to defeat these three

[26:55] amendments. Thank you, MADAM

[27:00] PRESIDENT.

[27:02] >> Senator Stanley, the senator

[27:07] from Franklin County.

[27:08] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[27:09] I rise to speak to the

[27:10] amendment.

[27:12] >> Senator has the floor.

[27:13] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, members of

[27:15] the body, this amendment is

[27:17] sound. It preserves the

[27:19] Commission and allows the

[27:21] Commission to do the work that

[27:23] only a short time ago we said

[27:26] it should do, and we thought it

[27:27] so important. We enshrined in

[27:31] our Constitution. We made it

[27:32] permanent or supposedly

[27:34] permanent, because we believe

[27:36] that that will build a stronger

[27:39] foundation for this democratic

[27:40] system here, this form of

[27:42] government created by our

[27:44] founding fathers for those that

[27:46] came after us. Because I dare

[27:48] say that those who have sat in

[27:50] this chamber longer than ten

[27:51] years have been subjected, as

[27:55] we heard, to gerrymandering

[27:58] redistricting. Lord knows I was

[28:01] here one year in a special

[28:02] election. Redistricting was the

[28:04] very next year. And lo and

[28:06] behold, when the maps came out

[28:07] onto the floor and they were

[28:10] secretive and they were all in

[28:12] backrooms, I couldn't even find

[28:14] my county, let alone where I

[28:17] lived. And that was a battle.

[28:20] Let's not forget the Bethune

[28:22] Hill case or the house maps

[28:24] were determined to be racially

[28:26] gerrymandered. That's

[28:27] embarrassment to the

[28:29] Commonwealth of Virginia. But

[28:31] that's the way that was being

[28:32] played until all of us came

[28:34] together and said, whoa, let's

[28:37] do something different. And I'm

[28:39] reminded, you know, not just as

[28:40] a lawyer, but during a time I

[28:43] built houses. And I'm reminded

[28:45] how firm the foundation must be

[28:46] to rest tons and tons of

[28:49] material that becomes a home on

[28:51] top of it. If you pull a truss

[28:53] out, remove a block from the

[28:56] foundation. Not only does it

[28:59] become unstable, it weakens the

[29:02] whole system, makes it almost

[29:05] unlivable, unsafe. And this is

[29:08] what we're trying to do now

[29:13] with hb 6007. Are we say to

[29:16] ourselves, the commission was

[29:18] just not good enough. And let's

[29:22] understand why, why, why do we

[29:26] suddenly need to do this mid

[29:28] during the mid ten year decades

[29:31] that we have, we have in our

[29:32] Constitution that says only

[29:35] every ten years, but this

[29:37] changes even that. And that was

[29:39] in the Constitution long before

[29:41] the redistricting commission.

[29:43] My good friend from Eastern

[29:45] Fairfax, who I've known for

[29:46] many, many, many years, way

[29:48] past the time in which both of

[29:50] us were elected to office, grew

[29:51] up together in the Fairfax

[29:53] County Courthouse, says, oh, it

[29:56] didn't work. I want to correct

[29:58] the record because the

[29:59] commission did not work well. I

[30:01] sat on the commission. It was

[30:02] frustrating. As the senator

[30:04] from Hanover says, it was time

[30:07] consuming. It was emotional.

[30:08] But the senator from Hanover is

[30:10] exactly right on what went on.

[30:14] But in the end, it demonstrated

[30:17] that it did work. And I must

[30:19] concur with Senator Obenshain,

[30:20] who says, listen, I think

[30:21] they're going to do it a lot

[30:23] better this time because I know

[30:25] I will. If I ever were to sit

[30:27] on that commission again, we

[30:28] should leave it to the

[30:29] commission that we trusted

[30:31] merely five years ago. But I

[30:33] want to be direct with you,

[30:35] because I think it's time we

[30:37] call hb 6007 what it is and why

[30:39] we need this amendment. We are

[30:40] witnessing a deliberate

[30:42] abandonment of principle at the

[30:43] moment that it's become

[30:45] inconvenient. The system is

[30:48] working as intended, and it's

[30:49] working against Democrats

[30:52] politically right now in their

[30:55] own mind. Fair maps don't give

[30:56] Democrats the Locke they want.

[30:57] Fair maps don't give

[30:59] Republicans the the Locke. They

[31:01] want fair maps, give Virginians

[31:02] what they deserve, which is

[31:03] representation reflecting their

[31:07] actual political diversity.

[31:08] Virginia has among the closest

[31:11] elections in the nation because

[31:14] Virginia has a fair

[31:16] redistricting process, and it

[31:19] appears right now that my

[31:20] friends on the other side of

[31:22] the aisle can't stand it.

[31:25] Here's the proof. Democrats are

[31:29] proposing unamended H.J. 6007

[31:31] to authorize mid-decade

[31:33] congressional redistricting

[31:34] authority. That's an admission.

[31:36] We're hearing it from the other

[31:38] side. Now that the commission

[31:40] is working, and that admission

[31:41] is by them saying it's not

[31:42] working because it's not

[31:45] working to their favor. If the

[31:47] commission were truly broken,

[31:47] Democrats would be demanding

[31:50] reform to fixed it. Instead,

[31:51] they're proposing what amounts

[31:54] to an escape hatch through this

[32:01] H.J. 6007. I want to be blunt.

[32:03] My friends on the other side

[32:05] want power to draw maps through

[32:08] this H.J. 6007 that entrench

[32:10] Democrat power in the

[32:11] Commonwealth of Virginia in the

[32:14] halls of Congress, the call for

[32:16] mid-decade authority is coded

[32:18] language for we want more

[32:19] control. Every concern about

[32:21] implementation means give us

[32:23] the discretion, every

[32:24] suggestion about needing

[32:26] flexibility means we want the

[32:28] ability to gerrymander six five

[32:30] in the Congress right now,

[32:32] which accurately and adequately

[32:34] reflects the mood, the

[32:36] political moods in the

[32:37] Commonwealth of Virginia, of

[32:41] the voter. But here's the real

[32:44] deal. Democrat leadership

[32:45] supported the Commission when

[32:46] they thought they'd lose and

[32:48] needed protection. And did they

[32:50] come before this chamber when

[32:50] they secured power after the

[32:52] elections occurred and say

[32:54] honestly, hey, man, we've

[32:56] changed our minds. We want to

[32:58] abandon the commission? No, no,

[33:00] they didn't. Instead, they're

[33:03] trying to now authorize what

[33:05] they can't openly defend

[33:08] mid-decade redistricting,

[33:10] overturning what the voters so

[33:13] overwhelmingly approved. Having

[33:15] said on the commission, allow

[33:17] me, especially for those that

[33:18] weren't sitting in this body,

[33:19] in this chamber when it

[33:21] occurred, let me remind you

[33:22] what we created together.

[33:25] Together, a 16 member hybrid

[33:26] commission. Half the

[33:28] legislators have citizens

[33:29] voting requirements, demanded a

[33:30] consensus. Six of eight

[33:31] legislators, six of eight

[33:33] citizens had to approve the

[33:34] maps criteria that protected

[33:37] racial and ethnic minorities,

[33:38] preserved communities of

[33:39] interest and maintain

[33:41] transparency with public

[33:43] hearings and public data

[33:46] releases. Public engagement,

[33:47] public involvement something

[33:50] that we never, ever had in

[33:53] redistricting decisions before.

[33:54] And then we instituted a

[33:57] Supreme Court fallback, which

[34:00] we then had to use. And this

[34:02] model is being used by other

[34:05] states, and it's working. It's

[34:08] not experimental, not untested.

[34:12] It's proven, proven to succeed

[34:17] when we allow it. The evidence

[34:20] is overwhelming. Electoral

[34:20] competitiveness is among the

[34:24] highest in the nation, and

[34:26] certainly here as well. If the

[34:28] system were broken, as my

[34:29] friend from Eastern Fairfax

[34:30] claims, we would see evidence

[34:32] of it. We don't. We see the

[34:34] opposite. A system that we

[34:36] created to take power out of

[34:38] the hands of politicians and

[34:39] give it to the people. A system

[34:43] that actually works. So now on

[34:45] this amendment and ultimately

[34:49] the vote on H.J. 6007, the

[34:51] question before this body is

[34:53] simple one are we abandoning

[34:55] our commitment because the

[34:56] majority party finds the

[34:59] outcome now inconvenient? Are

[35:01] we telling Virginia voters that

[35:04] 66% of you who supported and

[35:05] voted for the commission, that

[35:07] their representatives have

[35:08] changed their minds now because

[35:10] it's convenient for them to do

[35:12] so? Are we saying to those

[35:13] voters that their wishes no

[35:15] longer matter now that the

[35:16] power has shifted? Because

[35:20] that's what 6007 enables? And I

[35:22] believe members of the Senate,

[35:24] that the choice before this

[35:25] body is clear. MADAM PRESIDENT,

[35:27] will we honor the commitment we

[35:29] made to Virginia voters, all of

[35:32] us Republicans and Democrats?

[35:35] Will we prove that bipartisan

[35:36] principle can survive political

[35:41] challenge? Will we reject H.J.

[35:46] 6007 or this amendment? Will we

[35:48] maintain the protections that

[35:50] the voters created for our

[35:54] system of government, or will

[35:57] we tell the voters today that

[36:03] we lied? That reform was only

[36:04] something we wanted when we

[36:08] weren't in power? Does

[36:11] principle change the moment?

[36:15] Circumstances shift politically?

[36:18] Will we once again replace

[36:22] voter power with legislative

[36:26] power? I know which choice I'm

[36:27] making. I'm supporting this

[36:29] amendment because it returns

[36:30] the authority back to the

[36:32] commission. I'm asking my

[36:34] Democratic colleagues to vote

[36:36] for this amendment, because

[36:39] it's the only way to fix this

[36:42] resolution that's broken, not a

[36:44] commission that's broken. I'll

[36:47] close by reminding you this. I

[36:50] have a list here that's made up

[36:52] of all the voters in the

[36:53] Democrat districts. The

[36:55] districts to my right are held

[37:00] by Democrats. Overwhelmingly,

[37:04] they voted for in Chesterfield

[37:07] in the 15th district, 71% voted

[37:11] for Richmond City, 69% voted

[37:14] for it in Chesapeake, 63% voted

[37:17] for it. It goes on and on and

[37:23] on. High 60s and 70s. Only one

[37:24] district, one part of a

[37:28] district, didn't go for it.

[37:32] Overwhelming numbers. And I'm

[37:33] also reminded, and they're

[37:35] going to bring it up today and

[37:37] they're going to bring it up

[37:38] again as they did. We're doing

[37:39] this because of Texas and North

[37:42] Carolina. Well, California's

[37:45] doing it too, as my friend from

[37:47] Hanover said to his child, just

[37:47] because it's being done by

[37:49] others doesn't make it the

[37:51] right thing to do. But I will

[37:53] say this. Our friends to the

[37:56] immediate north, we touch a

[37:57] border with the state of

[38:00] Maryland. Their Senate, their

[38:02] Senate PRESIDENT, almost

[38:04] entirely Democrat, said, we're

[38:06] not doing this. We're not

[38:09] getting involved. And, you know,

[38:11] I must answer the question when

[38:13] they say, well, you know,

[38:14] they're picking up 3 or 4 seats

[38:15] here or five seats, this is

[38:18] what Trump is doing. But do my

[38:19] friends on the other side of

[38:20] the aisle forget that? In 2018,

[38:22] two years after Donald Trump

[38:23] was elected, the first time

[38:26] there was a 41 seat Democrat

[38:27] pickup in Congress without

[38:29] shifting lines, without doing

[38:32] anything else, and if they were

[38:34] that confident 3 or 4 seats

[38:36] here and there isn't going to

[38:40] make any difference. Ladies and

[38:42] gentlemen, I ask that you agree

[38:45] to this floor amendment. It's

[38:46] the right thing to do. It's the

[38:48] right thing to do for Virginia.

[38:49] And I thank you for listening.

[38:51] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[38:53] >> The Senator from

[38:55] Charlottesville, Senator Deeds.

[38:57] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I move the

[39:02] pending question.

[39:08] >> Yes.

[39:12] >> The question is, shall the

[39:18] pending question be. Ordered?

[39:20] Those in favor of that motion

[39:22] will record their votes. Aye.

[39:24] Those opposed? No other

[39:27] senators ready to vote. Have

[39:29] all senators voted? Does any

[39:31] senator desire to change their

[39:35] vote? The clerk will close the

[39:37] roll.

[39:39] >> Ayes 21. No 16.

[39:43] >> Ayes 21. No 16. The pending

[39:45] question has been ordered. The

[39:51] question is. Shall the head

[39:54] amendment number one in a block

[39:57] be adopted? Those in favor of

[39:59] that motion will say aye. Those

[40:01] opposed? No.

[40:04] >> No.

[40:07] >> This will be a recorded vote.

[40:11] The question is, shall the head

[40:14] amendment number one in a block

[40:16] be adopted? Those in favor of

[40:18] that motion will record their

[40:19] votes. Aye. Those opposed? No.

[40:20] Are the senators ready to vote?

[40:22] Have all the senators voted?

[40:24] Does any Senator desire to

[40:26] change their vote? The clerk

[40:28] will close the roll.

[40:30] >> 16 noes, 21.

[40:33] >> Ayes, 16, noes 21. The

[40:35] amendment number one fails the.

[40:37] The junior Senator from

[40:39] Virginia Beach, Senator Rouse.

[40:41] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[40:43] I move that the amendments be

[40:45] agreed to.

[40:47] >> And speaking to that motion.

[40:48] >> Sir.

[40:51] >> The Senator has the floor.

[40:53] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[40:55] First, before I begin, I want

[40:56] to I know this is a very.

[40:58] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I don't

[41:00] mean to interrupt the senator,

[41:01] but parliamentary inquiry. We

[41:03] do not have another set of

[41:05] amendments.

[41:09] >> The Senator is correct. I

[41:13] it's I do believe the junior

[41:15] senator from Virginia Beach

[41:18] meant House joint resolution, a

[41:20] resolution, not an amendment.

[41:23] 6007 with the senator. Like to

[41:24] restate.

[41:25] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[41:27] Let me correct the record. My

[41:29] motion. MADAM PRESIDENT, I move

[41:32] that the House Joint Resolution

[41:36] 6007 be agreed to speaking to.

[41:37] >> That motion. The senator

[41:39] still has the floor. Thank you.

[41:40] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[41:42] Before I begin, I know we're

[41:44] going to there's already been

[41:45] spirited debate around this

[41:46] issue and this subject. But as

[41:48] CHAIRMAN Of Privileges and

[41:50] Elections, I do want to thank

[41:51] members of the committee on

[41:53] both sides of the aisle for

[41:54] their decorum, especially

[41:57] during the time where we have

[41:59] seen unprecedented assaults on

[42:02] voting rights, not only within

[42:03] our country, but within our

[42:06] states. We have seen the purge

[42:08] of voting rolls. We have seen

[42:11] the tried to restrict access to

[42:13] the ballot box. We've seen even

[42:15] bills put forth to limit early

[42:18] voting. But yet we remain

[42:21] vigilant to protect voters in

[42:23] Virginia. And that is why we're

[42:24] here today, to provide

[42:27] Virginians the option, the

[42:30] option of whether or not they

[42:33] want to redraw congressional

[42:35] districts. Now, my good friend

[42:37] and colleague from Franklin

[42:39] County stated that we do not

[42:44] see evidence, evidence of the

[42:46] system affecting Virginia's,

[42:48] but we do see evidence that the

[42:50] system is being rigged by a

[42:54] wannabe dictator out of

[42:55] Washington during this

[42:59] Republican shutdown. We've seen

[43:01] we've seen this dictator be

[43:06] enabled by a coequal but yet

[43:07] separate branch of government,

[43:10] a government that refuses to

[43:12] stand up to him. Now,

[43:15] Virginians MAY have something

[43:16] to say about that. In a few

[43:20] years. You see, they MAY not.

[43:22] They MAY see what's going on

[43:24] now, but they will remember the

[43:25] federal layoffs. They will

[43:28] remember their empty stomachs

[43:29] as Snap benefits run out and

[43:32] tomorrow's the first. They will

[43:34] remember their empty pockets,

[43:36] but they also remember their

[43:38] mailboxes full of bills,

[43:40] medical bills, mortgage

[43:42] payments, rent payments. They

[43:44] will remember all of those

[43:46] things, and perhaps they MAY

[43:47] want to say something about

[43:52] that. And so this resolution

[43:56] gives them an option, gives

[43:58] Virginia's voters an option by

[44:00] way of referendum. What it does

[44:03] not do, it does not eliminate

[44:05] or dissolve the Virginia

[44:07] Redistricting Redistricting

[44:10] Commission. It is not a mandate.

[44:13] But what it does do is that it

[44:16] gives them a say so and how

[44:18] their country is being ran and

[44:20] how their representatives,

[44:20] representatives are

[44:23] representing them. MADAM

[44:27] PRESIDENT, I move that the

[44:28] constitutional amendment, I

[44:31] move that the House resolution

[44:35] H.J. 6007 be agreed to. Thank

[44:37] you.

[44:40] >> Senator Van Valkenburg, the

[44:45] Senator from Western Enrico.

[44:47] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[44:48] MADAM PRESIDENT, speaking to

[44:50] the resolution.

[44:51] >> The Senator has the floor.

[44:52] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[44:54] MADAM PRESIDENT, members of the

[44:55] body, I ask for your indulgence

[44:57] today with a little bit of time

[44:59] here, but I'm not going to

[45:01] apologize for trespassing on it

[45:02] because you all have been

[45:04] trespassing on my time all week.

[45:06] I've had to be here all five

[45:09] days in the school week, and so

[45:11] you are going to get my George

[45:12] Washington and Louis Brandeis

[45:14] quotes. My students aren't. And

[45:16] that is a promise. Senator

[45:18] Suetterlein not a threat. So as

[45:22] many of you know, I care very

[45:22] passionately about

[45:25] redistricting reform. In 2020,

[45:26] I carried the constitutional

[45:28] amendment to make it a reality.

[45:30] And for many people, I became

[45:31] the face of that of that

[45:34] amendment because of my public

[45:36] defense of it, particularly

[45:38] when on the lesser side of the

[45:41] Capitol, we had a very spirited

[45:42] interparty debate. I've got a

[45:45] lot of scars from those couple

[45:47] of weeks. You know, Don Beyer

[45:49] once said that in his eight

[45:50] years as lieutenant governor,

[45:52] the ugliest debates that he saw

[45:54] were the ones that were over

[45:55] Partizan redistricting. And I

[45:57] can assure you that he was he

[46:00] was right. But five years later,

[46:02] my faith in that amendment is

[46:04] stronger than ever, because I

[46:06] disagree with my colleague from

[46:08] eastern Fairfax County. The

[46:10] amendment worked. It worked.

[46:12] And you don't have to take my

[46:15] word for it. You can read about

[46:18] it in 538 or from uva or the

[46:21] Brennan Center or the Princeton

[46:23] Gerrymandering Project, who all

[46:25] agree with what I think that it

[46:26] worked. Princeton said that

[46:28] Virginia now has, quote, some

[46:30] of the fairest district maps in

[46:31] the country, unquote. And I

[46:33] think the amendment delivered

[46:35] three things that we had hoped

[46:37] for fair maps, better and more

[46:39] diverse representation, and

[46:40] stronger and more effective

[46:42] government. I believe all three

[46:43] of those things are true. You

[46:44] know, many of my colleagues and

[46:46] many people in the public like

[46:48] to point to the messiness of

[46:50] the process for why it failed

[46:51] the Gridlock Commission, the

[46:52] fact that the Supreme Court

[46:54] ultimately had to intervene.

[46:57] But the truth is that was the

[46:59] process the amendment created.

[47:01] And those who read it carefully

[47:01] realized that that amendment,

[47:03] along with the enabling

[47:05] legislation, was going to lead

[47:07] to those final, fairer maps.

[47:09] Now, I don't think our

[47:11] amendment is perfect.

[47:13] Personally, I would prefer an

[47:15] independent commission without

[47:17] legislators and I a language

[47:19] towards that before the next

[47:22] census. But after the qualified

[47:23] success of the last process,

[47:25] and with the more balanced maps

[47:27] that came out of the 2022

[47:29] process, I also believe, like

[47:31] some of my colleagues on the

[47:32] other side, that the commission

[47:33] will be smoother in 2031

[47:36] because if it's not, we know

[47:37] that the courts will make it

[47:41] smooth for us and that will be

[47:42] better than legislators drawing

[47:44] their own lines. So the

[47:45] question then becomes, well,

[47:49] why are we here today? And up

[47:51] to this point, I haven't really

[47:53] elaborated on, I think some of

[47:54] the key points that this entire

[47:56] conversation has missed over

[47:58] the last week. But to start,

[48:00] you know, many people ask why I

[48:01] support this current revision

[48:02] to the redistricting amendment.

[48:04] And the first thing I would say

[48:06] is I support it because it does

[48:08] not undo or come even close to

[48:08] undoing the hard won

[48:10] redistricting reforms we fought

[48:12] to achieve. Many, many of you

[48:14] might have seen that the former

[48:15] governor, Doug Wilder Wilder,

[48:16] suggested that we should scrap

[48:17] the whole thing, saying, quote,

[48:19] strip it out of the

[48:20] Constitution entirely. I would

[48:23] not support that. I will also

[48:24] not vote to change the enabling

[48:26] legislation for the Commission,

[48:27] because that enabling

[48:28] legislation made that work

[48:30] possible and led to a

[48:30] successful Supreme Court

[48:32] process and to those fair maps.

[48:34] But this amendment doesn't

[48:36] repeal that either. If I

[48:38] thought any of those crucial

[48:39] reforms we fought for were in

[48:41] danger, that we were moving

[48:42] backward to a pre amendment

[48:43] system permanently, I would be

[48:45] a no vote. But that's not what

[48:47] this is, and that's not what

[48:48] we're doing today. We are

[48:50] taking a truly proportional

[48:51] response to an extreme

[48:54] situation. The current outbreak

[48:56] of opportunistic mid-decade

[48:57] redistricting means that we are

[48:59] in a truly unprecedented

[49:01] constitutional norm. Breaking

[49:03] time since Baker v Carr

[49:05] established one person, one

[49:07] vote more than 70 years ago,

[49:09] we've only had two states

[49:10] mid-decade redraw lines, two

[49:12] for purely political reasons,

[49:15] and we've never had a PRESIDENT

[49:15] Threaten and strongarm state

[49:17] governors and legislators for

[49:19] changes to their states maps

[49:20] for Partizan games. Never.

[49:23] That's a fact. Never. Yet that

[49:24] is exactly what we are seeing

[49:26] now because of PRESIDENT

[49:28] Trump's jawboning three states

[49:30] in the last two months, more

[49:32] states than in the previous 62

[49:34] years have redrawn their maps

[49:36] for political reasons, and more

[49:38] states are following in their

[49:40] footsteps. And why? The reason

[49:42] is because, quote, he's

[49:44] entitled to those seats,

[49:48] unquote, entitled the PRESIDENT

[49:51] Is entitled to those seats. But

[49:54] what's really going on here is

[49:55] fear. It's fear of facing

[49:56] voters. The PRESIDENT Knows

[50:00] that if 2026 is a fair fight,

[50:01] Republicans will lose seats and

[50:03] he will face a legislative

[50:04] branch willing to stand up to

[50:06] him and check his power. Those

[50:08] are facts. That is why we're

[50:10] here, because the PRESIDENT Is

[50:11] trying to avoid accountability

[50:12] and avoid the voters. And so

[50:13] Virginia Democrats are

[50:14] responding proportionately.

[50:17] We're not trying to end the

[50:18] practice of fair maps. We are

[50:20] asking the voters if in this

[50:23] one limited case, they want to

[50:24] assure that a constitutional

[50:26] norm busting PRESIDENT Can't

[50:27] rig the entire national

[50:29] election by twisting the arms

[50:30] of a few state legislatures

[50:31] which haven't reformed their

[50:32] process like we have. And as

[50:35] the senator from Loudoun said

[50:36] in committee the other day, I

[50:37] think what my friends on the

[50:39] other side of the aisle are

[50:41] really afraid of is, is that

[50:42] the voters are going to agree

[50:44] with us for all this talk about

[50:45] the will of the voters. I feel

[50:47] pretty confident that if this

[50:49] thing does go to them, they're

[50:50] going to pass it and the voters

[50:52] will have their say, and Donald

[50:54] Trump will have to face the

[50:56] music in 2026. You know, many

[50:58] of my friends on the other side

[51:00] of the aisle like to say that

[51:01] we Democrats have what they

[51:03] call Trump Derangement syndrome,

[51:06] you know, and if I'm honest and

[51:09] if I'm honest, sometimes we do.

[51:11] Okay, sometimes we do. I got a

[51:14] little bit of TDs going on, and

[51:15] we mistake policy differences

[51:16] for existential crises. And by

[51:19] the way, we often do it at our

[51:20] detriment because voters can

[51:22] see when it's real and when

[51:23] they can, and they can see when

[51:25] it's not real. But if sometimes

[51:26] Democrats catch the TDs bug,

[51:29] the people on the other side of

[51:31] the aisle have become far too

[51:32] reliant on the diagnosis. And

[51:33] this is a moment where

[51:35] Republicans are too eager to

[51:36] rush to that false diagnosis.

[51:37] Rather than discuss the

[51:38] legitimate concerns and grapple

[51:40] with the reality of what is

[51:42] happening. And that is why we

[51:44] need to take a look at the

[51:45] bigger picture, at why this

[51:47] measure is just as necessary as

[51:48] the initial amendment itself

[51:54] was. But let's be honest, no

[51:56] one in this body and no, no

[51:58] Democrats nationally should be

[51:59] patting themselves on their

[52:01] back and congratulating one

[52:02] another for saving democracy

[52:04] when they respond to Trump's

[52:06] unprecedented redistricting

[52:07] actions. This resolution does

[52:08] not save democracy. This

[52:11] resolution is a break glass

[52:12] maneuver for a truly

[52:14] unprecedented moment. It is

[52:17] necessary, unfortunately, that

[52:19] we have to do it. But it is our

[52:20] best attempt to bust out the

[52:22] first aid kit for a democratic

[52:24] system. But that's all it is.

[52:27] It's a patch. It's not a cure

[52:28] because with this movement,

[52:30] we're still circling the drain

[52:32] with Donald Trump and the maga

[52:34] movement. We're still living on

[52:34] his terms of engagement. And

[52:37] the reality is that both

[52:38] parties need to rid themselves

[52:40] of their addiction to him. If

[52:41] we want America to have another

[52:44] 250 years of constitutional

[52:45] democracy, you know, in

[52:46] Federalist One, Alexander

[52:48] Hamilton argued that it was up

[52:50] to us to prove to the world

[52:52] that a people could form a

[52:53] government based on reason and

[52:55] choice, and not on accident and

[52:56] force. He also warned us in

[52:58] that essay that the biggest

[52:59] danger to our experiment would

[53:00] be populist leaders. He wrote

[53:03] that of, quote, those men who

[53:04] have overturned the liberties

[53:06] of republics, the greatest

[53:08] number have begun their career,

[53:10] their career by paying an

[53:12] obsequious court to the people,

[53:14] commencing demagogues and

[53:17] tyrants, but merely avoiding

[53:18] the worst of that danger will

[53:20] not rebuild our democracy.

[53:22] Democrats can't just rest on

[53:25] that. In FEBRUARY of 18, 1861,

[53:27] Abraham Lincoln said, quote, I

[53:28] have never had a feeling

[53:29] politically that did not spring

[53:35] from the sentiments embodied in

[53:42] the Declaration of Independence.

[53:47] And roughly 100 years later,

[53:47] Martin Luther King would call

[53:51] this America's promissory note,

[53:52] because I would argue America

[53:57] hadn't lived up to it yet for

[53:57] all of its citizens. And for

[53:58] too long. Over the last 50

[53:59] years, the average American has

[53:59] felt disconnected from that

[54:00] creed, feeling that politicians,

[54:01] including Democrats, don't help

[54:01] make it true for the average

[54:04] person. It is partly from that

[54:04] frustration that we have ended

[54:05] up where we are now. Beginning

[54:05] to fix that problem means

[54:06] taking hard votes that cut

[54:15] against the status quo and

[54:16] revitalizes our democracy. At

[54:16] the federal level, this means

[54:17] banning gerrymandering at the

[54:18] federal and state level. It

[54:18] means getting big money,

[54:19] including corporate money, out

[54:19] of politics. It means

[54:20] implementing reforms like

[54:20] ranked choice or fusion voting

[54:21] so more Americans can feel

[54:22] heard and represented. It means

[54:23] reforming our primaries, ending

[54:25] the filibuster, and making

[54:29] Congress actually work so that

[54:30] it represents the people it's

[54:31] supposed to represent. And we

[54:33] don't have to make it up. We

[54:34] can look to our history to see

[54:35] where politicians have met the

[54:37] moment, from reconstruction to

[54:38] the Progressive era to the

[54:39] civil rights movement, we have

[54:40] seen movements reform our

[54:42] democracy for the better. So

[54:45] people feel engaged and we need

[54:50] to meet that moment right now.

[54:53] Because until most people feel

[54:54] like we are truly listening to

[54:55] them, not just our strongest

[54:56] supporters, donors, corporate

[54:56] lobbyists or other elites, we

[54:57] will never move beyond this

[54:58] cynical spiral of apathy. So

[55:00] the larger moment that this

[55:01] break glass in case of

[55:02] emergency amendment emerges

[55:04] from requires more than this

[55:05] act of defense. If we really

[55:07] want to save democracy, it

[55:08] requires a broader commitment

[55:12] to reform, but it also requires

[55:13] something less abstract and

[55:14] something more tangible,

[55:17] requires reforms that not only

[55:18] let people's voice be felt in

[55:20] politics, but give them

[55:22] realistic paths to more

[55:23] prosperous personal and

[55:26] economic futures. In his 1915

[55:27] speech True Americanism, Louis

[55:29] Brandeis said, quote, If the

[55:30] American is to be fitted for

[55:32] his task as ruler, he must have,

[55:34] besides education and

[55:35] industrial liberty, also some

[55:37] degree of financial

[55:39] independence. In other words,

[55:41] you can't eat a vote. We must

[55:43] meet the cost of living moment

[55:44] this upcoming session and in

[55:46] future sessions. That means

[55:48] tackling housing and energy,

[55:49] which are two of the biggest

[55:50] drivers of a family's budget

[55:52] crunch. It means continuing to

[55:53] ensure that people can earn a

[55:55] decent wage at a job that

[55:56] provides dignity and means

[55:57] strengthening and investing in

[55:59] an education system that truly

[56:00] lifts people up and provides

[56:03] genuine economic mobility. Many

[56:04] of these pieces of legislation

[56:05] will be controversial. They'll

[56:08] require tough votes. But if we

[56:09] we must be willing to take

[56:11] those votes and stand firm

[56:12] against opposition, because in

[56:13] a moment where people are

[56:14] struggling and where middle

[56:16] class life feels more tenuous

[56:18] than ever, we can't ask people

[56:20] to defend democracy if

[56:22] democracy is not defending them.

[56:24] Democrats must transcend

[56:26] PRESIDENT Trump and represent a

[56:28] clear alternative path. But my

[56:28] Republican colleagues have a

[56:30] role to play here, too. They

[56:32] got to unwind themselves from

[56:33] this destructive cyclone. Their

[56:36] party is in the midst of what

[56:37] George Washington spoke about

[56:38] in his farewell address, that

[56:40] partizanship would be the way

[56:42] to power for, quote, cunning,

[56:44] ambitious and unprincipled men.

[56:46] Partizanship is nothing new.

[56:47] And the Republicans are right.

[56:48] The Democratic officials have

[56:49] had their share of Partizan

[56:51] lowlights as well, and

[56:52] expansion of executive power as

[56:54] well. But the dynamic dragging

[56:55] their party down right now is

[56:57] different in kind, not in

[56:59] degree. From 1801 to 2020, with

[57:02] one big exception. We had over

[57:04] 200 straight years of peaceful

[57:05] transfer of power. And then

[57:08] 2020 we did not. We've long had

[57:10] gerrymandering, but until now

[57:11] we've never had a PRESIDENT

[57:13] Demand it from a bully pulpit.

[57:14] We've had presidents use

[57:16] emergency powers, but we've

[57:17] never had a PRESIDENT Declare

[57:19] emergencies as a fig leaf for

[57:21] the policy demands like we do

[57:22] now, from tariffs to deploying

[57:24] soldiers in our American cities.

[57:26] And we have never had a

[57:29] PRESIDENT So consistently

[57:30] equate political opposition

[57:31] with evil intention, or

[57:32] denigrate ordinary citizens

[57:34] simply because they didn't vote

[57:36] for him or dared to protest his

[57:38] actions. It is shocking to me

[57:40] that we have a PRESIDENT That

[57:41] will gleefully post a video of

[57:43] himself dumping excrement on

[57:45] American citizens that is far

[57:48] beyond Hillary Clinton's

[57:50] deplorables, or Mitt Romney's

[57:53] 47% comments. This shift from

[57:54] ordinary partizanship to half

[57:55] cloaked authoritarianism has

[57:57] even filtered down here. We had

[57:59] four members in the General

[58:01] Assembly at the insurrection on

[58:03] JANUARY 6th. We had members of

[58:04] the House of delegates calling

[58:06] Mike pence to decertify

[58:07] Virginia's election results, an

[58:09] election he won by 9%. And

[58:11] we've seen a governor's

[58:12] administration illegally purge

[58:13] voters and deliberately

[58:15] withdraw us from a pact to

[58:16] improve election security

[58:18] purely because of maga

[58:21] conspiracy theories. So if

[58:22] Democrats sometimes suffer from

[58:24] Trump derangement Syndrome

[58:25] syndrome, Republicans are

[58:26] whistling past the grave in

[58:30] many respects. So part of me

[58:31] for being so long, MADAM

[58:33] PRESIDENT. But I don't think we

[58:34] can have a proper discussion

[58:35] about this resolution without

[58:38] acknowledging the broader

[58:39] context, which is the fight

[58:40] over what it means to be

[58:42] America. What does our

[58:43] Constitution mean? We're having

[58:45] real fights. Many of them are

[58:46] going to take decades to solve.

[58:48] But when we think about what is

[58:50] happening today here, we should

[58:51] recognize both its importance

[58:53] and its limits. Its importance

[58:55] lies in preventing a norm

[58:56] busting PRESIDENT From gaming

[58:58] the system and ensuring that

[58:59] there are consequences for his

[59:01] unpopular actions. But let us

[59:04] not fool ourselves. This is not

[59:06] the actual real work. I want to

[59:08] close with a quote from former

[59:09] PRESIDENT Bill Clinton. It's

[59:11] actually one of my favorite

[59:12] quotes. He once said, all that

[59:14] is wrong with America can be

[59:15] fixed by what is right with

[59:19] America. I fear that many on my

[59:20] side have forgotten how to use

[59:22] the tools of what's right from

[59:24] America, but that PRESIDENT

[59:25] Trump and his enablers have

[59:27] forgotten what's right with

[59:28] America at all. Thank you,

[59:30] MADAM PRESIDENT.

[59:33] >> Senator Sturdivant, the

[59:36] senator from Colonial Heights.

[59:37] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[59:40] I would ask if the senator from

[59:42] Virginia Beach would rise and

[59:43] yield for a question.

[59:45] >> Will the junior senator from

[59:46] Virginia Beach, Senator Rouse,

[59:47] rise and yield for a question?

[59:49] I yield the Senator yields. The

[59:50] senator from Colonial Heights

[59:50] has the floor.

[59:52] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[59:54] the senator from Virginia Beach

[59:56] if he would agree with me that

[59:57] this proposed constitutional

[59:59] amendment was first made

[1:00:00] available to the public earlier

[1:00:04] this week. On Tuesday, OCTOBER

[1:00:05] 28th.

[1:00:08] >> Senator Rouse has the floor.

[1:00:10] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I will

[1:00:13] yield that question to Senate

[1:00:15] Majority Leader on the basis

[1:00:17] that the bill was assigned to

[1:00:18] Privileges and Elections

[1:00:20] Committee on Wednesday when we

[1:00:22] received it from the House.

[1:00:23] Thank you.

[1:00:24] >> Well, the senator from

[1:00:26] eastern Fairfax, answer the

[1:00:27] question, sir.

[1:00:28] >> What's the question.

[1:00:29] >> Senator from Colonial

[1:00:30] Heights?

[1:00:32] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[1:00:34] if the majority leader would

[1:00:36] would agree with me that this

[1:00:36] proposed constitutional

[1:00:38] amendment was first made

[1:00:40] available to the public earlier

[1:00:41] this week on Tuesday, OCTOBER

[1:00:42] 28th.

[1:00:44] >> Senator from eastern Fairfax

[1:00:45] has the floor.

[1:00:47] >> I don't think that's an

[1:00:49] unfair characterization.

[1:00:50] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the

[1:00:52] majority leader yield for an

[1:00:53] additional question?

[1:00:54] >> Will the Senator yield again?

[1:00:54] >> Sure.

[1:00:57] >> Senator yields the senator

[1:00:58] from Colonial Heights.

[1:00:59] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[1:01:01] the senator from Eastern

[1:01:03] Fairfax if he would agree with

[1:01:04] me that early voting in this

[1:01:06] election began on SEPTEMBER

[1:01:07] 19th.

[1:01:09] >> Senator Surovell has the

[1:01:11] floor.

[1:01:12] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would

[1:01:13] agree with the Senator that

[1:01:15] voting was made available to

[1:01:17] voters who chose to exercise

[1:01:18] their right to vote early if

[1:01:20] they wanted to. And they

[1:01:21] obviously, by making that

[1:01:24] choice, chose not to find out

[1:01:25] what might happen to be

[1:01:26] released to the newspapers.

[1:01:28] Over the 45 days leading up to

[1:01:30] the election. But that's their

[1:01:32] choice, and some people availed

[1:01:34] themselves of it.

[1:01:35] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the

[1:01:37] majority leader yield for one

[1:01:38] final question?

[1:01:39] >> Final question, Senator

[1:01:40] Surovell.

[1:01:40] >> Sure.

[1:01:42] >> Senator yields Senator from

[1:01:43] Colonial Heights.

[1:01:45] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[1:01:48] the Senator if he agrees with

[1:01:51] me that a million or more

[1:01:53] Virginians had already voted by

[1:01:54] the time that this

[1:01:55] constitutional amendment was

[1:01:57] made available to the public on

[1:01:58] OCTOBER 28th.

[1:02:00] >> Senator from eastern Fairfax

[1:02:02] County.

[1:02:04] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I believe

[1:02:05] that, yeah, there's probably

[1:02:06] about a million people that

[1:02:08] voted before that. They also

[1:02:10] voted before some news was

[1:02:12] released by some Partizan

[1:02:13] Republicans about one of the

[1:02:14] candidates for statewide office.

[1:02:15] They were also released before

[1:02:17] the they also voted before the

[1:02:18] government shutdown happened.

[1:02:19] They voted before the east wing

[1:02:21] of the white House got torn

[1:02:22] down. There's some people that

[1:02:26] voted. Some people voted before

[1:02:28] they found out whether or not

[1:02:30] the us Senate or the United

[1:02:32] States government was going to

[1:02:35] fund the tax credit, the tax

[1:02:37] credits, to keep our health

[1:02:37] insurance premiums low. In

[1:02:39] Virginia. There's a lot of

[1:02:40] different things that they

[1:02:42] chose not to be made aware of.

[1:02:44] Some people probably already

[1:02:45] made up their mind and felt

[1:02:47] like they didn't need more

[1:02:48] information to vote, so they

[1:02:48] voted.

[1:02:51] >> I thank the senator. MADAM

[1:02:52] PRESIDENT, speaking to the

[1:02:52] resolution.

[1:02:54] >> Senator has the floor.

[1:02:56] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, thank you.

[1:02:56] This proposed amendment, it's

[1:03:00] not just bad policy. It's a

[1:03:01] violation of the process. It's

[1:03:03] a violation of principle. It's

[1:03:04] a violation of the public's

[1:03:07] trust. And let's start with the

[1:03:09] most basic fact that we all

[1:03:12] agree on. Early voting began in

[1:03:14] this election on SEPTEMBER 19th.

[1:03:17] Over a million Virginians had

[1:03:18] already cast their ballots. And

[1:03:21] yet this amendment wasn't even

[1:03:23] made public until OCTOBER 28th.

[1:03:26] And so those voters, those

[1:03:27] Virginia voters, more than a

[1:03:29] million of them, had no

[1:03:30] opportunity to know where their

[1:03:33] Delegate candidates stood on

[1:03:34] this constitutional change

[1:03:36] before they had the opportunity

[1:03:39] to vote. And we met one of

[1:03:41] those voters today. These are

[1:03:45] real people. That completely

[1:03:46] undermines the intervening

[1:03:49] election, safeguard that our

[1:03:50] Constitution requires. MADAM

[1:03:54] PRESIDENT, but this amendment

[1:03:55] doesn't just trample the

[1:03:57] process that we have created

[1:03:59] and put in our Constitution. It

[1:04:00] betrays the people's will.

[1:04:02] Because in 2020, as has been

[1:04:03] said today and throughout this

[1:04:05] week, Virginians voted by a 2

[1:04:08] to 1 margin to end

[1:04:08] gerrymandering in the

[1:04:11] Commonwealth of Virginia and to

[1:04:12] create a redistricting

[1:04:14] commission. They said very

[1:04:17] clearly, those 2.3 million

[1:04:19] Virginians that politicians

[1:04:22] should not be drawing the maps,

[1:04:25] they called very clearly for an

[1:04:26] end to gerrymandering. And yet

[1:04:27] this amendment that we are

[1:04:29] considering today would strip

[1:04:30] that commission of its

[1:04:33] authority and give that power

[1:04:34] back to the very politicians

[1:04:36] that the voters removed from

[1:04:39] the process. And what's worse,

[1:04:41] it's being done in the middle

[1:04:44] of an election. That's not

[1:04:46] reform, that's reversal. It's

[1:04:48] not transparency. It's a power

[1:04:50] grab. It's been rushed, it's

[1:04:53] been secretive, and it's

[1:04:55] purposefully timed to avoid

[1:04:58] accountability in this election.

[1:05:00] Now, if we care about the

[1:05:02] integrity of our elections,

[1:05:03] about the rule of law, and

[1:05:05] about the message that we send

[1:05:07] to the people of Virginia, then

[1:05:10] this body must reject this

[1:05:12] amendment. We cannot rewrite

[1:05:14] the Constitution in the shadows

[1:05:17] while voters are still voting.

[1:05:19] We cannot undo mid election

[1:05:21] what the people overwhelmingly

[1:05:23] decided at the ballot box just

[1:05:25] five years ago. MADAM PRESIDENT,

[1:05:27] this process is wrong. The

[1:05:28] timing is wrong and this

[1:05:30] amendment is wrong. And I would

[1:05:32] urge the Senate to reject it.

[1:05:34] Thank you.

[1:05:37] >> The senior senator from

[1:05:39] Prince William, Senator McPike.

[1:05:41] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:05:42] Parliamentary inquiry.

[1:05:44] >> The Senator MAY state it.

[1:05:46] >> Has the PRESIDENT Determined

[1:05:48] the vote necessary to pass

[1:05:50] House Joint Resolution 607?

[1:05:53] Would that be 21 votes?

[1:05:54] >> Which PRESIDENT Are you

[1:05:55] speaking of, sir?

[1:05:58] >> MADAM? MADAM PRESIDENT, my.

[1:06:00] >> No. It is a simple majority,

[1:06:01] Senator.

[1:06:04] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:06:05] >> Majority elected, but same

[1:06:07] same.

[1:06:16] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:06:19] >> Senator Saleem, the senator

[1:06:20] from central Fairfax.

[1:06:22] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:06:24] I rise to speak on the

[1:06:24] resolution.

[1:06:26] >> Senator has the floor.

[1:06:28] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:06:30] I'm in support of this

[1:06:31] redistricting amendment because

[1:06:32] what's happening around this

[1:06:34] country should worry every

[1:06:36] single one of us, no matter

[1:06:39] what party we're in. In 2020,

[1:06:41] before my time in the chamber,

[1:06:42] Virginians made history. They

[1:06:46] voted to take politics out of

[1:06:48] map drawing. They said enough

[1:06:51] games, enough back door deals.

[1:06:52] Let's make redistricting fair

[1:06:54] and transparent. And somehow,

[1:06:56] after decades of back and forth,

[1:06:59] we got something on the books.

[1:07:00] Fast forward 2025. Across

[1:07:03] America, we're seeing something

[1:07:05] new and dangerous, something

[1:07:08] that has never been seen before.

[1:07:10] PRESIDENT Donald Trump and Vice

[1:07:12] PRESIDENT Jd Vance have been

[1:07:13] calling on Republican

[1:07:16] controlled states to draw their

[1:07:18] congressional maps right now,

[1:07:19] not because of new population

[1:07:22] data, not to fix mistakes, but

[1:07:24] to lock in power before the

[1:07:27] next election. And one by one,

[1:07:30] those states have bent the knee.

[1:07:32] Texas redrew its map to wipe

[1:07:34] out competitive seats. Missouri

[1:07:36] held a special session just to

[1:07:37] do the same. North Carolina

[1:07:40] pushed through a map to add

[1:07:42] another Republican seat, with

[1:07:45] Trump cheering all this on.

[1:07:48] That's not that's not

[1:07:49] representative democracy.

[1:07:51] That's raw political muscle.

[1:07:54] And here's the truth. If

[1:07:57] Virginians are asking us, we

[1:08:00] have to stand up. And we have

[1:08:02] to stand up to those who are

[1:08:04] changing the rules mid-game and

[1:08:07] vote. And our voters will lose

[1:08:10] power. If we don't, our voices

[1:08:11] in Congress will get weaker,

[1:08:13] not because our people changed,

[1:08:15] but because somebody else

[1:08:17] decided to cheat the system.

[1:08:18] This amendment does not replace

[1:08:20] the redistricting commission

[1:08:22] Virginians voted for. It does

[1:08:24] not hand control back to

[1:08:25] politicians. What it does is

[1:08:27] give us the ability to respond.

[1:08:29] If other states redraw their

[1:08:30] maps for Partizan gain, it

[1:08:33] limits it's temporary and it's

[1:08:35] accountable, and it still gives

[1:08:37] the final word to the voters

[1:08:41] through a referendum. That's

[1:08:43] not a paragraph that's

[1:08:45] protecting fairness. Now, I

[1:08:47] know some of you will say we

[1:08:49] have to stay above the fray. I

[1:08:52] get that, but democracy isn't

[1:08:54] self-cleaning. It doesn't

[1:08:56] defend itself. If we sit by

[1:08:58] while other rigs the system,

[1:09:01] democracy won't quietly die

[1:09:02] quietly in the darkness. It

[1:09:05] will die right in front of us

[1:09:06] in broad daylight, while we

[1:09:09] pretend not to see it. We can't

[1:09:11] let that happen. Not here, not

[1:09:13] in Virginia. We will not bend

[1:09:15] the knee to any national figure

[1:09:19] who thinks states should. Who

[1:09:20] thinks states should be tools

[1:09:22] in their Partizan game, or how

[1:09:24] they created their own crown.

[1:09:27] We will not watch our voters

[1:09:28] lose representation because

[1:09:29] others have decided to rewrite

[1:09:32] the rules. Colleagues, this

[1:09:33] amendment is about standing up

[1:09:36] for Virginia, for fairness, for

[1:09:37] democracy itself. We didn't

[1:09:40] start this fight, but we have

[1:09:42] an obligation to finish it with

[1:09:44] integrity, transparency, and

[1:09:46] the courage to defend what's

[1:09:49] right. Because when history at

[1:09:52] this moment is written, let it

[1:09:54] say Virginia saw what was

[1:09:56] happening and chose to fight

[1:09:56] back. Thank you, MADAM

[1:09:59] PRESIDENT.

[1:10:02] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, will the

[1:10:03] gentleman from Central Fairfax

[1:10:05] rise for the purposes of the

[1:10:05] question?

[1:10:07] >> Well, the senator from

[1:10:08] central Fairfax County rise and

[1:10:09] yield.

[1:10:10] >> I rise and yield.

[1:10:14] >> The Senator has risen.

[1:10:21] Senator. Senator Stanley.

[1:10:22] >> Has the floor.

[1:10:26] >> I believe it's the third day.

[1:10:28] It's really the fourth day or

[1:10:32] fifth day. MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:10:34] MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask my

[1:10:36] friend, the senator from

[1:10:39] Central Fairfax, in accordance

[1:10:40] with this. You know, he's

[1:10:41] talking about this. This is

[1:10:43] only a triggering mechanism if

[1:10:44] if there's redistricting in

[1:10:48] another state, then we, the

[1:10:49] body of the Senate and the

[1:10:50] House can go and redistrict to

[1:10:53] countermand that. Would the

[1:10:56] Senator agree with me that that

[1:10:57] triggering would even include

[1:10:58] perhaps a boundary adjustment

[1:11:00] adjustment in the state of Iowa

[1:11:02] or changing a couple seats here

[1:11:04] and there? That one slight

[1:11:07] change to redistricting map in

[1:11:09] any state in the in the United

[1:11:11] States of America could

[1:11:12] actually trigger us to have the

[1:11:14] ability. Then if this passes to

[1:11:17] go and change our maps.

[1:11:20] >> Senator Saleem has the floor.

[1:11:22] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I will

[1:11:23] yield to our privilege and

[1:11:26] elections chair, Senator Ralph.

[1:11:29] >> Well, the senator from the

[1:11:30] junior senator from Virginia

[1:11:31] Beach. Yield.

[1:11:33] >> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise

[1:11:34] to answer the question.

[1:11:36] >> Senator has the floor.

[1:11:37] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:11:39] No, this resolution is very,

[1:11:41] very narrowly written. And so

[1:11:44] what it does is allows us in a

[1:11:46] very small time frame to redraw

[1:11:49] districts. If another state

[1:11:50] redraw districts that are

[1:11:52] unconstitutional, if somehow

[1:11:54] another state draws the

[1:11:57] district and they make a line

[1:11:59] change, we still have to be

[1:12:02] under the guise of the federal

[1:12:03] federal Voting Rights Act of 65,

[1:12:06] as well as Voting Rights Act of

[1:12:08] Virginia that takes into

[1:12:11] account race and population.

[1:12:12] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, will the

[1:12:14] gentleman yield for another

[1:12:16] question?

[1:12:17] >> The junior senator from

[1:12:19] Virginia Beach.

[1:12:21] >> Thank you.

[1:12:23] >> Yields Senator Stanley has

[1:12:25] the floor.

[1:12:30] >> MADAM PRESIDENT. If I

[1:12:32] understand the gentleman

[1:12:34] correctly, then when we

[1:12:37] determine something to be

[1:12:38] unconstitutional or we think

[1:12:39] it's wrong in the redistricting,

[1:12:41] then we will have the power

[1:12:43] based on this enactment of this

[1:12:44] change to our constitution, to

[1:12:45] make that subjective

[1:12:47] determination to whether we go

[1:12:48] back and redraw the

[1:12:50] congressional lines or not. Is

[1:12:51] that true?

[1:12:52] >> Junior senator from Virginia

[1:12:53] Beach has the floor.

[1:12:55] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, with the

[1:12:57] senator from Franklin County.

[1:13:00] Please clarify his question.

[1:13:02] >> Senator Stanley.

[1:13:04] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I thought

[1:13:05] I'd stated it clearly, but as a

[1:13:07] lawyer, I can certainly ask

[1:13:07] some convoluted questions over

[1:13:09] the course of time. What I'm

[1:13:11] saying is, is I thought I heard

[1:13:13] the senator say, oh, this only

[1:13:14] happens. We'll only the body,

[1:13:15] the House and the Senate can

[1:13:17] only redraw the maps if another

[1:13:19] state redraws their maps that

[1:13:20] are unconstitutional and done

[1:13:23] for a specific purpose. Who

[1:13:24] makes those determinations

[1:13:25] under your interpretation of

[1:13:27] what this resolution stands for?

[1:13:29] >> Senator Rouse.

[1:13:31] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:13:33] If you read House Joint

[1:13:35] Resolution, I point to Senator

[1:13:40] to lines starting on line 30.

[1:13:44] Three, line 37, where it states

[1:13:46] and it pertains to the senator

[1:13:49] from Franklin's question. And I

[1:13:50] will I'll read it for the

[1:13:54] record, but it states in line

[1:13:58] 30 that in the italic letters

[1:14:00] there that except that the

[1:14:01] General Assembly shall be

[1:14:02] authorized to modify one or

[1:14:03] more congressional districts at

[1:14:05] any point following the

[1:14:07] adoption of a decennial

[1:14:10] reappointment law, but prior to

[1:14:12] the decennial census, in the

[1:14:13] event that any state of the

[1:14:15] United States of America

[1:14:17] conducts a redistricting of

[1:14:17] such states congressional

[1:14:19] districts at any point

[1:14:21] following that state's adoption

[1:14:22] of a decennial reapportionment

[1:14:25] law for any other purpose other

[1:14:27] than the completion of the

[1:14:28] decennial redistricting in

[1:14:30] response to a federal census

[1:14:31] and reapportionment mandated by

[1:14:34] the Constitution of the United

[1:14:35] States and established in

[1:14:38] federal law as ordered by any

[1:14:39] state the federal court to

[1:14:41] remedy. And here's the most

[1:14:44] important part an unlawful or

[1:14:46] unconstitutional district map.

[1:14:48] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, final

[1:14:49] question to the gentleman.

[1:14:52] >> Well, the senator, junior

[1:14:54] senator from Virginia Beach,

[1:14:56] yield again.

[1:14:58] >> Are you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:14:59] >> Senator yields. Senator

[1:15:01] Stanley has the floor.

[1:15:02] >> I thank the gentleman, and

[1:15:04] I'm not trying to confuse him

[1:15:07] or trap him, but as I read

[1:15:11] underline 34. It says that this

[1:15:12] body can determine and that

[1:15:13] body down the hall can

[1:15:15] determine to redistrict for any

[1:15:19] purpose other than to

[1:15:20] individual things, completions

[1:15:21] of their original program or

[1:15:23] when the when the court has

[1:15:24] ordered changes to their maps.

[1:15:26] And I guess what I was saying

[1:15:28] was, any purpose that falls

[1:15:32] outside of the two exceptions

[1:15:33] would also necessarily include

[1:15:35] about resolving split precincts,

[1:15:37] which is a common exercise,

[1:15:38] would it not? Because as a

[1:15:41] lawyer, you must and I know

[1:15:42] you're not one, but and

[1:15:44] congratulations on that fact

[1:15:46] that you must understand for

[1:15:48] any purpose is a very broad

[1:15:51] statement, is it not.

[1:15:52] >> Senator Rouse, MADAM?

[1:15:53] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I will

[1:15:55] respond to the Senator from

[1:15:56] Franklin County that as he is

[1:15:58] fully aware of, that none of

[1:16:00] the maps are being drawn are in

[1:16:01] absolute, that they all will be

[1:16:03] reviewed by our courts, and the

[1:16:05] courts will have the final say.

[1:16:06] So whether the maps are

[1:16:08] constitutional, Lee valuable or

[1:16:10] not.

[1:16:17] >> I thank the gentleman.

[1:16:20] >> Senator York, the Senator.

[1:16:24] Senator Diggs, the Senator from

[1:16:25] York.

[1:16:27] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:16:30] Speaking to the resolution.

[1:16:32] >> Senator has the floor.

[1:16:35] >> Thank you. Our view, our

[1:16:36] Constitution as a long term

[1:16:38] contract between the citizens

[1:16:40] of the Commonwealth and the

[1:16:42] government. It guides

[1:16:44] legislators on how to conduct

[1:16:45] the business of government and

[1:16:48] also protects our citizens from

[1:16:50] the government. The Bill of

[1:16:52] rights is the best example of

[1:16:54] that protection. Our

[1:16:56] Constitution can be viewed as a

[1:16:59] marriage that is based on

[1:17:01] mutual respect and trust. It's

[1:17:04] there for the long haul. It

[1:17:07] gives us a calm consistency on

[1:17:10] how to conduct ourselves during

[1:17:13] extraordinary times, and how to

[1:17:15] weather a storm and survive

[1:17:17] through those times, and not be

[1:17:19] tempted to lose our way through

[1:17:22] those times. The Constitution

[1:17:24] should not have expiration

[1:17:26] dates where amendments are cast

[1:17:28] aside like a carton of expired

[1:17:31] milk. This amendment is being

[1:17:33] proposed not to protect our

[1:17:35] citizens or to make our

[1:17:36] government better. This

[1:17:38] amendment is about increasing

[1:17:40] the political power of the

[1:17:42] Democrat Party. It has an

[1:17:44] expiration date so that if the

[1:17:46] political winds change, the

[1:17:48] Republican Party can't do the

[1:17:50] same thing in a few years. The

[1:17:52] Constitution states that

[1:17:54] redistricting should be done

[1:17:56] every ten years to address

[1:17:58] changes, changes and shifts in

[1:18:01] population so that all people

[1:18:02] are equally and fairly

[1:18:05] represented. Our current maps

[1:18:07] meet that criteria. This is

[1:18:11] what our citizens voted for 66%

[1:18:15] a few years ago. This amendment

[1:18:19] circumvents that ideal and is

[1:18:20] presented for no other reason

[1:18:22] than to increase political

[1:18:25] power. That is the threat to

[1:18:26] our democracy. And this is

[1:18:29] wrong on so many fronts. And I

[1:18:33] also find it curious that it's

[1:18:34] wrong for other states to

[1:18:37] decide to redraw their maps

[1:18:40] because someone asked them, but

[1:18:42] it's okay for us to do it

[1:18:44] because the Democrat Party has

[1:18:47] asked us to do it. It depends

[1:18:49] on who's doing the asking,

[1:18:51] whether it's right or wrong. We

[1:18:53] should not fall into that trap

[1:18:56] much as the Democrats in

[1:18:57] Maryland have refused to do.

[1:19:08] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:19:14] >> Senator. From Shenandoah,

[1:19:17] Senator French.

[1:19:19] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:19:23] I rise to speak to the

[1:19:23] resolution.

[1:19:24] >> The senator has the floor.

[1:19:27] >> I just want to take a moment

[1:19:28] to talk about this process and

[1:19:32] the quality time that we've all

[1:19:35] got to spend together this week.

[1:19:37] One thing has become crystal

[1:19:38] clear to me. The wedge between

[1:19:41] rural Virginia and urban

[1:19:42] Virginia has been driven even

[1:19:45] further. As a senator from

[1:19:46] district one, I've worked hard

[1:19:48] to prevent that from happening

[1:19:51] with my people and letting them

[1:19:52] know that we are in this state

[1:19:56] together. Our job here is to

[1:19:59] make laws. And legislation that

[1:20:02] represent all the Virginians,

[1:20:04] no matter where they live. If

[1:20:07] this bill comes to life, our

[1:20:09] congressional map will look

[1:20:11] like a hurricane prediction

[1:20:13] chart. A mess of spaghetti and

[1:20:16] confusion. It will stretch our

[1:20:18] representatives so thin that

[1:20:19] our legislators will be out of

[1:20:21] touch with the people they

[1:20:25] represent. Overall, this bill

[1:20:27] is bad for Virginia people. And

[1:20:30] that's not just my opinion.

[1:20:31] It's something that many of the

[1:20:34] folks in this body said

[1:20:35] themselves just some short five

[1:20:39] years ago. In closing, I'd say

[1:20:41] this. I've sat here by the

[1:20:43] window looking out, wishing I

[1:20:45] was home, weaning calves,

[1:20:48] harvesting crops on the farm.

[1:20:51] But I'm still proud to be here,

[1:20:52] sacrificing to represent the

[1:20:54] hard working people of rural

[1:20:57] Virginia. However, when it's

[1:21:00] said and done, we're. To me,

[1:21:02] this is about like a bunch of

[1:21:04] teenage boys on the farm. When

[1:21:06] dad's gone and we cut the

[1:21:07] muffler off the truck, old

[1:21:10] diesel truck, and we're not

[1:21:11] doing nothing but making a lot

[1:21:16] of noise and blowing smoke.

[1:21:18] Virginians. Virginians are

[1:21:20] smart. They know what's good

[1:21:23] for them. And by and large,

[1:21:24] they're satisfied with how the

[1:21:27] district stand today. I'm

[1:21:30] confident, just as before, if

[1:21:32] given the opportunity, they're

[1:21:34] going to vote that 66 to 34 to

[1:21:38] keep it the way it is. I urge

[1:21:39] this body not to forget who we

[1:21:42] work for and who we serve. Let

[1:21:44] the people of Virginia, not the

[1:21:45] interests of Washington, guide

[1:21:56] us in our decisions. Thank you.

[1:21:59] >> The Senator from Prince

[1:22:05] Edwards Senator ciphers.

[1:22:07] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I ask if

[1:22:09] the Senator from Virginia Beach

[1:22:11] would rise and yield for a

[1:22:11] question.

[1:22:13] >> Will the junior senator from

[1:22:19] Virginia Beach rise and yield?

[1:22:20] >> Are you.

[1:22:21] >> MADAM Senator yields.

[1:22:23] Senator cyphers has the floor.

[1:22:24] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, we've heard

[1:22:26] a lot this week that the

[1:22:28] resolution before us is an

[1:22:30] extraordinary response to

[1:22:31] extraordinary circumstances. I

[1:22:33] would ask the Senator if during

[1:22:34] his time as a Virginia

[1:22:36] legislator, has he seen or

[1:22:38] introduced other legislation

[1:22:40] that amends statutory or

[1:22:41] constitutional law because of

[1:22:44] mistakes, omissions or changes

[1:22:47] in the underlying conditions to

[1:22:48] which the law applies? Or is

[1:22:50] this a new concept?

[1:22:52] >> Senator Rouse has the floor.

[1:22:55] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, if the

[1:22:58] gentleman. Where is he from?

[1:22:59] Again? I'm sorry.

[1:23:00] >> Prince Edward.

[1:23:02] >> Prince Edward is the senator

[1:23:04] from Prince Edward. Clarify his

[1:23:07] question in that response. Give

[1:23:08] him a chance to respond. But I

[1:23:11] would go on to say we have

[1:23:12] three constitutional amendments

[1:23:15] right now that are before the

[1:23:16] people. This is along the lines

[1:23:18] of the same process.

[1:23:21] >> Senator Edwards. Senator

[1:23:21] Cyphers.

[1:23:23] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, so so I

[1:23:25] think I understand the response

[1:23:28] is that it is normal to amend

[1:23:30] legislation when circumstances

[1:23:31] change or when there are

[1:23:33] mistakes or omissions. Is is

[1:23:34] that correct?

[1:23:36] >> Senator Rouse?

[1:23:39] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, this is a

[1:23:40] resolution that we're going to

[1:23:42] put forward to the people that

[1:23:44] starts a process to give

[1:23:45] Virginians an option.

[1:23:47] >> a follow up question, MADAM

[1:23:47] PRESIDENT.

[1:23:49] >> Will the Senator from

[1:23:52] Virginia Beach yield again, the

[1:23:55] Senator yields Senator Edwards

[1:23:56] cyphers.

[1:23:58] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, article 12,

[1:24:00] section one of the Virginia

[1:24:01] Constitution lays out the

[1:24:02] process by which the

[1:24:03] Constitution MAY be amended.

[1:24:05] One requirement is what we

[1:24:07] referred to this week as the

[1:24:09] intervening election that must

[1:24:10] take place after the first

[1:24:11] passage of an amending

[1:24:13] resolution. And before the

[1:24:15] second passage. I would ask the

[1:24:17] Senator if he knows the purpose

[1:24:20] of this intervening election.

[1:24:21] >> The junior senator from

[1:24:23] Virginia Beach has the floor,

[1:24:24] MADAM.

[1:24:25] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, in response

[1:24:27] to the Senator, I would say

[1:24:29] that the process for

[1:24:30] constitutional amendments that

[1:24:32] it must pass both chambers

[1:24:34] twice with the intervening

[1:24:36] election before going to

[1:24:37] referendum for the people. And

[1:24:38] that's the process that we're

[1:24:40] following.

[1:24:42] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would

[1:24:43] further clarify that the

[1:24:45] purpose is to give voters the

[1:24:46] opportunity to reset their

[1:24:47] representation in the House of

[1:24:50] delegates. And last follow up

[1:24:52] question, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:24:54] >> Will the junior senator from

[1:24:57] Virginia Beach yield again?

[1:25:00] >> I yield, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:25:01] >> Senator Cyprus has the floor.

[1:25:03] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[1:25:05] the Senator if the Senator is

[1:25:06] aware that when article 12,

[1:25:09] section one, was updated in the

[1:25:11] constitutional revision of 1971,

[1:25:14] early voting did not exist.

[1:25:16] >> The junior senator from

[1:25:18] Virginia Beach has the floor.

[1:25:19] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm fully

[1:25:22] aware of that as well. And

[1:25:25] perhaps the junior senator

[1:25:27] within the Senate should also

[1:25:30] study the the Constitution even

[1:25:32] more. Thank you, MADAM

[1:25:37] PRESIDENT.

[1:25:39] >> Senator Cyphers.

[1:25:40] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'd like to

[1:25:41] state for the record that it

[1:25:43] appears to be well established

[1:25:44] that the intent of the

[1:25:45] intervening election and the

[1:25:46] constitutional amendment

[1:25:48] process is so that voters can

[1:25:49] respond at the ballot box

[1:25:51] between the two passages of

[1:25:52] amending resolution. I'd

[1:25:54] further state that since early

[1:25:55] voting did not exist when the

[1:25:56] amendment process was written,

[1:25:58] the authors had no reason to

[1:25:59] contemplate a scenario in which

[1:26:01] the House of delegates votes

[1:26:04] were already cast by more than

[1:26:04] 1.1 million people before the

[1:26:07] first passage of a resolution.

[1:26:08] I would agree that there are

[1:26:11] times that we need to amend law

[1:26:13] due to changes in underlying

[1:26:16] conditions and. Speaking to the

[1:26:17] amendment, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm

[1:26:19] sorry. Speaking to the

[1:26:22] resolution. MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[1:26:23] agree that that there are times

[1:26:26] when we need to amend law due

[1:26:28] to changes in underlying

[1:26:29] circumstances. But, MADAM

[1:26:30] PRESIDENT, I would submit that

[1:26:31] in this case, the underlying

[1:26:32] conditions that have changed

[1:26:34] are not the political dynamics

[1:26:36] in Washington, but rather the

[1:26:37] fact that the Constitution that

[1:26:39] we are sworn to support did not

[1:26:42] contemplate a scenario in which

[1:26:43] 1.1 million voters had already

[1:26:44] voted before the first passage

[1:26:46] of an amending resolution. If

[1:26:48] we want to propose

[1:26:49] constitutional changes, MADAM

[1:26:50] PRESIDENT, perhaps they should

[1:26:52] be based on good faith

[1:26:53] interpretations of existing law

[1:26:56] and a desire to strengthen the

[1:26:57] constitutional principles

[1:26:59] rather than compromise them for

[1:27:01] political convenience. Thank

[1:27:02] you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:27:02] >> MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:27:04] >> For what purpose does the

[1:27:06] Senator from eastern Fairfax

[1:27:06] County rise?

[1:27:08] >> Well, Senator from Prince

[1:27:09] Edward, yield for a question.

[1:27:11] >> Senator will yield.

[1:27:12] >> I yield.

[1:27:13] >> Senator yields. Senator

[1:27:14] Surovell has the floor.

[1:27:16] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:27:17] Given the senators decided to

[1:27:19] try to give us a lesson on

[1:27:19] constitutional history. I have

[1:27:21] two copies. I have a copy of

[1:27:22] Dick Howard's commentaries, The

[1:27:23] Constitution of Virginia. I

[1:27:25] also am aware that the law

[1:27:26] library. We have copies of the

[1:27:28] debates from 1969. What in

[1:27:29] those books supports your

[1:27:32] theory that the entire point of

[1:27:34] having an election between

[1:27:35] election, between the

[1:27:35] introduction, constitutional

[1:27:38] amendments was the intent? Was

[1:27:40] the intent behind this

[1:27:41] constitutional provision? What

[1:27:43] in the books? I understand you

[1:27:45] have a theory. What actual

[1:27:46] support in a book do you have

[1:27:47] for that?

[1:27:48] >> Senator Cyphers?

[1:27:51] >> MADAM? MADAM PRESIDENT, as

[1:27:53] an entrepreneur and a private

[1:27:54] citizen as opposed to an

[1:27:56] attorney, I would like to defer

[1:27:58] this question to my colleague

[1:28:00] who understands constitutional

[1:28:02] law substantially better than I

[1:28:03] am, with the caveat, MADAM

[1:28:06] PRESIDENT, that I believe that

[1:28:08] we should respect the

[1:28:10] understanding of Constitution

[1:28:11] as it relates to private

[1:28:14] citizens and voters and people

[1:28:16] who are not attorneys, as well

[1:28:18] as those that are well

[1:28:19] practiced and well studied in

[1:28:20] that field.

[1:28:22] >> Senator Obenshain, will you

[1:28:23] yield?

[1:28:24] >> I think he's yielding to me.

[1:28:27] >> All right. The senator from

[1:28:30] Rockingham has the floor.

[1:28:32] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, in

[1:28:33] answering the senator from

[1:28:35] eastern Fairfax, I think

[1:28:36] Senator from eastern Fairfax

[1:28:38] knows very well that there MAY

[1:28:39] be only a couple of people in

[1:28:42] this chamber who have perused

[1:28:46] the Eddic Howard Treatise on

[1:28:48] the Constitution of Virginia,

[1:28:50] or know Professor Howard. I

[1:28:52] know, know Professor Howard. I

[1:28:54] do know Professor Howard. I've

[1:28:56] worked with him. I've read his

[1:28:58] treatise, as a matter of fact,

[1:29:00] the senator from eastern

[1:29:01] Fairfax helped me procure a

[1:29:03] copy of the treatise, and I'm

[1:29:04] grateful for that. And I spent

[1:29:07] a little bit of time last night

[1:29:08] looking at the treatise for

[1:29:10] that specific purpose. And it

[1:29:12] does not address it, but what

[1:29:14] it does address and what is

[1:29:17] clear is that Professor Howard,

[1:29:19] he spent a lot of his career

[1:29:21] helping write constitutions

[1:29:23] around America and around the

[1:29:27] world, and he, in doing so,

[1:29:28] drew upon the work of others.

[1:29:31] You know, we as lawyers, you

[1:29:32] know, one of the things that we

[1:29:36] learn early on is not it's not

[1:29:37] always necessary to be original.

[1:29:40] It is to borrow good ideas that

[1:29:41] have worked well in others. And

[1:29:44] in this instance, that

[1:29:48] provision requiring an election

[1:29:50] is a provision that has been

[1:29:53] adopted in, I believe,

[1:29:55] approximately ten other state

[1:29:58] constitutions. And professor,

[1:30:02] law professor D.C. Wright wrote

[1:30:04] in the Duquesne Law Review in

[1:30:07] 2021, talking about all of

[1:30:09] those provisions and the

[1:30:11] purpose for those provisions in

[1:30:13] constitutions all over the

[1:30:15] United States of America,

[1:30:16] including Virginia's

[1:30:17] constitution. And he said many

[1:30:19] state constitutions require

[1:30:21] that a proposed amendment be

[1:30:24] approved by successive

[1:30:25] legislatures, with an

[1:30:26] intervening election of at

[1:30:29] least one House before final

[1:30:31] ratification. The requirement

[1:30:34] of an intervening election is

[1:30:38] designed to provide a check on

[1:30:40] hasty constitutional change,

[1:30:43] ensuring that a proposal has

[1:30:45] survived the test of public

[1:30:48] opinion before it becomes a

[1:30:51] part of the Fundamental Law. In

[1:30:53] this way, the electorate,

[1:30:54] through its representatives

[1:30:57] chosen in the interim, has an

[1:31:00] opportunity to affirm or reject

[1:31:02] the wisdom of the proposed

[1:31:05] amendment, and I would

[1:31:06] respectfully submit to the

[1:31:11] gentleman that this action in

[1:31:14] calling us here four days

[1:31:17] before our statewide election,

[1:31:19] clearly contravenes that

[1:31:22] provision. If it was simply to

[1:31:24] put this on the ballot and not

[1:31:27] pull a fast one on the citizens

[1:31:29] of the Commonwealth of Virginia

[1:31:31] and evade the purpose of that

[1:31:32] constitutional provision, we

[1:31:34] should have been here months

[1:31:37] ago. The PRESIDENT Of the

[1:31:39] United States, whether you

[1:31:42] agree with it or not, called

[1:31:45] for redistricting back in JULY

[1:31:49] of this year, Texas made its

[1:31:51] initial steps towards

[1:31:53] redistricting in the beginning

[1:31:57] of AUGUST of this year. If

[1:32:01] these professions of heartfelt

[1:32:03] conviction that this is

[1:32:06] necessary to save the Republic

[1:32:09] were sincere, we could have

[1:32:11] been back here in AUGUST,

[1:32:13] should have been back here in

[1:32:17] AUGUST. Instead, we are here

[1:32:20] for days before a statewide

[1:32:23] election. After 1 million

[1:32:25] Virginians have already cast

[1:32:28] their votes. It is in clear

[1:32:31] contravention of the purpose of

[1:32:33] that constitutional provision

[1:32:34] here in the Commonwealth of

[1:32:36] Virginia. I hope that answers

[1:32:37] gentleman's question.

[1:32:38] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, the Senator

[1:32:40] yield for a question.

[1:32:42] >> Will the Senator from

[1:32:44] Rockingham yield I yield.

[1:32:45] Senator yields. Senator

[1:32:47] Surovell has the floor.

[1:32:48] >> Does the Senator agree that

[1:32:49] prior to 1870, there was no

[1:32:52] process for amending the

[1:32:54] Constitution, and that in 1870

[1:32:56] that the 1870 Constitution, the

[1:32:58] amendment process was added?

[1:33:00] Does he further agree that at

[1:33:02] that time the Constitution

[1:33:03] required intervening election

[1:33:04] of both the House and the

[1:33:06] Senate before the Constitution

[1:33:08] could be amended?

[1:33:09] >> Senator.

[1:33:10] >> With that.

[1:33:12] >> We have another question.

[1:33:14] >> Will the Senator yield the

[1:33:15] Senator yields? Senator

[1:33:16] Surovell has the floor.

[1:33:18] >> The Senator also agree that

[1:33:19] if the intent behind the

[1:33:20] amendment was to allow the

[1:33:22] voters to pass on the elected

[1:33:23] officials that are actually

[1:33:24] going to vote on the amendment,

[1:33:25] that the voters of Virginia

[1:33:27] will not have an opportunity to

[1:33:29] pass on the voters or the

[1:33:30] people that are serving in the

[1:33:31] state Senate, with the

[1:33:33] exception of the senior senator

[1:33:34] from Chesterfield, I hope

[1:33:37] before the amendment is voted

[1:33:39] again in a succeeding session.

[1:33:42] >> MADAM Senator Obenshain.

[1:33:43] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, what I

[1:33:46] would say to the gentleman is

[1:33:48] that the provision was changed

[1:33:52] as described in order to change

[1:33:55] the process. It permits a

[1:33:57] constitutional amendment to be

[1:33:59] made or to be advanced every

[1:34:01] two years instead of every four

[1:34:04] years. And while I know we're

[1:34:06] not spending time or not

[1:34:07] supposed to talk about folks

[1:34:09] down the hall, but there are

[1:34:11] 100 elections of members down

[1:34:14] the hall, and I know that many

[1:34:15] members of this body think

[1:34:17] we're the only ones who matter.

[1:34:19] And we are. But there are a lot

[1:34:21] of people there are a lot of

[1:34:22] people across the Commonwealth

[1:34:23] of Virginia who believe that

[1:34:25] the members of the House of

[1:34:26] delegates ought to be held

[1:34:27] accountable for their votes as

[1:34:28] well. And this process

[1:34:30] undermines the ability of the

[1:34:32] people of the Commonwealth of

[1:34:33] Virginia to express their

[1:34:36] opinions, as has been described.

[1:34:38] This has this was conducted

[1:34:40] under cover of darkness. The

[1:34:42] the purpose of this this

[1:34:44] special session was revealed in

[1:34:46] the New York Times last week.

[1:34:50] The text of this constitutional

[1:34:52] amendment was revealed two days

[1:34:56] ago in order to prevent those

[1:34:59] million people from seeing the

[1:35:01] text, and probably to prevent a

[1:35:03] good many more from even

[1:35:05] talking about it or knowing

[1:35:07] what has happened this week in

[1:35:08] this chamber and the chamber

[1:35:10] down the hall.

[1:35:11] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, Senator,

[1:35:12] yield for another question.

[1:35:13] >> Senator from Rockingham

[1:35:15] yields Senator Surovell has the

[1:35:16] floor.

[1:35:18] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[1:35:19] the Senator. Does he also agree

[1:35:21] that in the Constitution that

[1:35:22] predated the current

[1:35:24] constitution of 1971, that that

[1:35:26] Constitution required a 90 day

[1:35:29] period of time when the

[1:35:30] amendment was to be made

[1:35:32] available and posted at the at

[1:35:35] the courthouses before the

[1:35:37] election. The election after

[1:35:39] the first adoption. But that

[1:35:41] that language was removed from

[1:35:44] the Constitution. And because a

[1:35:46] lot of things have changed

[1:35:48] since 1870, I know that in 1870

[1:35:49] they invented chewing gum and a

[1:35:51] telephone. Electric streetcars,

[1:35:53] staplers, light bulbs. But

[1:35:54] since 1870, people don't get

[1:35:56] their information quite the

[1:35:58] same way. And so when they

[1:35:59] change the Constitution in 1969,

[1:36:02] in the floor debate, they felt

[1:36:04] it would be better to require

[1:36:06] 90 days notice to the voters

[1:36:08] before the voters actually vote

[1:36:11] on it, not before the next

[1:36:12] General Assembly, not before

[1:36:14] the election of the people that

[1:36:16] would vote on it the second

[1:36:17] time. Do you agree that that

[1:36:18] they made that change because

[1:36:20] they thought that was a more

[1:36:21] modern way to approach this?

[1:36:22] >> MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:36:25] >> Obenshain has the floor.

[1:36:26] >> Senator Saslaw is no longer

[1:36:28] in this chamber, and I don't

[1:36:30] think anybody in the chamber

[1:36:33] has the recollection of the

[1:36:35] intent of the drafters of the

[1:36:38] prior constitution. But I would

[1:36:40] say that I give the majority

[1:36:43] leader, and whoever crafted

[1:36:46] this scheme great credit for

[1:36:48] being very crafty, but I would

[1:36:52] suggest that this absolutely

[1:36:54] contravenes the intent of the

[1:36:57] drafters of the current

[1:36:58] constitution under which we

[1:37:01] operate. It does not require it

[1:37:03] to be posted for 90 days before

[1:37:06] the election. However, it does

[1:37:07] require there to be an

[1:37:10] intervening election after the

[1:37:12] passage of this constitutional

[1:37:14] amendment in its first instance,

[1:37:16] and that is being violated by

[1:37:18] virtue of the fact that this

[1:37:20] election is already underway,

[1:37:22] that 1 million Virginians have

[1:37:25] already cast their votes. And

[1:37:27] this is a deliberate and clear

[1:37:29] effort to disenfranchize those

[1:37:32] million Virginia voters,

[1:37:33] constituents of every single

[1:37:35] member of this body and the

[1:37:36] body down the hall.

[1:37:38] >> MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:37:40] >> Senator Surovell.

[1:37:41] >> With the gentleman yield for

[1:37:42] one last question about this

[1:37:43] bill.

[1:37:45] >> The Senator from Rockingham

[1:37:47] yield, Senator yields. Senator

[1:37:48] Surovell has the floor.

[1:37:50] >> With the gentleman agree

[1:37:52] that in the APRIL 2nd, 1969

[1:37:53] debates of the House of

[1:37:54] delegates debating the

[1:37:55] constitutional revisions that

[1:37:59] the House of delegates, MR.

[1:38:01] Slaughter, I guess he was a

[1:38:02] state delegate at the time.

[1:38:03] >> French slaughter.

[1:38:04] >> Yeah. French. Before he ran

[1:38:07] for Congress, I guess that he

[1:38:09] he he stated, we provide there

[1:38:10] must be 90 days between the

[1:38:12] date of approval by the second

[1:38:13] General Assembly and the

[1:38:14] submission of the proposed

[1:38:16] amendment to the people, we

[1:38:17] struck out any reference to

[1:38:18] publication because of some

[1:38:19] question about what sort of

[1:38:21] publication might be required.

[1:38:22] We felt the real purpose would

[1:38:23] be served by requiring a lapse

[1:38:26] of at least 90 days between the

[1:38:27] between the final action of the

[1:38:28] General Assembly and the

[1:38:30] submission of the proposal to

[1:38:32] the people so that they would

[1:38:34] be informed. Can you agree that

[1:38:35] that's what he said in

[1:38:37] explaining why the General

[1:38:38] Assembly removed the 90 day

[1:38:42] requirement before the election,

[1:38:44] the intervening election for

[1:38:46] the amendments?

[1:38:48] >> Senator from Rockingham.

[1:38:50] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I do not so

[1:38:51] agree. I agree that that was a

[1:38:53] comment made by Delegate

[1:38:55] Slaughter in the chamber down

[1:38:58] the hall. The debates over the

[1:39:00] Constitution were carefully

[1:39:02] chronicled, and as the Senator

[1:39:04] is well aware, there are 100

[1:39:06] members down the hall, 40

[1:39:08] members up here. Every single

[1:39:10] one of us is entitled to our

[1:39:12] own opinion. Delegate slaughter

[1:39:14] had his opinion, and the intent

[1:39:16] of the Constitution is clear.

[1:39:18] Notwithstanding the removal of

[1:39:21] that language, there was no

[1:39:22] provision. There was no early

[1:39:25] voting at the time that

[1:39:26] Constitution was adopted. We

[1:39:29] have since adopted a 90 day,

[1:39:31] whatever six week period of

[1:39:33] early voting before the

[1:39:36] election. This contravenes the

[1:39:38] current provisions of our

[1:39:39] current Constitution, its

[1:39:43] letter and its spirit.

[1:39:45] Irrespective of the changes

[1:39:47] from the prior Constitution.

[1:39:49] >> Thank you gentlemen.

[1:39:53] >> Senator Craig, the Senator

[1:39:56] from Chesapeake.

[1:39:57] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, now that

[1:40:01] the the legal titans have

[1:40:02] finished that scholarly lesson,

[1:40:03] I was wondering if I could if I

[1:40:04] could.

[1:40:06] >> The senator resumes his

[1:40:06] position.

[1:40:08] >> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT. MADAM

[1:40:09] PRESIDENT, I want to address

[1:40:10] what's happening here in

[1:40:12] Richmond this week, not just

[1:40:15] H.J. 6007 itself, which

[1:40:16] disregards the clearly stated

[1:40:18] will of Virginians to have

[1:40:20] independently drawn

[1:40:22] congressional maps in favor of

[1:40:23] altering power structures in

[1:40:25] Washington, but also this rush

[1:40:27] to ram it through in what is

[1:40:29] clearly a compromised and

[1:40:31] abbreviated process. Because

[1:40:32] process matters, MADAM

[1:40:34] PRESIDENT, especially to

[1:40:35] Virginians who hold sacred

[1:40:37] their right and responsibility

[1:40:38] as citizens of this great

[1:40:40] Commonwealth to be participants

[1:40:42] in their government, not just

[1:40:43] on the receiving end of the

[1:40:46] whims of this body. Because,

[1:40:47] MADAM PRESIDENT, the part of

[1:40:48] the process that's being

[1:40:50] trampled on this week is indeed

[1:40:51] the part that ensures citizens

[1:40:53] are the ultimate authority in

[1:40:55] making changes to our

[1:40:57] Constitution. In 2020,

[1:40:58] Democrats championed championed

[1:41:00] a bipartisan redistricting

[1:41:01] commission to protect

[1:41:03] themselves, and voters approved

[1:41:07] it with 66% support. It was

[1:41:08] celebrated as a victory for

[1:41:09] democracy and for fairness in

[1:41:12] 2020, Democrats said. The

[1:41:14] people deserve fair, a fair,

[1:41:17] nonpartisan process in 2025.

[1:41:18] Democrats are seeking authority

[1:41:21] to override that process for

[1:41:23] political reasons. In 2020,

[1:41:25] Democrats said courts and

[1:41:26] commissions protect minorities

[1:41:28] better than politicians. In

[1:41:31] 2025, Democrats are proposing

[1:41:32] to give that power back to

[1:41:35] politicians in a way that

[1:41:36] prioritizes natural national

[1:41:38] power structures over fair

[1:41:40] representation. In 2020,

[1:41:41] Democrats said. Gerrymandering

[1:41:44] is cheating. In 2025, Democrats

[1:41:48] are proposing H.J. 607 to

[1:41:50] authorize mid-decade

[1:41:50] redistricting to enable that

[1:41:54] exact cheating. In 2020,

[1:41:56] Democrats said voters have a

[1:41:57] right to choose their

[1:41:59] representatives in 2025. H.J.

[1:42:02] 607 seeks to strip this right

[1:42:04] when politicians deem that

[1:42:05] political dynamics in

[1:42:08] Washington take precedent over

[1:42:11] the concerns of its citizens.

[1:42:12] That's what a complete

[1:42:13] abandonment of principles looks

[1:42:16] like. And it's what voters

[1:42:17] across this Commonwealth have

[1:42:20] had enough of. I'd like to be

[1:42:22] clear about what H.J. 60707

[1:42:24] actually does. It takes the

[1:42:26] authority to redraw

[1:42:27] congressional districts away

[1:42:29] from the the Independent

[1:42:30] Redistricting Commission. The

[1:42:33] citizens voted 2 to 1 to create

[1:42:35] in 2020 and gives it instead to

[1:42:37] the General Assembly at any

[1:42:39] point between now and OCTOBER

[1:42:41] 2030, triggered by the actions

[1:42:43] of another state. To say it

[1:42:44] another way, authority is

[1:42:46] granted to the General Assembly

[1:42:48] to use congressional

[1:42:49] redistricting as a means of

[1:42:51] manipulating power in

[1:42:52] Washington, instead of ensuring

[1:42:54] that every Virginian has fair

[1:42:56] representation in Congress. To

[1:42:57] make it worse, this very

[1:42:59] consequential shift of power is

[1:43:00] not triggered by the Virginians

[1:43:02] that we represent, but rather

[1:43:04] by the actions of a legislative

[1:43:05] body of another state the

[1:43:07] Virginians did not elect. This

[1:43:10] is unprecedented in the history

[1:43:12] of our nation, and for good

[1:43:15] reason. We've been told this

[1:43:16] week that this is an

[1:43:17] extraordinary response to

[1:43:19] extraordinary times. What's

[1:43:20] being communicated here is that

[1:43:22] in the history of our nation,

[1:43:24] this is the first time that the

[1:43:27] situation was so dire that the

[1:43:29] very body entrusted to steward,

[1:43:30] the steward, the laws of our

[1:43:32] sovereign state would entangle

[1:43:35] her Constitution, the very

[1:43:37] basis basis of her sovereignty

[1:43:38] in a way that undermines its

[1:43:41] very purpose, an extraordinary

[1:43:43] response indeed. I realize that

[1:43:45] there are some strong opinions

[1:43:46] in this chamber about the

[1:43:48] choices that voters made in the

[1:43:50] last presidential election. I

[1:43:51] would remind the body that

[1:43:53] those are the choices that the

[1:43:54] voters of the United States

[1:43:56] made. But, MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[1:43:57] would suggest there's nothing

[1:44:00] unusual nor extraordinary about

[1:44:01] these strong feelings. We've

[1:44:04] all been there at some point in

[1:44:05] our lives. But, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[1:44:07] principles that bend to

[1:44:08] circumstances are not

[1:44:09] principles at all, and our

[1:44:11] Constitution exists to ensure

[1:44:13] that regardless of what's going

[1:44:15] on with current events, our

[1:44:17] bedrock of principles stays

[1:44:19] intact. As poorly conceived as

[1:44:21] I believe the legislation

[1:44:23] itself is, the disregard for

[1:44:24] the constitutional amendment

[1:44:26] process is equally concerning.

[1:44:27] Virginia's Constitution

[1:44:29] requires a clear, deliberate

[1:44:31] process for amendments. Any

[1:44:32] constitutional change must pass

[1:44:34] the legislature twice with a

[1:44:35] general election. The

[1:44:37] intervening election between

[1:44:39] those passages. This is an

[1:44:40] intentionally slow and

[1:44:41] deliberate process to ensure

[1:44:42] the Constitution doesn't become

[1:44:45] a tool for political maneuvers,

[1:44:46] and to ensure that the people

[1:44:48] of the Commonwealth have the

[1:44:50] ultimate oversight and control.

[1:44:52] The legislature gets two

[1:44:53] opportunities to vote during

[1:44:54] the constitutional amendment

[1:44:57] process, and up to this point,

[1:44:58] citizens have always had two

[1:45:00] opportunities to vote as well.

[1:45:02] The first time as the

[1:45:02] intervening election, an

[1:45:04] opportunity to respond to the

[1:45:06] first passage of an amended

[1:45:07] resolution. If the politicians

[1:45:09] get out of line, the

[1:45:11] intervening election is the

[1:45:12] people's opportunity to replace

[1:45:15] them. The second time is the

[1:45:16] referendum after a second

[1:45:17] passage in the General Assembly

[1:45:19] this week. We've heard over and

[1:45:20] over that people will have

[1:45:21] their chance to vote as if

[1:45:23] we're the ones granting them

[1:45:25] that opportunity. But, MADAM

[1:45:26] PRESIDENT, that right is

[1:45:27] granted by the Virginia

[1:45:30] Constitution and lies beyond

[1:45:32] our discretion and indeed

[1:45:35] beyond our jurisdiction. We did

[1:45:36] not create this right, and we

[1:45:37] cannot legally take it away

[1:45:39] because we think that the

[1:45:40] political winds make it ripe

[1:45:43] for the picking. And yet that's

[1:45:44] exactly what our friends on the

[1:45:46] other side of the aisle are

[1:45:48] trying to do here this week,

[1:45:50] when article 12, section one

[1:45:51] was updated in the

[1:45:53] constitutional revision of 1971,

[1:45:54] early voting did not exist. The

[1:45:56] authors had no reason to

[1:45:57] contemplate a 45 day early

[1:45:59] voting period, because the only

[1:46:00] way that anybody could vote

[1:46:02] early was by absentee, which

[1:46:03] had very strict requirements,

[1:46:06] required an oath, and only took

[1:46:07] place after the ballots were

[1:46:08] printed, usually 2 to 3 weeks

[1:46:10] prior to an election. To be

[1:46:12] clear, the purpose for the

[1:46:13] intervening election was so

[1:46:14] that voters had the opportunity

[1:46:16] to review the first passage of

[1:46:17] the amending resolution and how

[1:46:19] their representatives voted

[1:46:21] before they cast their votes in

[1:46:23] the next general election. And

[1:46:25] to be equally clear, it was not

[1:46:28] possible in 1971 to have 1.1

[1:46:31] million voters cast their votes

[1:46:34] 45 days before Election Day or

[1:46:36] well before Election Day. It

[1:46:37] appears to me to be beyond

[1:46:38] reasonable dispute that the

[1:46:40] maneuvers this week

[1:46:40] opportunistically undermined

[1:46:42] the intent of the

[1:46:43] constitutional amendment

[1:46:45] process, and that the authority

[1:46:46] that is being treated as

[1:46:48] disposable is authority

[1:46:49] reserved for the citizens. I

[1:46:51] hope every Virginian hears this

[1:46:53] loud and clear and reclaims

[1:46:55] that authority using the power

[1:46:56] of their vote. In the coming

[1:46:58] days. Virginians deserve

[1:47:00] assurance that the rules won't

[1:47:02] change based on Partizan

[1:47:04] calculation. Thank you, MADAM

[1:47:06] PRESIDENT.

[1:47:09] >> The senator from Stafford.

[1:47:11] Oh, I'm sorry, the senator from

[1:47:13] Chesapeake. Senator Craig.

[1:47:16] >> Thank you. MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:47:17] I rise to speak to the

[1:47:17] resolution.

[1:47:19] >> The senator has the floor.

[1:47:20] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:47:21] Members of this committee, I

[1:47:23] want to talk about what's

[1:47:24] really happening with H.J. 6007.

[1:47:26] And I want to be direct. It's

[1:47:27] not about Virginia. This is

[1:47:29] about national power politics

[1:47:31] playing out in Virginia on

[1:47:33] Virginia stage, using

[1:47:34] mid-decade redistricting as a

[1:47:38] weapon. H.J. 6007 is not about

[1:47:39] addressing implementation

[1:47:41] issues with the commission.

[1:47:42] It's about the Democratic

[1:47:43] Congressional Campaign

[1:47:45] Committee in Washington seeing

[1:47:46] Virginia as a potential pickup

[1:47:48] in their national strategy to

[1:47:50] control the House of

[1:47:51] Representatives. Washington

[1:47:54] Democrats just need three more

[1:47:56] seats nationally to retake the

[1:47:58] House majority. Virginia has

[1:47:59] six Democrats and five

[1:48:01] Republicans in Congress.

[1:48:03] National Democrat strategists

[1:48:08] believe that with H.J. 6007 Mid

[1:48:09] Decade Authority, they could

[1:48:12] redraw a map and help flip a

[1:48:14] seat or two or even ten. This

[1:48:17] would directly serve National

[1:48:19] Democrat interests, but it does

[1:48:21] nothing to serve Virginia's

[1:48:23] interests. The timing of H.J.

[1:48:26] 6007, positioned as an urgent

[1:48:29] matter, was not authored based

[1:48:32] on constituent demands. It was

[1:48:33] authored based on instructions

[1:48:35] from national leadership.

[1:48:38] Here's what's remarkable the

[1:48:42] same H.J. 6007 style logic is

[1:48:43] being discussed in California

[1:48:45] right now. It's coordinated.

[1:48:47] This is a national Democrat

[1:48:49] strategy, and Virginia

[1:48:50] Democrats are taking their

[1:48:52] marching orders from Washington

[1:48:54] in 2020. I wasn't serving as a

[1:48:57] senator, but I was in my 18th

[1:48:59] year as chief of staff to then

[1:49:01] Senator John Cosgrove. And

[1:49:03] during that time, I was engaged

[1:49:05] in bipartisan conversations

[1:49:06] around redistricting.

[1:49:09] Republicans held the majority,

[1:49:10] and most Virginia Democrats

[1:49:13] supported the creation of a

[1:49:16] redistricting commission. Why?

[1:49:18] Because when you're in the

[1:49:20] minority, structural fairness

[1:49:23] becomes strategic necessity. It

[1:49:26] was a defensive move. It was

[1:49:29] perfect. When you're in the

[1:49:30] minority party, the

[1:49:31] constitutional amendment

[1:49:32] establishing the commission

[1:49:34] passed overwhelmingly in

[1:49:36] Virginia, including my own

[1:49:38] district. It was a clear

[1:49:41] mandate. The voters in Virginia,

[1:49:45] then 2022 happened. Democrats

[1:49:48] took control of the legislature.

[1:49:50] So Washington sent a message to

[1:49:51] Virginia. Democrat leadership

[1:49:55] passed H.J. 6007 and help us

[1:49:57] win nationally. And Virginia

[1:49:58] Democrats dependent on National

[1:50:00] Party support and National

[1:50:03] Party money, began offering

[1:50:07] H.J. 6007 Democrat leaders.

[1:50:08] Legislators are consumed with

[1:50:11] this resolution while they

[1:50:13] focus on D.C. Mandated projects.

[1:50:15] They're ignoring Virginia

[1:50:17] problems. Because here's the

[1:50:19] thing Virginia families are

[1:50:20] struggling and they're

[1:50:22] struggling with real issues,

[1:50:23] and they demand state

[1:50:24] government attention. The

[1:50:27] rising cost of living. Families

[1:50:28] are struggling to afford

[1:50:32] housing, groceries, utilities,

[1:50:34] health care. Access is still a

[1:50:37] crisis in rural Virginia.

[1:50:40] Schools need resources. They're

[1:50:42] public safety concerns. We need

[1:50:43] economic opportunity for

[1:50:46] workers. Infrastructure needs

[1:50:47] support for our farmers. Thank

[1:50:50] you. Tammy French stability to

[1:50:53] for small business owners. I

[1:50:54] could go on. These are the

[1:50:56] issues Virginia voters care

[1:50:58] about. These are the issues

[1:50:59] Virginia Democrats should be

[1:51:00] focused on, especially five

[1:51:02] days before a very important

[1:51:04] election. This isn't Partizan

[1:51:05] issue about redistricting. It's

[1:51:08] about fundamental. It's about a

[1:51:10] fundamental question should

[1:51:12] state decisions serve state

[1:51:13] interests or national party

[1:51:16] interests? I want to direct a

[1:51:17] question to Democrat

[1:51:18] legislators supporting H.J.

[1:51:21] 6007. Did you support it

[1:51:22] because your constituents

[1:51:24] demanded you to? Did you

[1:51:26] support it because you believe

[1:51:27] it's right for Virginia? When

[1:51:29] national Party leadership calls,

[1:51:31] do your constituents come first

[1:51:34] or second? When D.C.

[1:51:35] Strategists want something and

[1:51:36] Virginia voters want something

[1:51:39] else whose interests prevails?

[1:51:43] Six H.J. 607 is your answer to

[1:51:45] those questions. It's a

[1:51:46] disservice to the Virginians

[1:51:49] who elected us. That's a

[1:51:51] betrayal of the principle that

[1:51:51] elected officials should

[1:51:53] represent their constituents,

[1:51:55] not national party committees.

[1:51:57] Here's where Virginia

[1:52:00] Republicans stand. We will

[1:52:03] oppose H.J. 6007 as a tool

[1:52:04] designed to serve D.C.

[1:52:06] Interests rather than Virginia

[1:52:08] interests. We will focus on the

[1:52:09] real problems Virginia families

[1:52:12] are facing. And again, cost of

[1:52:14] living, health care, education,

[1:52:16] jobs. We believe state

[1:52:17] government should be

[1:52:19] accountable to state voters,

[1:52:21] not national party committees.

[1:52:24] We will challenge H.J. 607 in

[1:52:26] court and in the court of

[1:52:28] public opinion. We will remind

[1:52:30] voters that their state

[1:52:32] government belongs to them, not

[1:52:35] D.C. Political interest to

[1:52:37] Virginia voters. Recognize

[1:52:38] what's happening. Decisions

[1:52:41] about H.J. 607 are being made

[1:52:43] in Washington, not Richmond.

[1:52:45] Your tax dollars will pay for

[1:52:47] the future legal battles and

[1:52:48] redistricting wars created by

[1:52:51] this resolution. This is not

[1:52:52] how representative government

[1:52:54] is supposed to work. Virginians

[1:52:56] deserve leaders who answer to

[1:52:58] them. Our state government

[1:52:59] should be focused on solving

[1:53:02] Virginia problems, not playing

[1:53:04] political chess. Republicans

[1:53:05] believe Virginia should be

[1:53:06] first. They should come first.

[1:53:08] And we will not neglect

[1:53:10] Virginia. Problems for national

[1:53:12] political gain. Republicans

[1:53:13] remain steadfast in their

[1:53:15] commitment to the people of

[1:53:16] Virginia. It has been my honor

[1:53:19] for the last five days to be

[1:53:21] away from my family, but to be

[1:53:23] here fighting for Virginians.

[1:53:27] Thank you.

[1:53:30] >> Senator Durant, the senator

[1:53:33] from Stafford.

[1:53:35] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:53:36] Speaking to the resolution.

[1:53:38] >> Senator has the floor.

[1:53:39] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, colleagues

[1:53:41] of the Senate for more than two

[1:53:44] centuries, Virginia has stood

[1:53:45] at the crossroads of American

[1:53:47] liberty. Our founders taught

[1:53:51] the world a very simple truth.

[1:53:53] Government exists to serve the

[1:53:55] people, not to rule them. We

[1:53:58] should be striving to live up

[1:54:01] to those ideals, not racing to

[1:54:03] the bottom of political

[1:54:06] cynicism. Virginia must set the

[1:54:07] example once again, reminding

[1:54:08] the nation that principled

[1:54:09] self-government is still

[1:54:11] possible. And yet today, that

[1:54:13] principle is under threat. In

[1:54:15] just a few days, the people are

[1:54:16] going to elect a governor.

[1:54:17] They're going to elect an

[1:54:18] attorney general, they're going

[1:54:20] to elect a lieutenant governor,

[1:54:22] and they're going to elect

[1:54:23] every member of the House of

[1:54:25] delegates. And yet, here we are,

[1:54:26] nearly at the very end of that

[1:54:27] election, being asked to

[1:54:29] consider a resolution that

[1:54:30] would redraw the political map

[1:54:32] of Virginia while ballots are

[1:54:34] still being cast. Right now,

[1:54:36] Virginians are voting.

[1:54:38] Candidates are on those ballots.

[1:54:39] And this Senate is being asked

[1:54:41] to change the rules of

[1:54:42] representation while that

[1:54:44] election is underway. That is

[1:54:45] not proper. That is not fair.

[1:54:49] And it is a dangerous precedent

[1:54:50] for a chamber sworn to serve

[1:54:52] the people, not to manipulate

[1:54:54] their voice. Let's remember how

[1:54:57] we got here. We've talked about

[1:54:58] this numerous times, but it's

[1:55:00] worth reminding. It is a rare

[1:55:01] act of unity that this General

[1:55:03] Assembly did what you thought

[1:55:07] was possible. We voted and this

[1:55:09] chamber 38 to 2, to create a

[1:55:11] bipartisan, voter approved

[1:55:12] redistricting commission. And

[1:55:14] many of the members who are

[1:55:17] here cast votes, supported that.

[1:55:20] We came together. It was

[1:55:21] Republicans, Democrats and

[1:55:22] independents alike on the

[1:55:26] ballot who agreed to end that

[1:55:28] old system of self-serving

[1:55:30] mapmaking. The people of

[1:55:31] Virginia ratified that work

[1:55:32] through a constitutional

[1:55:34] amendment, saying with one

[1:55:36] voice, the power to draw

[1:55:39] political lines belongs to the

[1:55:42] people, not to politicians.

[1:55:44] Some of us said Virginians have

[1:55:46] told us loud and clear, this is

[1:55:48] what the voters want. This

[1:55:49] package fully encompasses the

[1:55:51] kind of reform Virginians have

[1:55:53] asked for a long time. That's

[1:55:56] not Partizan words. That's

[1:55:58] words of principle. Some of you

[1:56:00] promised Virginians that

[1:56:01] politicians would no longer

[1:56:03] draw their own maps, and some

[1:56:06] of you took an oath to protect

[1:56:08] that fair representation. So I

[1:56:10] ask you, will you stand by that

[1:56:14] promise? That was a covenant

[1:56:16] that's now being threatened.

[1:56:18] This resolution would dismantle

[1:56:20] that commission. Let's make no

[1:56:22] mistake about it. There is no

[1:56:24] other way but to set it aside,

[1:56:25] to seize back that pen and

[1:56:26] withdraw Virginia's

[1:56:27] congressional lines for

[1:56:30] Partizan gain. Let's call it

[1:56:32] what it is. It's not reform.

[1:56:33] It's not modernization. It is

[1:56:36] purely a political grab, a grab

[1:56:38] that would tilt Virginia's

[1:56:39] representations and silence

[1:56:41] neither half of our voters and

[1:56:42] undermine the very premise of

[1:56:45] fair elections. That hypocrisy

[1:56:47] is staggering. Many of the same

[1:56:49] voices behind this effort has

[1:56:50] spent years denouncing that

[1:56:52] manipulation. And yet here we

[1:56:54] stand, exactly where we were.

[1:56:55] And if that isn't the height of

[1:56:57] political cynicism, I don't

[1:56:58] know what is. We've talked

[1:57:00] about other states. We've

[1:57:01] talked about we talked about

[1:57:03] California and others as

[1:57:04] justification. But again,

[1:57:05] Virginia is not those other

[1:57:09] states. We do not follow the

[1:57:11] worst instincts of others. We

[1:57:13] lead by the best traditions of

[1:57:16] this Commonwealth. We are the

[1:57:18] birthplace of this American

[1:57:19] democracy. We are the words of

[1:57:21] Jefferson and Madison and Mason

[1:57:23] still echo through these very

[1:57:26] halls. Power is not owned by

[1:57:28] the powerful. It is on loan

[1:57:30] from the people. This moment is

[1:57:32] a turning point, a test of

[1:57:34] whether we will still be worthy

[1:57:35] heirs to that legacy.

[1:57:38] Virginians have always prided

[1:57:40] themselves on working together

[1:57:42] across lines that divide others.

[1:57:44] If we abandon that that spirit

[1:57:46] now, that Virginia way, we will

[1:57:48] lock ourselves into political

[1:57:49] tribes that can no longer

[1:57:51] cooperate or compromise. And

[1:57:54] that is not the Virginia way.

[1:57:56] That's why this resolution is

[1:57:58] not just misguided. It's

[1:57:59] dangerous because if we pass,

[1:58:01] it will not merely be draw

[1:58:03] lines on a map. We would draw

[1:58:04] the lines between governed and

[1:58:07] the government. If any of us

[1:58:08] cast a vote to strip this power.

[1:58:10] And I think all of us could

[1:58:12] step back if one person said to

[1:58:13] us, what are you really proud

[1:58:15] of that you've accomplished

[1:58:16] here and your work? We could

[1:58:17] all think about it. There might

[1:58:19] be some commission work that

[1:58:20] we've delved into. There's one

[1:58:21] thing that you come to your

[1:58:23] mind you're really proud of it,

[1:58:25] that you know you've moved the

[1:58:26] needle to make life better in

[1:58:27] this commonwealth, but nothing

[1:58:29] else will not make one bit of

[1:58:30] difference if you do this,

[1:58:31] because they have forsaken that

[1:58:33] one duty that defines us in

[1:58:35] this constitutional republic to

[1:58:38] represent the people, not to

[1:58:41] rule over them. It really tests

[1:58:44] the very fabric of this country.

[1:58:46] Once enough people have been

[1:58:48] left unrepresented, and we have

[1:58:49] already seen states where

[1:58:51] millions of voters no longer

[1:58:53] have a voice because of this

[1:58:53] gerrymandering. That is when

[1:58:55] the greatest nation ever will

[1:58:57] begin to be fully tested, to

[1:58:59] strip Virginians of fair

[1:59:00] representation in the middle of

[1:59:02] an election is not is not it is.

[1:59:05] It is a profound betrayal of

[1:59:07] that trust. It is an assault on

[1:59:09] the oath we swore. It is a

[1:59:10] wound on the very heart of the

[1:59:12] self-government. We should

[1:59:14] never allow this. We should not

[1:59:16] remain silent on it. And we

[1:59:17] should not betray the people

[1:59:19] who sent us here. Thank you,

[1:59:23] MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:59:26] >> Senator Hackworth, the

[1:59:28] senator from Tazewell.

[1:59:29] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[1:59:33] Speaking briefly to 6007.

[1:59:35] >> The senator has the floor.

[1:59:36] >> You know, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[1:59:37] every time I come to Richmond,

[1:59:40] I learn something new. And

[1:59:41] today I learned just here in

[1:59:43] this chamber that the senator

[1:59:44] from Franklin knows how to

[1:59:46] build houses. Who would have

[1:59:47] knew that? Actually asked him

[1:59:49] the name of his company. It was

[1:59:51] bdk, which meant which? Which

[1:59:54] means Billy. Don't know. So

[1:59:55] that's why that he's not

[1:59:57] building houses anymore. But

[2:00:00] one thing that I do know, MADAM

[2:00:02] PRESIDENT, is I have a

[2:00:03] breakdown of the 2020

[2:00:04] redistricting amendment vote in

[2:00:08] Senate District 5 in 2020, and

[2:00:12] my most blue precinct in Senate

[2:00:15] District five voted

[2:00:17] overwhelmingly at 86% to pass

[2:00:21] this 86%. And, you know, I

[2:00:23] remember getting calls asking

[2:00:25] what? And I'm sure a lot of

[2:00:27] members here, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[2:00:29] got the same calls. What is

[2:00:31] this? How do you how do you,

[2:00:33] you know, explain this to me

[2:00:35] because it was rather

[2:00:37] complicated. And some of their

[2:00:39] mind what we was trying to do.

[2:00:41] And, you know, when we look at

[2:00:44] the will of the voters of

[2:00:45] Virginia, especially in Senate

[2:00:49] District five, we have 68%, 73%,

[2:00:53] 69. The lowest that we had was

[2:00:54] in my own county. That was in

[2:00:58] the 60s. So for that reason,

[2:01:00] MADAM PRESIDENT, I will be

[2:01:06] voting against H.J. 6007.

[2:01:11] >> The Senator from Lynchburg,

[2:01:14] Senator Peake.

[2:01:16] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:01:17] I rise to speak to the

[2:01:18] resolution.

[2:01:21] >> Senator has the floor.

[2:01:23] >> I'm not going to restate

[2:01:25] most of my colleagues have have

[2:01:28] given all of the the real good,

[2:01:29] valuable constitutional reasons

[2:01:31] why this is a bad idea and what

[2:01:33] we're doing. I also point to

[2:01:35] our colleague down the hall who

[2:01:38] we don't. We rarely hear good

[2:01:40] things from, but I would

[2:01:42] Delegate Lee Ware from Powhatan

[2:01:45] stated this on the first day,

[2:01:50] you know, Texas embarking on a

[2:01:53] mid-decade redistricting was

[2:01:56] probably not a good idea. But

[2:01:57] because they have embarked on

[2:02:01] that endeavor does not mean

[2:02:03] that we have to engage in that

[2:02:05] endeavor. And that's all I'm

[2:02:07] going to say on the real

[2:02:09] constitutional grounds. On to

[2:02:10] speak to the senator from

[2:02:12] Henrico about us imposing on

[2:02:15] his time. That is just now.

[2:02:18] What if we go into next year

[2:02:20] and we actually get to go into

[2:02:21] the redistricting? I mean,

[2:02:22] ladies and gentlemen of the

[2:02:25] Senate, that would be almost

[2:02:26] like having 2 or 3 Christmases

[2:02:29] in one year. Are we really

[2:02:30] deserving to have 2 or 3

[2:02:33] redistricting in one decade? I

[2:02:35] submit to you that, ladies and

[2:02:36] gentlemen, we are not worthy of

[2:02:38] the pleasures and joys. We have

[2:02:40] not been so good that we should

[2:02:43] have an extra redistricting in

[2:02:48] this decade. And in spite of

[2:02:52] that, I'm afraid we might. And

[2:02:56] do we really want to redraw our

[2:02:59] congressional districts to go

[2:03:01] from 6 to 5, where we have

[2:03:01] fairly equal representation in

[2:03:04] Washington, D.C. Where each

[2:03:07] side is fairly represented,

[2:03:09] where depending on who's in

[2:03:11] charge of the House or who's in

[2:03:13] charge of the Senate or who's

[2:03:14] in the white House, we have

[2:03:17] pretty equal representations

[2:03:19] with both parties. We have

[2:03:22] relatively equal influence with

[2:03:24] both parties. Depending on what

[2:03:28] happens in these elections, 10

[2:03:32] to 1 will destroy that. And

[2:03:34] we've talked about the reasons

[2:03:36] for an intervening election. So

[2:03:38] now I'm talking to the citizens

[2:03:40] of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

[2:03:41] who I suspect about 8 million

[2:03:43] out of the eight and a half are

[2:03:44] gathered around their Apple

[2:03:46] iPads. Watching us debate this

[2:03:48] issue this morning, but they

[2:03:51] can still have the final say on

[2:03:54] Tuesday, today and tomorrow.

[2:03:57] They can go vote for MADAM

[2:03:59] PRESIDENT. And this will all

[2:04:00] end. They can go vote for

[2:04:03] Republican House of delegates,

[2:04:06] and this will all end. So

[2:04:11] citizens who voted 2 to 1

[2:04:13] against Partizan gerrymandering

[2:04:16] will still have the final say.

[2:04:18] So wake up people who have not

[2:04:20] voted yet. A million of you

[2:04:21] have voted. 2 million of you

[2:04:25] have not. 2.5 million. If you

[2:04:29] don't like this fiasco.

[2:04:32] Boondoggle travesty that we

[2:04:34] have been called here a week

[2:04:35] before the general election to

[2:04:38] do something that is clearly

[2:04:40] unconstitutional. People go

[2:04:43] vote. There are 2.5 million of

[2:04:45] you out there who have not

[2:04:46] voted, who traditionally vote

[2:04:48] in the governor's election. Put

[2:04:52] a stop to this. Please go vote

[2:04:55] Tuesday, NOVEMBER 4th. I can't

[2:04:57] wait to see the results of that

[2:04:58] election. MADAM PRESIDENT,

[2:05:07] people speak against this.

[2:05:16] >> The Senator from Roanoke.

[2:05:22] Senator Suetterlein.

[2:05:24] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:05:25] Speaking to the resolution.

[2:05:27] >> The senator has the floor.

[2:05:29] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:05:32] Gerrymandering was wrong when

[2:05:33] Patrick Henry tried to

[2:05:35] gerrymander James Madison in

[2:05:37] 1789. It was wrong here in

[2:05:40] Virginia in 2011. It was wrong

[2:05:42] here in Virginia in 2012. And

[2:05:44] it is wrong anywhere. It is

[2:05:47] happening today. For years,

[2:05:48] Virginia Democrats declared

[2:05:51] their support for redistricting

[2:05:54] reform. And yet today, there is

[2:05:55] significant Democratic Party

[2:05:58] cheering for rolling back the

[2:05:59] commission that was established

[2:06:02] and instituting a ten one

[2:06:04] congressional gerrymander. The

[2:06:07] gerrymander carved up small

[2:06:09] towns and put people in cities

[2:06:11] and rural communities far from

[2:06:13] their representatives. What's

[2:06:14] being envisioned now would be

[2:06:17] an even worse version of that.

[2:06:18] And that's not right to the

[2:06:21] people in the cities that are

[2:06:22] represented by people far, far

[2:06:25] away in rural areas or vice

[2:06:28] versa. All for not because of a

[2:06:30] larger common interest, but

[2:06:32] simply because of a Partizan

[2:06:34] effort. When the League of

[2:06:35] Women Voters approached me

[2:06:38] about the redistricting reform

[2:06:40] about a decade ago, I was

[2:06:41] supportive of the concept. I

[2:06:43] was someone that had been

[2:06:45] elected to a district that

[2:06:47] included parts of Wytheville

[2:06:48] and parts of Christiansburg and

[2:06:50] parts of Rocky Mountain, parts

[2:06:53] of Hillsville, and parts of so

[2:06:54] many other counties that were

[2:06:56] all divided. And I knew why we

[2:07:01] needed reform. I was a little

[2:07:03] skeptical, though, and cautious

[2:07:05] because I suggested that

[2:07:06] Democratic support for

[2:07:09] redistricting reform might wane

[2:07:11] when their political prospects

[2:07:13] increased. And as William

[2:07:16] Safire observed, quote, I've

[2:07:17] been right and I've been

[2:07:20] paranoid, and it's better to be

[2:07:22] paranoid. A few years ago,

[2:07:24] Democrats agreed to a medicaid

[2:07:27] expansion work requirement

[2:07:29] compromise and almost

[2:07:30] immediately work to dismantle

[2:07:34] that work requirement. The

[2:07:35] bipartisan concealed carry

[2:07:38] reciprocity agreement that was

[2:07:39] negotiated by Governor Terry

[2:07:42] McAuliffe, has faced constant

[2:07:43] attacks from other members of

[2:07:47] his party that also briefly

[2:07:50] supported that compromise. And

[2:07:52] here we are again, seeing a

[2:07:55] bipartisan agreement fraying. I

[2:07:57] fear that every time this

[2:07:58] happens, it makes it far less

[2:08:00] likely there will ever be any

[2:08:01] more bipartisan agreements here

[2:08:04] in the Commonwealth. The

[2:08:05] PRESIDENT Mistakenly called for

[2:08:07] redistricting changes

[2:08:09] mid-decade, redistricting

[2:08:10] changes in JULY, and Texas

[2:08:14] started acting in AUGUST.

[2:08:15] Instead of a full debate here

[2:08:17] in Virginia. Then we find

[2:08:18] ourselves considering a

[2:08:20] gerrymandering amendment on

[2:08:24] Halloween after a million votes

[2:08:25] have been cast here in the

[2:08:29] Commonwealth's election, the

[2:08:29] redistricting commission was

[2:08:33] ratified by two thirds of

[2:08:34] voters five years ago. On the

[2:08:37] same day, a smaller but

[2:08:38] significant majority of voters

[2:08:41] here in Virginia gave PRESIDENT

[2:08:43] Biden the Commonwealth's

[2:08:45] electoral votes. What's being

[2:08:49] envisioned now is a quick

[2:08:51] springtime referendum election

[2:08:53] deemed too small for small town

[2:08:56] mayor elections to reverse a

[2:08:57] two thirds mandate delivered by

[2:09:00] the voters on the same day

[2:09:02] PRESIDENT Biden was elected.

[2:09:04] Gerrymandering should be

[2:09:06] rejected here. It should be

[2:09:08] rejected. Everywhere in this

[2:09:09] resolution should be rejected.

[2:09:13] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:09:16] >> Senator head, the senator

[2:09:17] from Todd.

[2:09:19] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:09:21] Speaking to the resolution.

[2:09:22] >> Senator has the floor.

[2:09:23] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:09:27] This is a so much has been said

[2:09:29] and it's been been, first of

[2:09:31] all, the my friend, the senator

[2:09:33] from Roanoke just pointed out

[2:09:35] it is Halloween. I do, for the

[2:09:36] record, think that that is

[2:09:38] probably an appropriate day for

[2:09:39] us to be taking such scary

[2:09:41] action as this, because this

[2:09:43] whole thing has felt more like

[2:09:46] a specter from beyond the grave.

[2:09:48] And it's it's unholy. It is

[2:09:50] just it is it is really awful

[2:09:53] what we're doing here. But I'm

[2:09:55] I'm perplexed by some of the

[2:09:56] comments that I've heard from

[2:10:01] the other side of the aisle.

[2:10:03] The senator from from eastern

[2:10:05] Fairfax started off this

[2:10:07] morning with the amendment that

[2:10:08] I had proposed to let us put

[2:10:11] this back to the redistricting

[2:10:12] commission, rather than it

[2:10:14] being Partizan and attacking

[2:10:16] the concept, saying that this

[2:10:17] commission that we've got in

[2:10:19] place is bad anyway because

[2:10:21] it's not independent, which it

[2:10:23] never claims to be, that it's

[2:10:25] not nonpartizan, which it never

[2:10:26] claims to be. It is a

[2:10:30] bipartisan commission. But he

[2:10:31] made comments that really

[2:10:32] betrayed, I think, the real

[2:10:34] intent, which is we want this

[2:10:37] to be a Partizan decision that

[2:10:38] disturbed me when I heard that,

[2:10:40] and then I heard the the

[2:10:45] senator from Central Fairfax

[2:10:47] make reference to the fact that

[2:10:49] in 2020, we made history in

[2:10:52] Virginia because we moved

[2:10:55] ourselves from being classified

[2:10:56] as one of the states that had

[2:10:59] the most gerrymandered

[2:11:02] districts to one of the states

[2:11:04] with the least gerrymandered

[2:11:06] districts. And indeed, what we

[2:11:08] propose, what we adopted, what

[2:11:09] we did to our Constitution,

[2:11:11] then to create the way that we

[2:11:13] establish congressional

[2:11:15] districts was so good that it's

[2:11:17] being looked at and mirrored in

[2:11:19] other places. I think we ought

[2:11:21] to be proud of that. But here

[2:11:22] we are seeking to dismantle

[2:11:25] this in reaction to the actions

[2:11:27] of some other states. You know,

[2:11:29] we're we're the we're the

[2:11:31] leader. We're the state that

[2:11:34] when we got here first, we've

[2:11:36] been a representative body. I

[2:11:39] mean, the we've been here since

[2:11:40] 1607. We've been a

[2:11:42] representative government in

[2:11:44] Virginia since 1619, starting

[2:11:45] the way the oldest

[2:11:47] representative democracy in the

[2:11:48] new World, we ought not be

[2:11:52] following anybody because we

[2:11:55] lead, we don't follow, we don't

[2:11:58] react, we respond, we set the

[2:12:00] example, and we have that all

[2:12:02] together in the way that we do

[2:12:04] redistricting now. And I you

[2:12:05] know, I'm perplexed to why we

[2:12:06] would, you know, maybe, maybe

[2:12:09] if Stephen f Austin and Sam

[2:12:10] Houston had stayed in Virginia

[2:12:11] a little longer before going

[2:12:13] down to Texas, they would have

[2:12:14] gotten a little bit more seated

[2:12:17] in the way that they should be

[2:12:18] behaving down there. And we

[2:12:20] wouldn't be in this, this

[2:12:22] conversation, but we certainly

[2:12:24] shouldn't be following suit on

[2:12:26] something that has stirred up a

[2:12:28] hornet's nest. When you can,

[2:12:30] somebody has to be the adult in

[2:12:32] the room. That should be who we

[2:12:33] are. We are the adults in the

[2:12:36] room and the adults in the room

[2:12:37] is the one that say, enough of

[2:12:39] this, we're going to stop it.

[2:12:41] And the way we stop it is not

[2:12:42] by continuing to do it. We stop

[2:12:45] it. And the way we stop it is

[2:12:46] to stick with our guns on this.

[2:12:48] And then you look at what we

[2:12:50] did in 2020 and look at the the

[2:12:51] districts that we've got and

[2:12:53] what they reflect as far as the

[2:12:54] population of Virginia. We

[2:12:56] adopted this. And then the next

[2:12:57] congressional election we had

[2:12:59] was just last year after the

[2:13:02] new districts were drawn. And

[2:13:04] in that election, Virginia

[2:13:10] voted 46% for Donald Trump. And

[2:13:13] 54% for Kamala Harris. At the

[2:13:14] same time, we reelected all of

[2:13:16] our members of of Congress or

[2:13:18] elected all of our members of

[2:13:19] Congress. And what we ended up

[2:13:21] with was out of 11 members of

[2:13:23] Congress, five Republicans and

[2:13:25] six Democrats. And if you do

[2:13:27] the math on that, that gives us

[2:13:30] 45% Republicans and 55%

[2:13:32] Democrat, which is an almost

[2:13:35] perfect mirroring of the

[2:13:36] overall statewide presidential

[2:13:39] election vote. You can't get it

[2:13:41] any better than that, folks.

[2:13:43] You absolutely can't get it any

[2:13:45] better than that. And it is our

[2:13:48] job to represent the people,

[2:13:50] the entirety of the people of

[2:13:52] the Commonwealth as a

[2:13:54] collective body, and each one

[2:13:57] of us to represent them as our

[2:13:59] constituents in our districts.

[2:14:02] So we've got it right, whether

[2:14:03] we like to admit it or not,

[2:14:05] whether you like to admit it or

[2:14:07] not, we got it right. And we

[2:14:08] have good districts that need

[2:14:10] to be left alone. But I'm also

[2:14:12] concerned when we had the

[2:14:13] arguments about the

[2:14:14] constitutionality of this and

[2:14:16] the 90 day issue in the

[2:14:16] Constitution, whether that goes

[2:14:18] back and forth, what confuses

[2:14:20] me about that argument is that

[2:14:23] you have the Constitution, but

[2:14:25] we also have the code. I'm not

[2:14:27] an attorney. I don't ever claim

[2:14:30] to be one. Never wanted to be

[2:14:31] one. Except maybe briefly.

[2:14:33] Maybe MAY have wanted to be one

[2:14:35] briefly. Then I thought better

[2:14:38] of it. Well, I'm not being rude,

[2:14:41] just my brother was one. I see

[2:14:43] what that is one. And just

[2:14:44] don't, don't don't need to. We

[2:14:46] don't need to have two in the

[2:14:48] family. But when I look at this

[2:14:51] resolution on lines three, four

[2:14:53] and five of the resolution, it

[2:14:56] says proposing an amendment to

[2:14:57] section six of the article of

[2:14:59] article two of the Constitution

[2:15:02] of Virginia and proposing an

[2:15:03] amendment to the Constitution

[2:15:05] of Virginia by adding in a

[2:15:07] section or in the schedule a

[2:15:09] section numbered six. Okay, so

[2:15:14] we have an amendment proposed

[2:15:15] here in the form of this

[2:15:18] resolution. And then I look in

[2:15:20] the code of Virginia in a

[2:15:22] section that some have said is

[2:15:24] obsolete, but it's still there,

[2:15:26] which means it's still valid

[2:15:28] and it still needs to be

[2:15:29] enforced. And we all have a

[2:15:30] duty to follow both the

[2:15:33] Constitution and the laws of

[2:15:36] Virginia. And it says in

[2:15:39] section titled title 30,

[2:15:42] section 30, Dash 13, that the

[2:15:44] clerk of the House of delegates

[2:15:47] shall have published all

[2:15:49] proposed amendments to the

[2:15:51] Constitution. This is one of

[2:15:53] those from his office and to

[2:15:54] the clerk of the Circuit court

[2:15:56] of each county and city, two

[2:15:58] copies of the proposed

[2:15:59] amendments. And that's the ones

[2:16:01] that don't get to that point

[2:16:02] until they've passed, one of

[2:16:03] which shall be posted at the

[2:16:05] front door of the courthouse,

[2:16:06] and the other shall be made

[2:16:07] available for public inspection.

[2:16:09] Every clerk of the circuit

[2:16:10] court shall complete, shall not

[2:16:13] MAY shall complete the posting

[2:16:17] required not later than three

[2:16:20] months prior to the next

[2:16:21] ensuing general election of

[2:16:23] members of the House of

[2:16:25] delegates, and shall certify

[2:16:27] such posting to the clerk of

[2:16:29] the House of delegates and the

[2:16:31] clerk of the House of delegates

[2:16:32] shall report to the General

[2:16:33] Assembly at its next regular

[2:16:35] session. The session the action

[2:16:38] taken by him under this section,

[2:16:40] including the costs incurred in

[2:16:41] the printing. Et cetera. Et

[2:16:43] cetera. So there's no way we

[2:16:45] can do this. I mean, you can do

[2:16:47] this today. You're going to do

[2:16:48] this today. You know that

[2:16:50] you're going to do this today.

[2:16:51] It's going to get the 21 votes.

[2:16:53] You're going to pass it because

[2:16:54] you're not going to pay any

[2:16:56] attention to what the people

[2:16:57] are screaming about out there,

[2:16:58] or any of the arguments that

[2:17:00] are valid than any of us are

[2:17:01] going to have made. You're

[2:17:03] going to do that. We know that.

[2:17:05] But if you're going to follow

[2:17:06] the law after you've done that,

[2:17:07] you can't take this thing up

[2:17:10] again and have it be valid and

[2:17:11] legal unless you post it 90

[2:17:14] days ahead of the next ensuing

[2:17:15] election, which in this case,

[2:17:18] to make that valid would be the

[2:17:20] election that will take place

[2:17:24] for the House of delegates in

[2:17:29] 2027. So by the time you got it

[2:17:30] done and got it out there for a

[2:17:33] vote, again, it wouldn't be

[2:17:34] valid anyway because you've

[2:17:35] already got an expiration date

[2:17:38] on it that the clock would have

[2:17:39] run out before you could ever

[2:17:42] get it done. This is a reckless

[2:17:46] action, guys. We're better than

[2:17:47] that. In this commonwealth. The

[2:17:51] people didn't ask for this.

[2:17:52] Washington asked for this. The

[2:17:55] Democratic Committee asked for

[2:17:56] this. But your constituents

[2:17:59] didn't ask for this. I suppose

[2:18:01] that the possible exception of

[2:18:02] that might be the senator from

[2:18:04] Arlington, because her her, her

[2:18:05] locality was the only one that

[2:18:08] actually voted against it, but

[2:18:09] only a smattering of those

[2:18:11] voted against it. It was very,

[2:18:13] very close election there. But

[2:18:15] we're supposed to follow not

[2:18:16] just the Constitution, but the

[2:18:18] laws of the Commonwealth of

[2:18:20] Virginia. And you can't do this

[2:18:24] without violating the law.

[2:18:28] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:18:32] >> Senator McDougle. The

[2:18:33] senator from Hanover.

[2:18:36] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:18:37] MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise to

[2:18:38] speak to the resolution.

[2:18:41] >> Senator has a floor.

[2:18:44] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I must say

[2:18:47] I listened to a lot of

[2:18:48] discussions and some of my

[2:18:50] colleagues have known for many

[2:18:52] years, some for less time. Some

[2:18:54] of the discussions we've had on

[2:18:57] this floor, some of them we've

[2:18:58] had privately, we've talked

[2:19:00] about Trump Derangement

[2:19:03] Syndrome. It is a real thing.

[2:19:04] We've talked about the Schumer

[2:19:07] shutdown because of health care,

[2:19:10] not going to Americans, but to

[2:19:12] going to other people not

[2:19:14] legally present. We've heard

[2:19:17] talk about dictators. I've

[2:19:18] heard talk about the

[2:19:24] Constitution. MADAM PRESIDENT,

[2:19:28] I'm disappointed because these

[2:19:30] conversations are about a

[2:19:32] reaction to something that's

[2:19:35] happening outside of Virginia.

[2:19:37] And I'd reference Reagan and

[2:19:39] what we talk about when she

[2:19:41] does things I don't like a lot.

[2:19:43] And this is something we do

[2:19:46] talk about. We frequently see

[2:19:49] that children will react and

[2:19:51] say, well, they did it over

[2:19:54] there, so we have to do it.

[2:19:57] MADAM PRESIDENT, here in

[2:19:58] Virginia, we don't have to do

[2:20:01] that. We don't have to take

[2:20:03] that bad step. My friends

[2:20:05] across the aisle are talking

[2:20:07] about the PRESIDENT, which they

[2:20:10] term a dictator. MADAM

[2:20:12] PRESIDENT, some of the actions

[2:20:16] that I view as not being

[2:20:18] democratic or favor democracy

[2:20:22] or introducing resolutions with

[2:20:24] the public, only has the

[2:20:25] ability to see them for a

[2:20:28] couple of days before they're

[2:20:30] voted on. MADAM PRESIDENT, it

[2:20:32] does not seem democratic to me

[2:20:35] that it be done in the dark of

[2:20:38] night, right before an election,

[2:20:39] after over a million people

[2:20:42] have voted. MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[2:20:45] heard my colleague across the

[2:20:47] aisle talk about how when the

[2:20:48] original constitutional

[2:20:50] amendment came through, he had

[2:20:54] a year to reflect. MADAM

[2:20:56] PRESIDENT, the members in the

[2:20:58] body down the hall had three

[2:21:01] days. The members here had four

[2:21:06] days. MADAM PRESIDENT, I heard

[2:21:08] talk about how the

[2:21:09] redistricting commission was

[2:21:12] not independent, not bipartisan.

[2:21:15] All those all those things. And

[2:21:23] we heard it worked. It worked.

[2:21:26] So, MADAM PRESIDENT, I also

[2:21:27] heard about other things that

[2:21:28] the PRESIDENT Is doing, how

[2:21:31] horrible this PRESIDENT Is

[2:21:33] versus former presidents. MADAM

[2:21:35] PRESIDENT, I remember in this

[2:21:37] body, when a member who was

[2:21:39] across the aisle decided to

[2:21:41] retire so his daughter could

[2:21:43] become a judge pursuant to our

[2:21:46] rules, how a PRESIDENT From the

[2:21:49] other side of the aisle had

[2:21:51] members of this body

[2:21:53] investigated and how grand

[2:21:55] juries were convened for that,

[2:21:57] I didn't find that to be

[2:21:59] terribly democratic either. So

[2:22:01] there's blame to be thrown

[2:22:03] around. But, MADAM PRESIDENT,

[2:22:06] when that occurred, we didn't

[2:22:08] change the Constitution. We

[2:22:11] didn't try to rush something

[2:22:13] out when nobody had opportunity

[2:22:15] to see it. The public had an

[2:22:18] opportunity to digest it that

[2:22:22] lacked transparency. Two wrongs

[2:22:25] do not make a right, as has

[2:22:31] already been said on this floor.

[2:22:34] MADAM PRESIDENT, Senator from

[2:22:36] said, we all are aware what the

[2:22:38] vote will be in just a few

[2:22:41] minutes. We also are aware that

[2:22:43] there will be a lot of

[2:22:46] conversations in the public,

[2:22:48] probably on this floor again

[2:22:50] and likely in the courts going

[2:22:53] forward. But I want to make

[2:22:54] sure that in that conversation,

[2:22:56] we all know what we're talking

[2:22:58] about. It has been termed this

[2:23:00] is giving another option to the

[2:23:04] people. MADAM PRESIDENT, I saw

[2:23:07] some social media

[2:23:09] communications from some of my

[2:23:12] colleagues showing ten one this

[2:23:15] is not giving the public an

[2:23:17] option. This is to draw ten

[2:23:19] Democratic congressional seats

[2:23:21] and one Republican

[2:23:22] congressional seat in Virginia.

[2:23:24] This is not about options. This

[2:23:29] is very directed. So to be

[2:23:30] transparent, that's what this

[2:23:32] vote is. You're saying that we

[2:23:35] do not care about how we've

[2:23:36] done things constitutionally.

[2:23:39] We don't care about

[2:23:40] transparency. We don't care

[2:23:43] about fair districts. As the

[2:23:44] senator from Henrico

[2:23:46] articulated, we care about

[2:23:48] making sure that there will be

[2:23:51] ten Democratic seats from

[2:23:54] Virginia next NOVEMBER. That's

[2:23:58] what this vote is. MADAM

[2:24:02] PRESIDENT, we will continue to

[2:24:05] have different views on policy.

[2:24:07] Some of us feel very strongly

[2:24:10] that our energy prices are

[2:24:11] higher, significantly because

[2:24:13] of the Clean Economy Act. Some

[2:24:16] of us feel that the tax on

[2:24:18] employees only actually hurts

[2:24:19] employees and puts less money

[2:24:22] in their pockets. There are a

[2:24:23] lot of things that we will

[2:24:24] debate and discuss going

[2:24:28] forward. But MADAM PRESIDENT,

[2:24:33] this process is one that we

[2:24:36] should not engage in because we

[2:24:39] don't like things in Washington.

[2:24:42] Virginians are better than this.

[2:24:44] Two wrongs do not make a right.

[2:24:47] The day of the dead is being

[2:24:51] celebrated by many this weekend.

[2:24:54] We should not be celebrating

[2:24:56] the death of our democracy here

[2:25:04] in Virginia along with them.

[2:25:06] >> The Senator from Hampton,

[2:25:08] Senator Locke.

[2:25:10] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:25:12] Speaking to the resolution.

[2:25:13] >> Senator has the floor.

[2:25:15] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm not

[2:25:17] going to say all of this stuff

[2:25:19] that I had written down. I just

[2:25:21] want to make two points. One,

[2:25:24] let's be real and talk about

[2:25:26] D.C. Strategy and hypocrisy.

[2:25:30] But for two, vote swing in this

[2:25:32] chamber and in the House of

[2:25:34] delegates, we would still be

[2:25:36] here in a special session

[2:25:38] called by the governor. And

[2:25:40] instead of receiving daily

[2:25:41] sanctimonious missives as the

[2:25:43] minority party on this side of

[2:25:45] the aisle, we would be asking,

[2:25:47] why are we in the middle of a

[2:25:49] mid-decade effort to redistrict

[2:25:51] in the Commonwealth of Virginia,

[2:25:54] as dictated by the Lord of of

[2:25:56] Pennsylvania Avenue, minus the

[2:25:58] East Wing? And that's Lord with

[2:26:01] a little l because be assured,

[2:26:03] if the proverbial shoe was on

[2:26:06] the other foot, a director from

[2:26:09] D.C. To the governor would have

[2:26:11] been adhered to quick, fast,

[2:26:13] and in a hurry to undo the

[2:26:14] constitutional amendment in

[2:26:18] Virginia midstream. And not one

[2:26:20] of you would be talking about

[2:26:22] the sanctity of the bipartisan

[2:26:23] redistricting commission, or

[2:26:26] the needs of the voters or or

[2:26:28] respect for the will of the

[2:26:31] people. Instead, every effort

[2:26:34] would be made to carve out as

[2:26:37] many red seats as possible.

[2:26:40] i've also heard that we are not

[2:26:42] Texas. We are not North

[2:26:44] Carolina, so I'm a bit baffled

[2:26:47] by that hypocrisy to. I'm

[2:26:51] baffled because since JANUARY,

[2:26:54] we have been making decisions

[2:26:59] based upon a plethora of of

[2:27:00] eo's that have been sent down

[2:27:04] from Washington, and they have

[2:27:07] been incorporated into Virginia

[2:27:09] policies, whether they made

[2:27:12] sense or not, whether they

[2:27:14] invalidated the Virginia code

[2:27:16] or not. And they were sent out

[2:27:18] to executive agencies and

[2:27:19] institutions for those agencies

[2:27:23] and institutions to adhere to.

[2:27:26] 21 state ags have challenged

[2:27:29] those as unconstitutional, but

[2:27:33] not ours. So don't talk to me

[2:27:35] about we don't listen to what

[2:27:37] other states do or what

[2:27:39] Washington does, when in fact

[2:27:41] we would be doing the exact

[2:27:44] same thing if the shoe was on

[2:27:46] the other foot. Thank you,

[2:27:49] MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:27:51] >> Senator Favola, the senator

[2:27:53] from Arlington.

[2:27:55] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:27:58] MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise to

[2:28:00] speak in support of the House

[2:28:02] Joint Resolution Senator has

[2:28:04] the floor. Thank you, MADAM

[2:28:07] PRESIDENT. To my colleagues on

[2:28:09] the other side of the aisle,

[2:28:11] one of the one of the common

[2:28:14] themes of all your remarks is

[2:28:16] well intentioned as they might

[2:28:19] be had this ring of fear. And I

[2:28:22] say to you, that is not what

[2:28:24] this resolution is about. This

[2:28:26] is a resolution of hope and

[2:28:29] empowerment. We should never be

[2:28:32] afraid of giving voters another

[2:28:36] opportunity to voice their

[2:28:39] concerns. That's what this is.

[2:28:41] We're not redrawing anything

[2:28:43] today. We're not doing anything

[2:28:45] magical. We're saying to voters,

[2:28:47] if this goes through the

[2:28:49] process we have laid out and

[2:28:50] we've explained that multiple

[2:28:52] times, should the

[2:28:53] constitutional amendment go

[2:28:55] before the voters, they will

[2:28:57] have the final say. We are in

[2:28:58] no way undermining the

[2:29:01] principles that all of us have

[2:29:04] stood for over time. All of us.

[2:29:06] I just think we need to point

[2:29:09] out that part of our democracy

[2:29:13] is actually holding lawmakers

[2:29:15] accountable, and part of our

[2:29:18] role is defending Virginians.

[2:29:19] And those are two really

[2:29:22] important jobs that we must

[2:29:24] embrace. We were given the

[2:29:24] constitutional authority to

[2:29:28] embrace, and we need to do that.

[2:29:29] And in terms of the

[2:29:31] accountability piece, I mean,

[2:29:32] we have a PRESIDENT Who went

[2:29:34] out and actually said, people

[2:29:36] who disagree with me are my

[2:29:38] enemy. And why don't you

[2:29:40] Republican states go ahead and

[2:29:42] silence those voices, silence

[2:29:44] the voices who disagree with my

[2:29:46] policies, even though those

[2:29:48] policies are harmful, they're

[2:29:49] harmful to millions of

[2:29:51] Americans, and they're harmful

[2:29:54] to Virginians. They're harmful.

[2:29:56] We have to remember, the

[2:29:58] federal government is a strong

[2:30:00] fiscal partner. It used to be

[2:30:03] it used to be a strong fiscal

[2:30:04] partner with Virginia and a

[2:30:07] number of states. Our Medicaid

[2:30:09] expansion dollars, we're

[2:30:12] getting 90% of the costs of

[2:30:13] that from the federal

[2:30:17] government, nearly 700,000

[2:30:19] working Americans have health

[2:30:20] insurance because the federal

[2:30:23] government was willing to

[2:30:24] incentivize states to

[2:30:28] participate. Those are for

[2:30:30] Virginians who are benefiting

[2:30:32] from this. When we decided to

[2:30:33] participate in Medicaid

[2:30:37] expansion in 2016, I think when

[2:30:38] we actually got everything

[2:30:41] implemented, we expected about

[2:30:43] $2 billion in economic activity

[2:30:45] to flow through the

[2:30:47] Commonwealth. That meant new

[2:30:50] jobs. That meant more access to

[2:30:52] health care, especially in our

[2:30:54] areas that are underserved.

[2:30:55] Many many of you across the

[2:30:57] aisle are representing those

[2:30:59] areas that are underserved. We

[2:31:00] wanted to stand with you, and

[2:31:03] we did, and we led the way so

[2:31:04] Virginians could get health

[2:31:07] care. But again, the federal

[2:31:08] government was a strong fiscal

[2:31:12] partner. I do want to say snap,

[2:31:13] okay, we know those benefits

[2:31:17] are paid for by the federal

[2:31:19] government. 800,000 Virginians

[2:31:21] receive Snap benefits, and now

[2:31:24] they're all at risk. All of

[2:31:26] them are food banks are just

[2:31:29] overflowing with demand. How do

[2:31:31] you think people feel who need

[2:31:34] these programs to support their

[2:31:36] families, to gain financial

[2:31:38] security, to stand on their own,

[2:31:40] which is what we all want,

[2:31:42] right? Self-Reliance. We've all

[2:31:44] had speeches on that. The

[2:31:47] programs that are being cut by

[2:31:49] PRESIDENT Trump and his

[2:31:50] Republican allies are

[2:31:52] undermining the financial

[2:31:54] security of hundreds of

[2:31:57] thousands of Virginians. How do

[2:31:59] you think they feel when the

[2:32:00] PRESIDENT Goes out and says,

[2:32:02] people who disagree with me, I

[2:32:03] don't want to hear about it.

[2:32:05] People who disagree with me, I

[2:32:07] don't want to hear their voices.

[2:32:08] I want my policies, quote,

[2:32:10] PRESIDENT Trump. I want them to

[2:32:13] continue. This is all about

[2:32:15] cutting the Social Security

[2:32:18] safety net or the safety net.

[2:32:19] That's what this was about.

[2:32:21] They gave big, big tax cuts to

[2:32:24] the ultra wealthy. But ordinary

[2:32:25] Virginians are struggling. Why

[2:32:28] would we not give Virginians

[2:32:31] the opportunity after this very

[2:32:34] measured process goes through

[2:32:36] all the hoops that have been

[2:32:38] laid out in our Constitution

[2:32:41] and in our laws. Why would we

[2:32:43] not give Virginians the

[2:32:46] opportunity to voice their

[2:32:47] concerns? There's no reason.

[2:32:49] Don't be afraid. There's no

[2:32:51] reason to not give individuals

[2:32:55] that opportunity. None at all.

[2:32:57] I'm not going to presuppose how

[2:32:59] they'll vote. I don't know

[2:33:00] what's going to happen in APRIL.

[2:33:03] I never would have presumed

[2:33:04] we'd be in the situation we're

[2:33:08] in now, where the rule of law

[2:33:10] no longer seems to be the

[2:33:13] guiding principle, where our

[2:33:14] Constitution is not honored by

[2:33:17] federal lawmakers. I never

[2:33:19] would have guessed we would be

[2:33:20] in this situation. I have no

[2:33:22] idea where we'll be in APRIL,

[2:33:24] but I can tell you this the way

[2:33:26] things are moving now, it's

[2:33:27] important enough that

[2:33:29] Virginians be able to weigh in

[2:33:31] in APRIL. This is a very

[2:33:33] measured, a very measured

[2:33:36] policy that we would put before

[2:33:38] them, very measured. And you

[2:33:40] know that. So let's not be

[2:33:43] fearful. Let's be hopeful.

[2:33:45] Let's embrace our

[2:33:48] responsibilities both to ensure

[2:33:50] accountability and to fight for

[2:33:52] our working Virginians. Let's

[2:33:54] be proud. MADAM PRESIDENT, I

[2:33:57] renew my motion that we support

[2:34:01] this House joint resolution.

[2:34:02] >> Senator Surovell, the

[2:34:04] Senator from eastern Fairfax

[2:34:05] County.

[2:34:07] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:34:08] Speaking to the motion.

[2:34:10] >> Senator has the floor.

[2:34:11] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:34:12] I want to hit a couple of

[2:34:14] things just to make sure our

[2:34:15] record is clear. Then talk

[2:34:17] about why we need to pass this.

[2:34:19] So first of all, I know there's

[2:34:20] been some chatter about some 90

[2:34:22] day rule. Got really hot a few

[2:34:23] days ago. Senator from

[2:34:25] Rockingham and I had a little

[2:34:27] colloquy about that where I

[2:34:30] think I think I made clear that

[2:34:32] this 90 day thing in the

[2:34:34] Constitution is dates to the

[2:34:36] Constitution of 1870, back when

[2:34:39] people used to go to the

[2:34:40] courthouse on their horse on

[2:34:41] Saturday mornings to get their

[2:34:43] news for what's going on in the

[2:34:44] county. In 1971, that got

[2:34:46] eliminated. And for some reason

[2:34:49] it was they failed to eliminate

[2:34:51] from the code because it was

[2:34:52] parallel language in the code.

[2:34:55] But just for the record, it's

[2:34:56] important to note that last

[2:34:58] last week we had a meeting of

[2:34:59] this entity we created called

[2:35:01] the Code Commission. Code

[2:35:04] Commission had a meeting to

[2:35:06] update and codify title 30.

[2:35:07] That's the title that relates

[2:35:08] to the General Assembly. And

[2:35:11] one of the things the Code

[2:35:12] Commission did was recommended

[2:35:15] to delete section 3013 from the

[2:35:18] Code of Virginia. And in the

[2:35:19] drafting note that was handed

[2:35:21] to the Code Commission before

[2:35:22] they unanimously, and on a

[2:35:23] bipartisan basis, voted to

[2:35:24] remove this code section from

[2:35:26] the code, which I've heard many

[2:35:27] people saying is so important

[2:35:29] and so critical to this

[2:35:30] drafting note says this section

[2:35:33] is proposed for repeal

[2:35:34] provisions in the first

[2:35:35] paragraph. In article four,

[2:35:36] section seven and ten of

[2:35:36] Constitution Virginia are

[2:35:37] redundant provisions in the

[2:35:39] second paragraph, which I just

[2:35:40] talked about, predate the code

[2:35:42] of 1919 and are not reflective

[2:35:43] of the modern constitutional

[2:35:45] amendment process. So in other

[2:35:46] words, they recommended to

[2:35:48] remove it from the code because

[2:35:49] it's not consistent with the

[2:35:50] Constitution. In other words,

[2:35:53] it's not constitutional. And so

[2:35:54] when we meet in JANUARY and we

[2:35:57] codify title 30, we're going to

[2:35:58] be deleting that code section

[2:36:00] from the code unless members of

[2:36:01] the code commission and I would

[2:36:03] note, including the minority

[2:36:04] leader, choose to change his

[2:36:06] vote. MADAM PRESIDENT, I'll

[2:36:08] yield.

[2:36:10] >> Senator from Hanover has the

[2:36:11] floor.

[2:36:12] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I heard my

[2:36:14] name used in vain, so I thought

[2:36:16] I'd better rise for a question.

[2:36:18] Does the gentleman. Is the

[2:36:20] gentleman aware that the Code

[2:36:22] Commission operates on? Well,

[2:36:24] is gentleman aware that the

[2:36:26] Code Commission did not take a

[2:36:28] final vote at that meeting? And

[2:36:29] there were a number of changes

[2:36:31] suggested, and it was in

[2:36:33] concept. And the return, the

[2:36:34] final version back for review

[2:36:36] at our next meeting.

[2:36:38] >> Senator Surovell has the

[2:36:38] floor now.

[2:36:40] >> I've never served on the

[2:36:41] code commission. Senator

[2:36:42] Edwards always wanted it to be

[2:36:44] his. He would never let any of

[2:36:46] us play with his toys, so I've

[2:36:47] never served there. But I

[2:36:48] checked with staff. It was my

[2:36:50] understanding from staff that

[2:36:51] there was a unanimous vote

[2:36:52] taken to support that

[2:36:53] recommendation, to remove it

[2:36:54] from the code.

[2:36:55] >> Senator from Hanover.

[2:36:56] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, so I ask

[2:36:58] the gentleman again. So were

[2:37:01] you not aware that it was a in

[2:37:03] concept and the final version

[2:37:05] has not yet been produced to

[2:37:06] return back to the code

[2:37:08] Commission or and are you not

[2:37:09] aware that there's no bill

[2:37:10] that's actually been proposed

[2:37:12] or introduced to be moved

[2:37:12] forward?

[2:37:13] >> Senator. Surovell.

[2:37:14] >> First of all, MADAM

[2:37:15] PRESIDENT, I yield.

[2:37:17] >> That is correct, Senator.

[2:37:20] >> And secondly, I'm not aware

[2:37:23] of the specifics of the actions.

[2:37:25] All I'm aware of is that staff

[2:37:26] told me there was a unanimous

[2:37:27] vote taken to support that

[2:37:29] recommendation, which I just

[2:37:30] stated. That's my understanding.

[2:37:31] But I wasn't there. You were.

[2:37:33] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the

[2:37:33] Senator yield for additional

[2:37:34] questions?

[2:37:36] >> Will the Senator yield? And

[2:37:37] has everybody had been running

[2:37:39] roughshod over the rules? I

[2:37:41] decided to just let it be.

[2:37:42] >> It's all good, MADAM

[2:37:43] PRESIDENT. It's been a long

[2:37:44] debate. I yield.

[2:37:45] >> The Senator yields. Senator

[2:37:46] from Hanover has the floor.

[2:37:47] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:37:50] MADAM PRESIDENT, was the

[2:37:52] Senator aware that the then

[2:37:54] Democratic clerk of the House

[2:37:55] of delegates, Suzette Denslow,

[2:37:57] on the last constitutional

[2:37:59] amendment, sent a letter that

[2:38:01] would comport with that code

[2:38:02] section for which was not

[2:38:04] presented by staff to the

[2:38:06] members of the Code Commission

[2:38:08] for their discussion or debate.

[2:38:10] >> Senator from eastern Fairfax

[2:38:11] County.

[2:38:12] >> I've seen a letter

[2:38:13] circulated on Twitter. I

[2:38:15] haven't talked with MISS

[2:38:16] Denslow to find out if she did

[2:38:18] that or not in the brief time

[2:38:20] she served as clerk. But I've

[2:38:21] also heard that clerk Nadeau

[2:38:22] says that's not something he

[2:38:24] does, but this is all hearsay.

[2:38:26] I've read on on the internet.

[2:38:28] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the

[2:38:29] Senator yield for additional

[2:38:29] question?

[2:38:31] >> Additional question? Senator

[2:38:33] Surovell sure. I'll yield.

[2:38:34] Senator yields. The senator

[2:38:36] from Hanover has the floor.

[2:38:37] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:38:40] I'd ask the Senator if he is

[2:38:43] aware of the fact that any sort

[2:38:45] of communication of that form,

[2:38:47] or the fact that it still was

[2:38:50] presented in the last 40 years,

[2:38:52] that information was not

[2:38:53] presented at the Code

[2:38:55] Commission in its discussion by

[2:38:57] staff or members of the

[2:38:59] committee prior to its last

[2:39:02] meeting, but has been presented

[2:39:03] since the last meeting.

[2:39:05] >> Senator Surovell.

[2:39:07] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm not a

[2:39:08] member of the AUGUST Code

[2:39:10] Commission. I'm not aware of

[2:39:11] what's been presented, what

[2:39:12] hasn't. But I do know is that

[2:39:13] the Constitution of Virginia

[2:39:15] was changed to delete this

[2:39:15] requirement and that

[2:39:17] publication, 90 days in advance

[2:39:19] of this election is not

[2:39:20] constitutional mandate like it

[2:39:21] formerly was. And therefore

[2:39:23] anything in the code saying

[2:39:24] that I would think is

[2:39:25] unconstitutional.

[2:39:27] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, with

[2:39:28] Senator yield for additional

[2:39:28] question.

[2:39:29] >> Additional questions.

[2:39:31] Senator Surovell, sir. Senator

[2:39:33] yields the Senator from Hanover.

[2:39:34] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, does the

[2:39:35] Senator concede that this

[2:39:37] provision has been in the Code

[2:39:39] of Virginia at least since that

[2:39:42] 1971 constitutional revision?

[2:39:44] >> Senator Surovell has the

[2:39:44] floor.

[2:39:45] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would

[2:39:46] agree that there have been

[2:39:48] versions of it. It's been

[2:39:49] recodified a couple of times as

[2:39:51] different sort of ministerial

[2:39:52] changes were made to it that

[2:39:54] related to other code sections

[2:39:56] through time, at least in my

[2:39:57] review of the legislative

[2:39:58] history. So some version of it,

[2:39:59] yes.

[2:40:00] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, would,

[2:40:02] Senator yield for additional

[2:40:02] question?

[2:40:04] >> Another question, Senator

[2:40:05] Surovell. Sure. Senator yields

[2:40:06] Senator from Hanover.

[2:40:08] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the

[2:40:09] Senator agree that he's either

[2:40:11] been in the House or Senate for

[2:40:15] approximately 18 years now?

[2:40:17] >> Senator Surovell.

[2:40:20] >> No, it's been about 16 years.

[2:40:22] Might seem like 18 years, but

[2:40:24] it's only been 16. Okay.

[2:40:27] >> So, MADAM PRESIDENT, with

[2:40:28] the senator, yield for

[2:40:28] additional questions.

[2:40:29] >> Additional questions.

[2:40:30] Senator Surovell. Senator

[2:40:32] yields. Senator from Hanover.

[2:40:33] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask

[2:40:36] that in those 16 years of his

[2:40:37] service in either the House or

[2:40:39] Senate, has he ever introduced

[2:40:41] legislation to remove this code

[2:40:43] section from the Code of

[2:40:45] Virginia that he does not now

[2:40:48] feel should be followed by the

[2:40:50] ministerial members of this

[2:40:52] body or the clerks across the

[2:40:54] Commonwealth of Virginia?

[2:40:55] >> Senator Surovell has the

[2:40:57] floor.

[2:40:58] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, first of

[2:41:00] all, I'd say to the senator,

[2:41:03] don't tempt me. I'd like to put

[2:41:04] in lots of bills. Number one.

[2:41:07] Number two, this would be the

[2:41:08] perfect kind of bill I would

[2:41:10] put in if we didn't have bill

[2:41:13] limits. And number three, MADAM

[2:41:14] PRESIDENT, we have the bodies

[2:41:16] like the Code Commission to

[2:41:18] take care of sweeping out

[2:41:20] unnecessary code provisions

[2:41:21] like this when they recodified

[2:41:23] titles, which is what they've

[2:41:25] proposed to do. So I don't

[2:41:26] think that's necessary. And no,

[2:41:28] I haven't put that bill in.

[2:41:29] >> Senator from Hanover.

[2:41:31] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:41:32] MADAM PRESIDENT, maybe this

[2:41:35] will be the final question. Ask

[2:41:37] the Senator if he's aware of

[2:41:40] the letter dated APRIL 9th,

[2:41:43] 2019, from a g. Paul Nadeau on

[2:41:45] the House of delegates

[2:41:46] letterhead, addressed to clerks

[2:41:48] of the Circuit Court,

[2:41:49] referencing proposed amendments

[2:41:51] to the Constitution of Virginia

[2:41:54] for posting. That reads, as you

[2:41:57] MAY be aware, code section 3013

[2:41:58] of the Code of Virginia directs

[2:42:00] the clerk of the House of

[2:42:01] delegates to have published all

[2:42:02] proposed amendments to the

[2:42:04] Constitution of Virginia in

[2:42:07] fulfillment of that statutory

[2:42:10] requirement. Please find below

[2:42:11] links to the five proposed

[2:42:12] constitutional amendments to

[2:42:14] the Constitution of Virginia

[2:42:16] that were agreed to by the

[2:42:17] General Assembly. They're

[2:42:19] listed, and at the end, he

[2:42:20] thanks them for their

[2:42:22] cooperation in this matter.

[2:42:25] Were you aware that the House

[2:42:29] clerk, Nadeau, did send a

[2:42:30] letter to that effect? Because

[2:42:32] I think you indicated he had

[2:42:34] never sent one. So you're aware

[2:42:36] of that 2019 letter?

[2:42:38] >> There's a senator first

[2:42:39] yield.

[2:42:41] >> Yeah. I'll yield.

[2:42:42] >> And does the senator wish to

[2:42:43] respond?

[2:42:45] >> Sure. I'll be happy to

[2:42:47] answer again. I haven't I don't

[2:42:48] talk to Clerk Nadeau a whole

[2:42:50] lot anymore. Ever since I left

[2:42:52] the other body, I run run into

[2:42:54] him every once in a while. But

[2:42:56] I did read, I believe, either

[2:42:57] on Twitter and a newspaper

[2:42:59] story or somewhere, that the

[2:43:00] speaker spoke with Clerk Nadeau

[2:43:01] about whether he does this

[2:43:03] regularly, and he indicated

[2:43:06] that he did not. So that was my

[2:43:07] understanding of what the

[2:43:09] public record was. I'm not

[2:43:12] familiar with that letter.

[2:43:14] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I thank the

[2:43:16] Senator and I hope that he'll

[2:43:18] go back and look at that letter

[2:43:20] from MR. Nadeau from 2019 so he

[2:43:22] could familiarize himself with

[2:43:22] it.

[2:43:25] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:43:26] MAY I resume.

[2:43:27] >> Senator MAY continue.

[2:43:28] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[2:43:29] Ladies, gentlemen. So in

[2:43:32] addition to the this 90 day

[2:43:33] requirement that we're in the

[2:43:34] process of repealing right now,

[2:43:35] that hasn't been in our

[2:43:37] Constitution for over 54 years.

[2:43:39] There was also some talk about

[2:43:41] early voting. And when that

[2:43:43] began and I while I was sitting

[2:43:45] here, I pulled an article from

[2:43:46] 2009 written by James Alcorn in

[2:43:48] the Richmond Public Interest

[2:43:51] Law Review, in which MR. Alcorn

[2:43:52] notes the history of absentee

[2:43:55] voting in Virginia. And he said,

[2:43:56] first of all, it dates back to

[2:43:58] the Civil War, when the members

[2:43:59] of the Virginia Confederate

[2:44:01] Armed Services, absent from

[2:44:03] their homes because of the

[2:44:04] presence of the public enemy,

[2:44:05] were permitted to vote absentee.

[2:44:07] So that's when it started in

[2:44:10] our state was in the Civil War.

[2:44:11] Then it talks about how

[2:44:13] absentee voting became more

[2:44:15] widespread when we allowed

[2:44:16] soldiers during World War One

[2:44:21] to vote absentee, and then

[2:44:22] other states questioned the

[2:44:23] constitutionality of absentee

[2:44:25] voting, but was upheld by the

[2:44:27] Supreme Court of Virginia in

[2:44:29] 1928 1928. This has been going

[2:44:31] on. People have been you know

[2:44:32] what? People have been voting

[2:44:34] before, before Election day,

[2:44:36] since 1928, since 1864. Can you

[2:44:40] believe that? This early voting

[2:44:42] folks, is not a new thing? And

[2:44:44] stop telling the voters it's a

[2:44:45] new thing and stop pretending

[2:44:47] like it's a new thing. It's not

[2:44:48] new at all. It's over, what,

[2:44:53] 160 years old now? Now, MADAM

[2:44:55] PRESIDENT, I'll make sure that

[2:44:57] the record is clear on that.

[2:45:00] Now, with regard to this

[2:45:02] underlying amendment, there's

[2:45:05] been a lot of talk today about

[2:45:07] about how we shouldn't get all

[2:45:09] hot and bothered by what other

[2:45:11] states are doing about or about

[2:45:13] what the Trump administration

[2:45:15] is doing to our state and to

[2:45:18] our country. I take I take

[2:45:19] offense at that. I didn't get

[2:45:22] elected to this body just to

[2:45:27] focus on. The the, you know,

[2:45:28] local curiosities of what

[2:45:30] happens in my, my, my little

[2:45:33] community. Remember, I

[2:45:34] represent the homes of George

[2:45:36] Washington and George Mason.

[2:45:38] George Mason wrote a document

[2:45:40] that ended up being the first

[2:45:41] declaration of rights that was

[2:45:43] ever adopted in the world,

[2:45:44] ended up being parroted all

[2:45:46] across the country. George

[2:45:48] Washington put his butt on the

[2:45:49] line. He put his neck on the

[2:45:51] line. He put he was one of the

[2:45:52] wealthiest people in America.

[2:45:54] He put everything on the line

[2:45:55] because of what was happening

[2:45:57] to what was then the colony of

[2:45:59] Virginia, and then the people

[2:46:02] of America. And what they

[2:46:04] decided to do was take a stand

[2:46:06] against monarchical tyranny.

[2:46:07] They decided to take a stand

[2:46:09] against somebody who thought he

[2:46:11] was a king. Our state, you all

[2:46:13] should remember. I think

[2:46:14] everybody does remember where

[2:46:15] the birthplace of American

[2:46:17] democracy, Washington,

[2:46:19] Jefferson, Madison, Mason, they

[2:46:21] created a republic where people

[2:46:23] would govern themselves through

[2:46:25] fair representation, something

[2:46:28] called democracy representation,

[2:46:30] meaning people who vote get to

[2:46:31] pick their elected officials

[2:46:32] and their elected officials

[2:46:34] make the government. That's a

[2:46:36] founding principle of our

[2:46:39] country. When Patrick Henry

[2:46:41] said, give me liberty or give

[2:46:43] me death in this Capitol, he

[2:46:44] meant the liberty of these

[2:46:45] people to choose their own

[2:46:46] government, a government that

[2:46:49] would make decisions for them.

[2:46:51] And not the liberty of

[2:46:52] political parties to rig

[2:46:53] elections through

[2:46:55] gerrymandering, to rig the

[2:46:57] outcome of a national election.

[2:46:59] That isn't what Patrick Henry

[2:47:01] stood for right down the street

[2:47:03] at Churchill when he said that.

[2:47:03] When Jefferson wrote,

[2:47:05] governments derive their just

[2:47:06] powers from the consent of the

[2:47:07] governed, he meant actual

[2:47:10] consent, not consent that's

[2:47:11] manufactured artificially by

[2:47:13] some computer programs that

[2:47:15] decide what a body is going to

[2:47:17] look like. When Madison

[2:47:19] designed our system of checks

[2:47:20] and balances, he understood no

[2:47:21] branch should be allowed

[2:47:24] unchecked power. Gerrymandering

[2:47:30] has broken that system. When

[2:47:33] Virginians adopted our

[2:47:35] redistricting system, this

[2:47:37] amendment not independent

[2:47:39] commission, not bipartisan

[2:47:41] commission, not nonpartisan

[2:47:42] commission, but when we adopted

[2:47:45] it in good faith. Republican

[2:47:48] controlled states have gone the

[2:47:52] opposite direction. California

[2:47:53] created a commission. New York

[2:47:54] created a commission.

[2:47:57] Republican states did not. And

[2:48:00] when Virginians voted for this,

[2:48:02] they did not envision what's

[2:48:04] happening in our country today.

[2:48:05] Nobody did because nobody

[2:48:07] thought it was humanly possible.

[2:48:09] Nobody thought that the

[2:48:11] Republican Party would just hop

[2:48:14] in line and not even fight back

[2:48:17] against government tyranny.

[2:48:20] Nobody envisioned a tyrant who

[2:48:21] would ignore our constitution,

[2:48:23] our law, on a daily basis. No

[2:48:26] one. I never thought I'd see

[2:48:28] the day when a Republican

[2:48:31] PRESIDENT Enacts by fiat.

[2:48:33] According to the economist. We

[2:48:36] heard from at odu, from odu, at

[2:48:37] the Senate Finance Committee

[2:48:38] meeting just two weeks ago, the

[2:48:40] largest tax increase as a

[2:48:41] percentage of gdp in the last

[2:48:43] 50 years without a vote of

[2:48:44] Congress. That's what the

[2:48:46] tariffs are, folks. Make no

[2:48:47] mistake, the largest tax

[2:48:49] increase in the last 50 years,

[2:48:50] the percentage of gdp. I

[2:48:53] haven't heard a peep. Not a

[2:48:55] peep out of a single Republican

[2:48:56] in this state. I've heard about

[2:48:58] it from Rand Paul. I've heard

[2:49:00] about it from a few other

[2:49:01] people that have the courage to

[2:49:03] speak out. And I've heard a

[2:49:04] bunch of rural Republicans that

[2:49:05] are upset that they can't sell

[2:49:06] their soybeans, that Trump's

[2:49:08] trying to sell their cattle to

[2:49:09] Argentina right now. But I

[2:49:10] haven't heard a single thing

[2:49:12] out of people who purport to

[2:49:13] represent the rural people of

[2:49:15] this state. While tariffs ruin

[2:49:16] the economy, the largest tax

[2:49:17] increase. So much for the party

[2:49:21] of Reagan. But a tax increase

[2:49:24] like that is taxation without

[2:49:28] representation. I never thought

[2:49:30] I would see United States

[2:49:33] Congress completely abdicate

[2:49:34] their responsibility to conduct

[2:49:36] any kind of government

[2:49:39] oversight to the PRESIDENT.

[2:49:41] It's gotten so bad that

[2:49:41] PRESIDENT Trump even called

[2:49:44] himself the speaker last week.

[2:49:45] I never thought I'd see a

[2:49:47] United States Supreme Court

[2:49:49] who's completely abdicated its

[2:49:51] responsibility to enforce our

[2:49:52] Constitution and limit the

[2:49:54] power of the different bodies.

[2:49:56] A Supreme Court has thrown out

[2:49:58] norms, centuries and centuries

[2:49:59] of norms established by

[2:50:01] Virginians like John Marshall

[2:50:06] called stare decisis. Virginia

[2:50:08] voters did not envision the

[2:50:10] federal power grab that we see

[2:50:11] today. They didn't imagine

[2:50:12] Texas, Missouri, Indiana. And

[2:50:14] by the way, a couple of hours

[2:50:16] ago, Ohio engaging in the most

[2:50:17] extreme Partizan gerrymandering

[2:50:21] in American history. This is a

[2:50:23] coordinated national strategy

[2:50:26] to grab power. And the

[2:50:28] fundamental problem here, the

[2:50:29] fundamental problem that we are

[2:50:31] giving ourselves the option to

[2:50:34] address is the Virginia cannot

[2:50:36] fight with one hand tied behind

[2:50:40] its back. We joined this

[2:50:41] country as part of the

[2:50:44] Constitution back in 1883 by

[2:50:46] making a deal with the other

[2:50:48] states that we would all treat

[2:50:51] each other a certain way. We'd

[2:50:55] all be fair to each other. We

[2:50:57] embraced fair redistricting

[2:50:58] because we believe in good

[2:50:59] government. But what we did

[2:51:01] this, the Republicans doubled

[2:51:04] down on gerrymandering. The

[2:51:06] result? Democrats might be able

[2:51:08] to win more votes nationwide,

[2:51:10] but still be locked out of

[2:51:13] Congress for a decade, even

[2:51:15] though winning election after

[2:51:16] election after election after

[2:51:18] election nationwide by more

[2:51:21] votes. That's not democracy.

[2:51:23] It's not what we signed up for,

[2:51:27] and it's not sustainable. We

[2:51:29] have an election coming up in

[2:51:34] 2026. Those 2026 midterms are

[2:51:36] going to be a referendum, a

[2:51:37] referendum on our nation's

[2:51:39] direction. But you know what?

[2:51:41] If gerrymandering has already

[2:51:46] decided the outcome? The

[2:51:48] people's voice is going to be

[2:51:51] silenced. That's not democracy.

[2:51:53] The constitutional remedy for

[2:51:54] administration that goes off

[2:51:55] its track is congressional

[2:51:56] oversight. But that remedy is

[2:51:58] meaningless if gerrymandering

[2:51:59] makes it mathematically

[2:52:02] impossible for people, for the

[2:52:04] opposition, to actually win an

[2:52:07] election. We're not arguing

[2:52:08] that Democrats deserve to

[2:52:09] control Congress, but we are

[2:52:11] arguing that voters should

[2:52:13] decide who controls Congress.

[2:52:14] Gerrymandering is preventing

[2:52:18] that. Now, I want to make clear

[2:52:20] our founders were not native.

[2:52:21] They were not naive idealists.

[2:52:23] They understood power.

[2:52:25] Washington didn't defeat the

[2:52:26] British by refusing to fight.

[2:52:28] Jefferson didn't expand

[2:52:29] democracy by deferring to his

[2:52:31] opponents. Madison didn't

[2:52:32] protect our Constitution by

[2:52:34] allowing enemies to subvert it.

[2:52:35] John Marshall didn't empower

[2:52:37] the Supreme Court by sticking

[2:52:39] his head in the sand. Patrick

[2:52:40] Henry, you know, he also didn't

[2:52:43] say, you know, the king of

[2:52:45] England. That's some guy across

[2:52:46] the ocean. He's not here in

[2:52:47] Virginia. We don't need to

[2:52:49] worry about some of the

[2:52:50] arguments I've heard today. You

[2:52:51] didn't hear Virginians saying,

[2:52:52] well, the Tea Party is just

[2:52:54] some little Massachusetts thing,

[2:52:55] not part of the fight here in

[2:52:57] Virginia. Maybe there were some

[2:52:58] that said it. They ended up

[2:52:59] leaving the state after the

[2:53:01] revolution. We faced a hard

[2:53:02] choice today, maintaining our

[2:53:03] commitment to fair

[2:53:04] redistricting while watching

[2:53:05] Republicans gerrymander their

[2:53:07] way into permanent power. Or we

[2:53:08] need to acknowledge that when

[2:53:10] only one side plays by the

[2:53:13] rules, the rules become

[2:53:18] unilateral disarmament. Now,

[2:53:20] some people might call this a

[2:53:21] power grab. I've heard that

[2:53:22] called a couple of times today.

[2:53:24] That's not what it is. This is

[2:53:25] about whether our democratic

[2:53:26] system will function as

[2:53:27] intended, whether our voters

[2:53:28] will have a meaningful choice,

[2:53:29] whether Congress can check

[2:53:30] executive power, whether

[2:53:31] gerrymandering has rendered

[2:53:33] that function impossible. I

[2:53:34] would prefer a federal law

[2:53:36] banning Partizan gerrymandering

[2:53:37] nationwide. I would support

[2:53:38] that constitutional amendment

[2:53:40] in a heartbeat. The us Supreme

[2:53:42] Court had a chance to do it

[2:53:43] when they could have adopted

[2:53:44] the vote waste theory in the

[2:53:46] Wisconsin case, it was there a

[2:53:48] few years ago. They chose to

[2:53:49] punt. Look what's happened. But

[2:53:50] absent those solutions, we

[2:53:53] can't allow certain Partizan

[2:53:55] tyrannical majority to continue

[2:53:57] to gerrymander itself into

[2:53:58] permanent power while we sit

[2:53:59] around inside our commitment to

[2:54:02] principle. Virginia's role as

[2:54:03] the birthplace of democracy

[2:54:04] gives us a special

[2:54:07] responsibility not to stand by

[2:54:08] idly while democracy is

[2:54:11] dismantled. But it's our job as

[2:54:13] the leading colony in the state

[2:54:15] that created our country to

[2:54:17] defend it with every tool at

[2:54:19] our disposal. That is what we

[2:54:20] are called to do. And that's

[2:54:22] why this body was created. By

[2:54:24] the way, if you go back and

[2:54:25] look at the history books, the

[2:54:26] Senate didn't even exist until

[2:54:30] 1776. So we're not asking for

[2:54:32] immediate action. We're we're

[2:54:33] just asking for a serious

[2:54:35] conversation about whether our

[2:54:36] current approach is sustainable

[2:54:38] to American democracy. We need

[2:54:40] to study the impact in other

[2:54:42] states of gerrymandering. We

[2:54:42] need to study different

[2:54:44] scenarios. We need to engage

[2:54:45] the public. We should have a

[2:54:47] debate. I welcome the debate.

[2:54:49] Let's have a debate over the

[2:54:51] next three months. Let's have a

[2:54:52] debate over the next six months.

[2:54:54] Let's have it. I'm sure we're

[2:54:55] going to hear it again in

[2:54:57] JANUARY. We need to make sure

[2:54:59] that Virginia is not

[2:55:00] permanently disadvantaged in

[2:55:01] the fight for congressional

[2:55:05] control. MADAM PRESIDENT, what

[2:55:07] do you do when one side refuses

[2:55:09] to play by the rules? Do you

[2:55:10] maintain your principles and

[2:55:11] accept defeat, or do you

[2:55:12] recognize that preserving

[2:55:13] democracy, sometimes requiring

[2:55:14] tools you find distasteful to

[2:55:16] prevent permanent entrenchment

[2:55:19] of minority rule? We owe it to

[2:55:20] our constituents to have this

[2:55:21] conversation. We owe it to

[2:55:23] democracy to consider all the

[2:55:24] options. We owe it to our

[2:55:25] future generations to ensure

[2:55:27] that people, not the mapmakers,

[2:55:28] pick their representatives and

[2:55:30] decide who's in control of the

[2:55:32] federal government. The 2026

[2:55:34] elections are coming. The

[2:55:35] American people are going to go

[2:55:37] to the polls expecting their

[2:55:38] votes to actually count. But if

[2:55:39] gerrymandering is already

[2:55:41] decided, their outcome in Texas,

[2:55:45] Missouri, Florida, Ohio,

[2:55:50] Indiana. North Carolina, those

[2:55:51] votes are going to be

[2:55:52] meaningless. Our Virginia votes

[2:55:54] are going to be meaningless. So

[2:55:56] we honor Virginia's founders

[2:55:57] today by not clinging to

[2:55:59] principle while losing power,

[2:56:00] but by understanding, as they

[2:56:01] did, that the preservation of

[2:56:02] democratic government sometimes

[2:56:04] requires us to match the

[2:56:05] tactics of those who would

[2:56:07] destroy it. This amendment, if

[2:56:08] we choose to present it to

[2:56:10] voters next spring, will give

[2:56:11] Virginians the ability to

[2:56:13] return to the forefront of

[2:56:14] protecting American democracy,

[2:56:16] and I'm proud to support it. I

[2:56:26] would hope we'd vote yes.

[2:56:39] >> The question is. Shall House

[2:56:45] Joint Resolution 6007 be agreed

[2:56:47] to? Those in favor of that

[2:56:48] motion will record their votes.

[2:56:50] Aye. Those opposed? No. Are the

[2:56:52] senators ready to vote? Of all

[2:56:54] the senators voted, does any

[2:56:56] Senator desire to change their

[2:57:00] vote? The clerk will close the

[2:57:01] roll.

[2:57:04] >> Ayes 21. No 16.

[2:57:07] >> Ayes 21. No 16. The

[2:57:10] resolution is agreed to.

[2:57:12] >> Memorial resolution.

[2:57:15] >> The Senator from Prince

[2:57:17] Edward. For what purpose does

[2:57:19] the Senator from Hampton Rise?

[2:57:21] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, prior to

[2:57:23] taking up Senate Resolution 704,

[2:57:25] I have a motion.

[2:57:26] >> The Senator MAY stated.

[2:57:29] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, prior

[2:57:30] review of resolutions related

[2:57:32] to normally

[2:57:35] come before the Committee on

[2:57:37] Rules. So therefore I ask I

[2:57:39] move that Senate Resolution 704

[2:57:41] be submitted to the Committee

[2:57:43] on Rules.

[2:57:47] >> Without objection, Senate

[2:57:51] resolution 704 is remanded to

[2:58:01] the Committee on Rules. Senator

[2:58:08] Surovell. Calendar completion.

[2:58:10] >> And query the clerk that

[2:58:12] complete today's calendar.

[2:58:15] >> No, sir. I'm just kidding.

[2:58:16] >> Okay.

[2:58:17] >> Yes, sir. It does.

[2:58:19] >> Thank you. And thanks for

[2:58:20] lunch today. And breakfast.

[2:58:24] >> MADAM Speaker. MADAM

[2:58:24] PRESIDENT.

[2:58:25] >> Senator from Mecklenburg.

[2:58:26] Senator Mulkey.

[2:58:28] >> Can I have a point of

[2:58:29] personal privilege?

[2:58:31] >> Senator MAY stated.

[2:58:33] >> Since I was supposed to be

[2:58:35] with a victim of domestic

[2:58:37] violence today at court, I'm

[2:58:39] going to take a few minutes to

[2:58:41] speak on the behalf of domestic

[2:58:43] violence victims. And I know

[2:58:45] that we all want to get home,

[2:58:47] including myself. But today is

[2:58:48] the last day of Domestic

[2:58:51] Violence Awareness Month, and

[2:58:52] as we have been here this week,

[2:58:54] a lot has been said about

[2:58:56] political violence and how we

[2:58:59] condemn that. And there's a lot

[2:59:01] of passion about that subject

[2:59:07] and as it should be. But. The

[2:59:10] very the gentleman from, I

[2:59:12] believe, Prince George, King

[2:59:15] George, King George gave a very

[2:59:17] passionate account of a story

[2:59:23] when his family was, was.

[2:59:27] Singled out, a threat to his

[2:59:29] family, his wife, his children,

[2:59:32] child, children and himself.

[2:59:35] Their life was threatened and

[2:59:36] how life changing that was and

[2:59:38] how they would never forget

[2:59:40] about that. And he asked a

[2:59:42] question, I think he said, can

[2:59:45] you imagine how that felt? And

[2:59:47] I sit here and I said, yes, I

[2:59:50] can. How about every day for 30

[2:59:54] years, every day? And it made

[2:59:56] me think even further that what

[3:00:00] if that threat was in your very

[3:00:02] own home? And what if that

[3:00:04] threat came from the very

[3:00:06] person that you were supposed

[3:00:08] to go to and say, protect me

[3:00:11] from this threat, protect me

[3:00:13] from this person, that's going

[3:00:15] to hurt me? What if that threat

[3:00:17] came from the very person that

[3:00:18] said, they're going to love and

[3:00:20] protect you for the rest of

[3:00:22] your life? And what if that

[3:00:23] threat came from the person

[3:00:25] that should help you find

[3:00:27] somewhere safe to go and stay

[3:00:31] so that you wouldn't get hurt?

[3:00:33] That's what victims that I help

[3:00:35] every day deal with in my

[3:00:38] nonprofit. And today I was

[3:00:39] supposed to be at court with

[3:00:41] one holding their hand because

[3:00:43] the courts are not friendly to

[3:00:47] victims. And so in the United

[3:00:49] States, around 24 people per

[3:00:51] minute are victims of physical

[3:00:53] violence, rape and stalking by

[3:00:56] an intimate partner. 1 in 3

[3:00:58] women and 1 in 10 men

[3:00:59] experience some form of

[3:01:01] physical violence by a partner

[3:01:04] in their lifetime. 85% of

[3:01:05] domestic violence victims are

[3:01:09] women. Every day, nearly three

[3:01:12] three women are killed by an

[3:01:15] intimate partner. A woman

[3:01:17] experiences physical abuse

[3:01:23] every nine seconds. Only 1 in 5

[3:01:25] domestic violence victims with

[3:01:28] physical injuries seeks

[3:01:30] treatment. But the sad

[3:01:33] statistic is that most domestic

[3:01:35] violence incidents are never

[3:01:38] reported, including mine. In 30

[3:01:40] years. Never once, never once

[3:01:43] did I call 911. Never once did

[3:01:46] I tell my parents. Never once

[3:01:52] did I tell anyone. The question.

[3:01:53] You always hear. Why didn't you

[3:01:55] leave? Why didn't you just walk

[3:01:57] out the door? I mean, I was a

[3:01:59] successful business person. My

[3:02:00] husband and I, we owned a

[3:02:01] business together. Very

[3:02:02] successful. The reasons we

[3:02:06] don't leave, we fear our

[3:02:08] abusers. Violent behavior will

[3:02:11] escalate. We fear the threats

[3:02:15] that we'll be killed. We fear

[3:02:18] that we'll have no financial

[3:02:19] ability to take care of

[3:02:21] ourselves. There's nowhere to

[3:02:23] go. We believe that our

[3:02:24] religious beliefs do not look

[3:02:27] favorably upon divorce. We want

[3:02:29] our children to have two

[3:02:32] parents, and the list goes on

[3:02:44] and on. It makes me think of a

[3:02:48] story. We had a vigil last week.

[3:02:52] Of the lady that we honored,

[3:02:56] Jackie and Jackie. She was an

[3:02:58] older lady, an elderly lady,

[3:03:01] and Jackie had also never

[3:03:03] called 911 because all of her

[3:03:05] abuse was mental and emotional.

[3:03:11] And Jackie had decided for her

[3:03:13] was also 30 years, and she had

[3:03:14] just had enough and she could

[3:03:18] not take another day. And so

[3:03:20] Jackie made a plan. She found a

[3:03:22] place that she could rent, and

[3:03:23] she told her daughter, I'm

[3:03:25] leaving, I'm going to leave him.

[3:03:27] I'm finally going to leave him.

[3:03:29] And and that she had planned

[3:03:31] when he wouldn't be there, that

[3:03:32] she was going to leave. And

[3:03:34] Jackie had her suitcase packed,

[3:03:37] and he was a fine, upstanding

[3:03:39] gentleman. He ran a homeless

[3:03:43] shelter, and everybody thought

[3:03:44] he was the greatest guy on

[3:03:45] earth. The the conditions to

[3:03:47] stay in his homeless shelter

[3:03:49] was you had to go to church

[3:03:51] with him, and you had to be

[3:03:53] drug free. And everybody loved

[3:03:57] him, including myself. And the

[3:03:58] day Jackie had her suitcase

[3:04:00] packed and was going out the

[3:04:02] door, and she was on the phone

[3:04:04] with her daughter, he happened

[3:04:06] to come back home and he picked

[3:04:08] up his gun and he killed her

[3:04:10] because that's what's happened.

[3:04:12] And that's why we don't leave.

[3:04:15] We know the real threat is when

[3:04:17] we leave. That's when we get

[3:04:20] killed, is after we leave or

[3:04:22] when we're leaving, and when we

[3:04:24] try to walk out that door. And

[3:04:28] that's why we don't leave. And

[3:04:32] so I just want you to listen

[3:04:33] and hear. I know y'all don't

[3:04:35] want to hear about this subject.

[3:04:36] It's not a popular subject to

[3:04:38] talk about. It's not a fun

[3:04:39] subject. Nobody wants to hear

[3:04:42] about it. But I want you on

[3:04:45] this month of awareness to hear

[3:04:48] it and to know. And I know that

[3:04:50] I think it's one fourth of this

[3:04:54] body's is attorneys. And and I

[3:04:57] want you to know that the

[3:05:00] courtroom is another place that

[3:05:01] victims of abuse get

[3:05:04] revictimized, because family

[3:05:06] courts are not friendly to

[3:05:09] victims, because people don't

[3:05:14] understand that most victims of

[3:05:15] domestic abuse end up with a

[3:05:17] mental illness because of their

[3:05:21] abuse, and they're often often

[3:05:25] referred to as crazy. And

[3:05:27] probably by the time they get

[3:05:29] to a courtroom, they are crazy.

[3:05:31] Many of them suffer from

[3:05:34] anxiety, depression. For myself,

[3:05:38] I have ptsd. I was even not

[3:05:41] granted a renewal of the fourth

[3:05:43] time of a protective order

[3:05:45] since I left 11 years ago,

[3:05:47] because I took three ptsd drugs,

[3:05:49] and the judge decided that I

[3:05:55] was a drug addict. So if you

[3:05:57] are an attorney, I would beg of

[3:06:00] you to learn about narcissistic

[3:06:03] behaviors, about coercion,

[3:06:07] about how manipulative,

[3:06:08] manipulative you know what I'm

[3:06:11] saying? That abusers can be and

[3:06:13] how they present themselves and

[3:06:16] how they use children as

[3:06:17] possessions not because they

[3:06:19] want them, but because that is

[3:06:22] the best and easiest way to

[3:06:24] hurt a mother. And these roles

[3:06:29] can be reversed as well. And

[3:06:33] when you're vetting judges, oh

[3:06:35] my GOD, please, if they're

[3:06:36] going to be in the juvenile

[3:06:39] courts, don't just get your

[3:06:42] best friends buddy. Make sure

[3:06:45] they know. The job they're

[3:06:47] going to be doing and how they

[3:06:53] serve, how they how they. This

[3:06:55] is people's lives. These are

[3:06:57] children's lives. These are

[3:07:05] women's lives. It's probably

[3:07:08] the biggest disappointment I

[3:07:09] had when I came here to the

[3:07:11] General Assembly is how the

[3:07:13] judicial process works. I

[3:07:15] thought I was coming up here

[3:07:16] with my 50 questions about what

[3:07:19] how you're going to serve in

[3:07:21] the courtroom. And I found out

[3:07:23] it's just who knows who and

[3:07:25] what party you're with. So

[3:07:31] disappointing. And since my

[3:07:33] notes are everywhere because

[3:07:34] I've just been writing them

[3:07:36] down everywhere I go this week,

[3:07:39] I gotta find my final thing I

[3:07:42] have to say about this. No, I

[3:07:44] don't think the government can

[3:07:45] fix this problem. No, I

[3:07:47] definitely don't. I don't think

[3:07:48] the government can fix any

[3:07:49] problem. I mean, just look at

[3:07:51] what we've done this week. But

[3:07:52] I hope and pray that Virginia

[3:07:55] can set an example for the rest

[3:07:57] of the country in its support

[3:07:58] for advocacy, not only for

[3:08:01] intervention of victims, but

[3:08:03] also for prevention and helping

[3:08:04] young people learn a different

[3:08:06] way of life that they MAY be

[3:08:09] learning in their own homes so

[3:08:11] that we can stop this vicious

[3:08:14] cycle. I also hope that

[3:08:16] Virginia can set an example by

[3:08:18] being the state that gets it

[3:08:20] right in our courtrooms, and

[3:08:22] where victims are protected and

[3:08:23] children are not allowed to use

[3:08:29] be used as property. And that

[3:08:33] they don't end up with a parent

[3:08:42] that is the abuser. Thank you.

[3:08:45] >> Senator Hashmi, the senator

[3:08:48] from Richmond City.

[3:08:49] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:08:51] I rise for a point of personal

[3:08:51] privilege.

[3:08:53] >> The senator has the floor.

[3:08:55] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:08:57] First, I just want to thank our

[3:09:01] colleague for her words, her

[3:09:04] personal testimony, and I hope

[3:09:07] that she knows how deeply

[3:09:09] moving her testimony has been

[3:09:12] and that she is fully supported

[3:09:16] by members of this body. Thank

[3:09:19] you for sharing, MADAM

[3:09:21] PRESIDENT. I rise also to thank

[3:09:22] our colleagues who have

[3:09:25] sacrificed a week of their

[3:09:26] their lives, their professional

[3:09:28] and personal personal lives to

[3:09:31] join us today, this whole week,

[3:09:33] to work hard to respond to the

[3:09:37] urgency of the moment at hand.

[3:09:39] I want to highlight that the

[3:09:41] work that we've been engaged in

[3:09:43] this week is to strengthen, not

[3:09:47] to dilute. As many have argued,

[3:09:49] Virginia's redistricting

[3:09:52] process. It is about the people,

[3:09:54] and it is about honesty.

[3:09:56] Honesty about what is happening

[3:09:59] all across this nation. Honesty

[3:10:01] about the crisis points that we

[3:10:03] are facing, honesty about the

[3:10:05] intentional damage that is

[3:10:07] being inflicted on the various

[3:10:09] communities that we represent,

[3:10:12] our farmers, our veterans, our

[3:10:14] rural families, seniors,

[3:10:17] immigrants, lgbtq family and

[3:10:19] friends, children in poverty,

[3:10:21] and so many more. We must

[3:10:23] remind ourselves that yes, we

[3:10:25] are Virginians, and critically

[3:10:28] as well, we are Americans.

[3:10:30] America is in crisis, and

[3:10:33] Virginia has the opportunity to

[3:10:35] respond in this most

[3:10:37] precipitous moment. This is a

[3:10:39] moment that we must meet with

[3:10:41] urgency, and it is incumbent on

[3:10:44] us to act. It is incumbent on

[3:10:47] us to answer the calls of

[3:10:49] Virginians in every corner of

[3:10:51] the Commonwealth, who have made

[3:10:54] one message loud and clear.

[3:10:57] They are angry at the direction

[3:11:00] of this country. Across our

[3:11:01] country, we're witnessing a

[3:11:04] crisis of faith in our

[3:11:06] democracy and a crisis in

[3:11:08] democracy itself. The refusal

[3:11:10] to accept the results of the

[3:11:13] 2020 election engendered the

[3:11:16] violence of the insurrection of

[3:11:18] JANUARY 6th, 2021. And while

[3:11:20] that tragic moment and the

[3:11:22] horrific images of people

[3:11:25] storming our us Capitol

[3:11:27] continue to resonate powerfully

[3:11:30] in our minds, that tragedy has

[3:11:33] been compounded even further

[3:11:35] over the subsequent years.

[3:11:38] Since 2020, we've seen

[3:11:40] amplified efforts to discredit

[3:11:42] the lawful results of elections,

[3:11:45] to consolidate political power

[3:11:49] and to rewrite the basic rules

[3:11:52] of fair and equal participation.

[3:11:54] Statehouses across the nation,

[3:11:56] from Florida to Texas to Ohio,

[3:11:59] have taken up revisionist

[3:12:01] history, along with the

[3:12:03] redrawing of maps and the

[3:12:05] writing of laws in order to

[3:12:08] prioritize party and politics

[3:12:10] over the people. These are not

[3:12:13] isolated incidents, nor are

[3:12:14] they happening in a vacuum.

[3:12:17] There is a clear and direct

[3:12:19] line from the centuries of

[3:12:21] dispossession,

[3:12:24] disenfranchisement and

[3:12:26] dehumanization of black and

[3:12:30] brown people. There is a clear

[3:12:33] line to what is happening today.

[3:12:34] There is also a clear and

[3:12:37] direct line from Jim Crow, from

[3:12:40] segregation and redlining to to

[3:12:43] what we are seeing today. These

[3:12:46] are not and I would like to

[3:12:48] remind us about the words of

[3:12:50] Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine,

[3:12:52] whose words helped to give

[3:12:54] birth to American liberty. He

[3:12:57] warned us long ago, the right

[3:13:00] of voting is the primary right

[3:13:03] by which all other rights are

[3:13:05] protected. And when that right

[3:13:07] is manipulated or subverted,

[3:13:09] when lines are drawn in ways

[3:13:11] that suppress voters, every

[3:13:14] other right is undermined. The

[3:13:16] right to vote and the right to

[3:13:18] fair representation are

[3:13:20] foundational. Our foundational

[3:13:21] to the right to economic

[3:13:25] justice, the right to social

[3:13:27] justice, the right to civic

[3:13:29] engagement. And so when we

[3:13:31] fight for fair representation,

[3:13:33] we are actually fighting for

[3:13:36] better wages. We are protecting

[3:13:37] health care and health care

[3:13:40] access. We are responding to

[3:13:42] the dismantling of public

[3:13:44] education. This effort is not

[3:13:47] just about protecting

[3:13:49] representation. It is quite

[3:13:52] literally about access, equity

[3:13:55] and justice. If we in Virginia

[3:13:57] fail to act, we risk the we

[3:13:59] risk following the same path

[3:14:01] that we have seen elsewhere, a

[3:14:03] path that replaces trust with

[3:14:05] cynicism, and where voters

[3:14:06] believe that the outcome is

[3:14:08] rigged even before the first

[3:14:11] ballot is cast. That is how

[3:14:14] democracies falter, not with

[3:14:16] one tragic, magnificent

[3:14:18] collapse, but with the steady

[3:14:21] erosion, the steady erosion of

[3:14:23] fair representation, one

[3:14:25] district at a time, not with a

[3:14:28] bang, but with a whimper. As

[3:14:31] the poet T.S. Eliot warned,

[3:14:34] Thomas Paine also reminded us

[3:14:36] those who expect to reap the

[3:14:38] blessings of freedom must

[3:14:40] undergo the fatigue of

[3:14:43] supporting it. And this moment

[3:14:46] right here, right now, is our

[3:14:48] collective fatigue. It is the

[3:14:50] hard work of protecting

[3:14:52] democracy from the slow decay

[3:14:55] of vile self-interest,

[3:14:57] contemptuous disregard for the

[3:14:59] rule of law, and the

[3:15:01] debilitating destruction of

[3:15:04] demagoguery. So we have been

[3:15:06] called upon to act with courage

[3:15:07] and conviction, and some have

[3:15:10] asked, why now? Why the urgency?

[3:15:12] Some have accused us on this

[3:15:14] side of the aisle of playing

[3:15:16] craven political theater. And

[3:15:19] as we all know, the theatrics

[3:15:21] does have a certain role to

[3:15:24] play in politics. However, the

[3:15:26] serious nature of this moment

[3:15:29] is far beyond theatrics, and it

[3:15:32] is also well beyond the

[3:15:34] hysterics of hypocrisy.

[3:15:37] Virginia is among the states

[3:15:39] that have felt the immediate

[3:15:41] and immense economic pain from

[3:15:43] the chaos of the Trump

[3:15:44] administration. We know that he

[3:15:46] is eroding the rule of law and

[3:15:49] his relentless pursuit of power.

[3:15:51] We know that we must face the

[3:15:52] moment with urgency, rather

[3:15:55] than sit on the sidelines as we

[3:15:57] watch our democracy be stripped

[3:15:59] away in ways that will take

[3:16:02] generations to repair. All

[3:16:04] across Virginia, tens of

[3:16:06] thousands of our constituents

[3:16:09] have marched, they have rallied.

[3:16:11] They have called upon us to act,

[3:16:14] to take a stance, to respond to

[3:16:15] the chaos and destruction of

[3:16:17] Trump's Washington with more

[3:16:20] than just empty words. And this

[3:16:23] week, we did just that. And

[3:16:25] Virginians are proud. So today

[3:16:27] is the first step in an

[3:16:29] endeavor to stand up against

[3:16:31] the unlawful power grabs and

[3:16:34] return power back to the people

[3:16:37] of Virginia. It is through our

[3:16:40] actions today that we MAY give

[3:16:42] Virginians a voice in deciding

[3:16:46] the future of America. Madam

[3:16:47] president, I conclude my

[3:16:48] comments with a reminder of

[3:16:51] what Abraham Lincoln urged of

[3:16:55] us, his fellow citizens in 1862,

[3:16:57] that in moments of grave crisis,

[3:17:00] moments of historic urgency, we

[3:17:03] are called to act boldly and

[3:17:05] with full determination. It is

[3:17:08] Lincoln who said the dogmas of

[3:17:11] the quiet past are inadequate

[3:17:14] to the stormy present. The

[3:17:16] occasion is piled high with

[3:17:18] difficulty, and we must rise

[3:17:21] with that occasion. As our case

[3:17:24] is new, we must think anew and

[3:17:27] act anew. We must disenthrall

[3:17:30] ourselves, and then we will

[3:17:32] save our country. MADAM

[3:17:34] PRESIDENT, we have just taken

[3:17:37] our first steps in disenthrall

[3:17:38] ourselves from the dogmas of

[3:17:42] that quiet past. Thank you,

[3:17:46] MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:17:48] >> Senator ciphers. The Senator

[3:17:52] from Prince Edward.

[3:17:54] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise for

[3:17:55] a point of personal privilege.

[3:17:56] >> The Senator MAY continue.

[3:18:01] >> MADAM PRESIDENT. I'm. I'm

[3:18:02] disappointed that that we were

[3:18:04] not able to hear a resolution

[3:18:07] today that didn't require

[3:18:09] anyone to agree with all of the

[3:18:12] views of of Charlie Kirk, but

[3:18:15] rather to agree that one of the

[3:18:18] most fundamental principles and

[3:18:20] values that we share as

[3:18:21] Americans is the idea that we

[3:18:23] should be able to speak our

[3:18:25] minds in open debate, and that

[3:18:27] we, when we come together in

[3:18:29] open debate and speak our minds

[3:18:31] clearly and respectfully, that

[3:18:34] we avoid, as Charlie Kirk said

[3:18:36] many times, really bad things

[3:18:39] from happening. I don't think

[3:18:40] there's any I don't think

[3:18:42] there's any doubt, MADAM

[3:18:44] PRESIDENT, that our country has

[3:18:46] become more and more and more

[3:18:48] divided, that it has become

[3:18:51] more and more and more partizan.

[3:18:53] And based on the the things

[3:18:55] that are going on this week,

[3:18:57] that we are resorting to more

[3:18:59] and more and more extreme ways

[3:19:02] of dealing with that. But,

[3:19:04] MADAM PRESIDENT, we are in a

[3:19:06] period here where political

[3:19:08] violence has become a repeating

[3:19:11] theme. And if there's a body of

[3:19:13] members in the United States of

[3:19:14] America that should be able to

[3:19:19] stand up and say that above all

[3:19:20] else, we believe in respectful

[3:19:23] debate. We believe that we can

[3:19:25] duke it out on the floor, but

[3:19:28] be kind to each other in the in

[3:19:30] the hallways of the General

[3:19:32] Assembly or on the streets of

[3:19:33] America, that we would be able

[3:19:36] to set the example that

[3:19:38] regardless of political

[3:19:40] divisions, everyone in America

[3:19:42] should enjoy that same

[3:19:44] privilege and should practice

[3:19:46] practice those same principles.

[3:19:48] So, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm deeply

[3:19:51] disappointed. But my hope is

[3:19:53] that as we move forward in this

[3:19:55] body and in this country, that

[3:19:57] we can find ways to rise above

[3:19:59] these differences, that we can

[3:20:02] agree to universally condemn

[3:20:05] political violence, and that we

[3:20:06] can seek to come together on

[3:20:09] the things that we can agree on

[3:20:13] without this, this absolute

[3:20:16] stone wall, when it comes to

[3:20:18] things that we don't. At the

[3:20:20] very least, MADAM PRESIDENT, my

[3:20:22] hope is that we can hear each

[3:20:23] other out and that we can be

[3:20:25] heard out without the fear of

[3:20:27] of violent retribution. Thank

[3:20:32] you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:20:34] >> Senator Saleem, the senator

[3:20:37] from central Fairfax County.

[3:20:38] >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise on

[3:20:40] the point of personal privilege.

[3:20:41] >> The Senator MAY say on.

[3:20:43] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:20:45] As a Virginian, as a public

[3:20:48] servant and as a muslim, when I

[3:20:49] ran for office, I believe that

[3:20:51] serving your community is one

[3:20:52] of the highest form of

[3:20:54] gratitude. But lately, we have

[3:20:56] seen a troubling rise in

[3:20:57] Islamophobia across our nations.

[3:21:00] And even here in Virginia,

[3:21:02] Muslim candidates and public

[3:21:04] servants have been harassed,

[3:21:06] called, foreign, or treated as

[3:21:09] their faith, treated as though

[3:21:11] their faith makes them less

[3:21:12] American. This is wrong. This

[3:21:14] is un-American. This is

[3:21:17] dangerous. We're also seeing

[3:21:18] national leaders, including

[3:21:20] PRESIDENT Trump and his

[3:21:22] administration, use rhetoric

[3:21:24] that demonizes Muslim public

[3:21:26] figures or candidates,

[3:21:28] portraying them as a threat to

[3:21:31] this nation. This kind of fear

[3:21:33] mongering does not unite us. It

[3:21:36] divides us. It undermines the

[3:21:38] value that makes America strong.

[3:21:41] Our founders understood

[3:21:43] something profound. Freedom of

[3:21:45] religion isn't just about

[3:21:47] worship, it's about dignity.

[3:21:48] Thomas Jefferson wrote the

[3:21:50] Virginia Statute for religious

[3:21:52] freedom right here in our

[3:21:54] Commonwealth, because he knew

[3:21:55] government has no place

[3:21:57] deciding who belongs based on

[3:21:59] their faith. That principle is

[3:22:00] being tested again. But the

[3:22:02] answer cannot be silence. It

[3:22:05] has to be solidarity. When we

[3:22:07] see Islamophobia, anti-Semitism,

[3:22:09] or any act of hate, we must say

[3:22:12] clearly this is not Virginia,

[3:22:14] this is not America. My faith

[3:22:16] teaches me compassion,

[3:22:19] perseverance, and standing here

[3:22:22] as a muslim Virginian, I am a

[3:22:23] proof that our democracy still

[3:22:27] has room for hope. So I hope we

[3:22:30] can ensure that no child in

[3:22:31] Virginia grows up thinking that

[3:22:33] their faith is a barrier to

[3:22:35] leadership. And I also hope

[3:22:38] that we all support in building

[3:22:39] a commonwealth where our

[3:22:42] diversity is not our weakness,

[3:22:43] but our greatest strength.

[3:22:50] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:22:53] >> Senator Locke, the Senator

[3:22:56] from Hampton.

[3:22:58] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:22:59] I rise on a point of personal

[3:23:00] privilege.

[3:23:00] >> Senator.

[3:23:02] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:23:03] MADAM PRESIDENT, this week,

[3:23:04] each day we received a

[3:23:06] political communication from

[3:23:09] the governor. These missives

[3:23:10] chastised Democrats as though

[3:23:12] we were children and not an

[3:23:13] independent branch of

[3:23:15] government, quite capable of

[3:23:16] making decisions and policy

[3:23:18] choices independent of his

[3:23:20] office. I would like to address

[3:23:21] a couple of things he has

[3:23:23] chosen to focus on in these

[3:23:25] unwarranted missives. First,

[3:23:28] the government shutdown is not

[3:23:30] the fault of Democrats. Last

[3:23:33] time I checked, there's a

[3:23:36] trifecta in D.C. Executive,

[3:23:39] legislative, and judicial. They

[3:23:41] control everything. The problem

[3:23:43] they have is an inability to

[3:23:46] govern. They and he believe

[3:23:47] that if they say it enough and

[3:23:49] repeat it enough, everyone will

[3:23:53] believe it. Well, people losing

[3:23:55] their jobs did not start with

[3:23:57] the government shutdown. Media

[3:23:59] blackouts did not start with

[3:24:01] the government shutdown. All

[3:24:03] the cuts and slaps at health

[3:24:06] care, education, housing and

[3:24:08] disruptions to communities did

[3:24:10] not start with the government

[3:24:11] shutdown. The government

[3:24:15] shutdown has exacerbated a

[3:24:17] gaping wound caused by an

[3:24:19] administration that does not

[3:24:21] care about people. Only

[3:24:24] unchecked power grabs. Second,

[3:24:27] while I find it admirable that

[3:24:29] the governor now cares about

[3:24:32] food insecurity and has issued

[3:24:33] a state of emergency relative

[3:24:37] to Snap, why not ask those who

[3:24:40] chose to cut funds out of the

[3:24:41] program in hb one in the first

[3:24:43] place? To think about those in

[3:24:46] need? Further, the governor has

[3:24:50] issued a total of 438 vetoes

[3:24:52] over three and a half years. Of

[3:24:57] the 438 vetoes, 111 were bills

[3:25:00] that put Virginians first.

[3:25:02] Those bills addressed housing,

[3:25:04] health care, economic security,

[3:25:07] and voting rights. For someone

[3:25:09] who claims to care about the

[3:25:11] concerns of Virginians, is

[3:25:13] telling that a quarter of his

[3:25:15] vetoes have blocked the very

[3:25:18] issues he claims he wants to

[3:25:21] fix. The math just ain't math.

[3:25:23] Finally, I want to address the

[3:25:25] attacks that have been levied

[3:25:27] against us regarding political

[3:25:30] violence. I would like to know

[3:25:32] how we're defining it. There's

[3:25:34] absolutely no one on this side

[3:25:36] of the aisle who does not

[3:25:39] oppose political violence in

[3:25:42] any form that it takes. I knew

[3:25:48] Speaker Melissa Hortman. And

[3:25:52] was not only horrified by what

[3:25:55] happened to her and her husband

[3:25:58] and Senator John Hoffman, but

[3:26:01] was completely appalled by the

[3:26:03] response of PRESIDENT Trump

[3:26:06] that he was not even familiar

[3:26:09] with her murder and would have

[3:26:11] lowered the flags had Governor

[3:26:14] Wallace asked him to. Why did

[3:26:19] the governor have to ask him to?

[3:26:21] It seems that there are double

[3:26:23] standards when it comes to

[3:26:26] political violence. Utterances

[3:26:29] regarding political violence.

[3:26:31] Let us not clutch our

[3:26:34] moralistic pearls and point

[3:26:36] fingers. If we're not

[3:26:38] condemning the actions of any

[3:26:41] and all acts that occur. Spare

[3:26:44] me the selective compassion and

[3:26:45] sympathy and strategic

[3:26:49] indifference. Is it political

[3:26:51] violence to enslave people

[3:26:53] against their will, yet refuse

[3:26:56] to even support a resolution

[3:26:58] acknowledging the same? Is it

[3:27:01] political violence to lynch

[3:27:05] people for whatever unnamed sin,

[3:27:07] yet not support a resolution

[3:27:10] acknowledging the same? Again,

[3:27:12] spare me the selective

[3:27:16] compassion. I would like to end.

[3:27:19] With a story shared with me by

[3:27:21] one of my former students.

[3:27:23] She's a brilliant young woman

[3:27:24] who just recently graduated

[3:27:27] from uva Law School. After

[3:27:29] graduating from Hampton, she

[3:27:32] took a job on Capitol Hill that

[3:27:36] that evolved from her time as a

[3:27:37] fellow with the Congressional

[3:27:41] Black Caucus. That job was in

[3:27:43] the office of the House

[3:27:45] Majority Whip, Congressman Jim

[3:27:49] Clyburn. His office was

[3:27:51] directly across from Speaker

[3:27:55] Nancy Pelosi. She was at work

[3:28:02] on JANUARY 6th, 2021. On that

[3:28:04] day, when the Capitol was

[3:28:07] stormed by insurrectionists,

[3:28:11] she and other staffers had to

[3:28:14] barricade themselves inside

[3:28:18] Congressman Clyburn's office.

[3:28:21] She heard people coming up the

[3:28:23] stairs and pounding on the

[3:28:27] congressman's door. She told me

[3:28:29] that they had to push against

[3:28:32] that door to keep people from

[3:28:35] breaking into the congressman's

[3:28:46] office, calling from for Jim.

[3:28:48] They heard people going over to

[3:28:50] Speaker Pelosi's office yelling,

[3:28:51] Where is Nancy? And breaking

[3:28:53] into the speaker's office? She

[3:28:54] and the staffers managed to

[3:29:00] keep that door closed. But

[3:29:03] afterwards. She said that even

[3:29:05] though they survived that day,

[3:29:07] even though they didn't think

[3:29:09] that they would, they had to

[3:29:12] undergo months of therapy, and

[3:29:16] many of them still do.

[3:29:18] Political violence comes in all

[3:29:22] forms and affects all of us in

[3:29:26] many ways. I have relinquished

[3:29:31] my state license plates. And

[3:29:33] upgraded my home security

[3:29:36] because of it. So don't point a

[3:29:38] finger at me because three

[3:29:41] would be pointing back at you.

[3:29:46] Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:29:49] >> Senator Peake, the senator

[3:29:52] from Lynchburg. Thank you.

[3:29:54] >> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:29:56] I rise to a point of personal

[3:29:56] privilege.

[3:29:58] >> Senator has the floor.

[3:29:59] >> And I'm going to hearken

[3:30:01] back to some of the priors,

[3:30:04] points of personal privilege.

[3:30:07] It appears here we are on

[3:30:10] OCTOBER 31st, four days before

[3:30:13] a statewide election. And I

[3:30:14] swear, I believe that one of

[3:30:16] our members might be running

[3:30:17] for statewide office based on

[3:30:19] the prior point of personal

[3:30:24] privilege. And the name of

[3:30:25] Abraham Lincoln was brought

[3:30:28] into play. And the plight of

[3:30:30] our black and brown citizens

[3:30:32] was brought into play. Thank

[3:30:37] goodness, in this very body, a

[3:30:40] member of the party of Lincoln

[3:30:44] sits above us all. An immigrant

[3:30:48] from Jamaica, elected to

[3:30:51] statewide office, sits above us

[3:30:55] all. That is what we stand for

[3:31:00] in the Republican Party. Oh,

[3:31:03] that's who we nominated to be

[3:31:05] the next governor of the

[3:31:07] Commonwealth of Virginia. We do

[3:31:09] have an election coming up. And

[3:31:11] so at this time, I had not

[3:31:13] anticipated, I honestly had not

[3:31:16] planned on imposing on y'all's

[3:31:18] time the week of this last week

[3:31:21] of OCTOBER. But here we are,

[3:31:24] MADAM PRESIDENT, thank you for

[3:31:27] the past four years where you

[3:31:29] have led this chamber with

[3:31:32] grace, dignity and excellence.

[3:31:34] Thank you for your service to

[3:31:35] the Commonwealth as the

[3:31:39] PRESIDENT Of this body. And in

[3:31:43] four days, I can't wait to have

[3:31:44] you elected as the next

[3:31:46] governor of the Commonwealth of

[3:31:48] Virginia. Thank you, MADAM

[3:31:55] PRESIDENT.

[3:31:57] >> Is there any other business

[3:31:59] to come before the Senate?

[3:32:01] Hearing? None. The clerk will

[3:32:03] report any announcements on the

[3:32:03] desk.

[3:32:05] >> There are no announcements,

[3:32:06] MADAM PRESIDENT.

[3:32:10] >> The Senator from Portsmouth.

[3:32:13] Senator Lucas.

[3:32:15] >> Good afternoon, MADAM

[3:32:15] PRESIDENT.

[3:32:16] >> Good afternoon.

[3:32:19] >> MADAM PRESIDENT. I move that

[3:32:22] the Senate do now recess

[3:32:27] pursuant to Hjr 6001 until

[3:32:30] reconvened with at least 48

[3:32:33] hours notice by the call of the

[3:32:35] chair of Senate Committee on

[3:32:36] Rules.

[3:32:37] >> The question is, shall the

[3:32:39] Senate recess, pursuant to

[3:32:42] House Joint Resolution 6001,

[3:32:44] until reconvened with at least

[3:32:47] 48 hours notice, by the call of

[3:32:48] the chair of the Senate

[3:32:50] Committee on Rules. All in

[3:32:51] favor of that motion will say

[3:32:53] aye. Those opposed? No. The

[3:32:56] ayes have it. The motion is

[3:32:57] agreed to. The Senate stands in

October 31, 2025 - 2024 Special Session I - 9:00 am

Agenda

Transcript