The Senate will come to order.
The senators will please take
their seats. Those persons not
entitled to the privileges of
the floor will please retire to
the gallery. Good morning,
senators. Good morning. Guests.
Good morning, the senators. And
all in attendance. If you are
able, please rise. We will be
led in prayer this morning by
the Reverend Doctor Lisa
Johnson of Saint Paul's Baptist
Church in Richmond. Following
the prayer, if everyone will
please remain standing and we
will be led in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America by
Tara Hamilton Perkinson, Chief
Deputy Clerk in our Senate
Clerk's office.
>> Let us pray. Oh wise and
eternal GOD, how grateful we
are that you trust us to lead
your people in the state of
Virginia. We thank you, GOD,
for this session, that we will
make some decisions that will
impact lives. And so we ask for
your wisdom and your guidance,
your direction. We ask that you
would lead us, that we would be
reminded to put our personal
agendas on the back burner and
do what is necessary for the
people of Virginia. You have
taught us what we are to do. In
Micah six verse eight, you said
that we are to act with justice,
that we are to love and show
mercy, and that we must walk
humbly before you and in your
sight. We thank you for the
privilege to be your your
mouthpieces in this room. So
GOD, our words, GOD our hearts,
and remind us that we are in
this work together and we
promise we will give your name
the praise. It's in all of your
holy names. In the name of
Jesus is what I would say. Amen.
>> I pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic
for which it stands. One nation
under GOD, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Bless you.
>> One more.
>> The clerk will call the roll
all those present. Please vote
I. The clerk, will close the
roll.
>> You have a quorum, MADAM
PRESIDENT. Senate Journal for
Thursday, OCTOBER 30th, 2025.
>> The Senator from Mecklenburg,
Senator Mulkey, moves that the
reading of the journal be
waived. All in favor of waiving
the reading of the journal will
record their votes. Aye. Those
opposed? No. Are the senators
ready to vote? Have all the
senators voted? Does any
senator desire to change their
vote? The clerk will close the
roll.
>> Ayes 20. Nos 17.
>> Ayes 20. No 17. The reading
of the journal is waived. The
clerk will report any
communications from the House
of delegates.
>> We do not have any. MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> The clerk will report any
communications from the
governor.
>> We have a communications
from the governor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Surovell, the
Senator from eastern Fairfax
County.
>> Good morning.
>> I'm sitting down now.
>> Good morning sir. MADAM
Clerk, if you will please read
the communication from the
governor.
>> Dear senators and delegates,
by now you have heard this week
that I firmly believe this
special session is wrong to, on
all fronts, and the scenes,
including. Sorry, I'm. But I
want to thank the teams behind
the scenes, including MADAM
Clerk, MR. Clerk, the House and
Senate Clerk's office staff,
the Capitol Police, Legislative
Services, and all those who
serve at our state Capitol.
Thank you in your for your
service to our Commonwealth.
Respectfully, Glenn Youngkin.
>> We are in our morning hour
and we have the honor of
welcoming our guests to your
Senate. I will give my reminder
that your normal procedure is
your senator will stand and
recognize you. And if you will
wait to hold your applause
until after I officially
recognize you, then we'll
applaud you together. And so I
do. Now call on. Senator Lucas,
the Senator from Portsmouth.
>> Good morning.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. And thank
you, MADAM PRESIDENT. The
prayer was given this morning
by Doctor Johnson, who was her
former training includes more
than 30 years of teaching and
service in the Richmond Public
School system, a master of
Divinity from Virginia Union
University, and doctorate in
ministry from Ashland
Theological Seminary, Doctor
Johnson serves a life stage
pastor at Saint Paul's Baptist
Church in Richmond, as well as
chaplain of the Henrico County
Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma
Theta Sorority, incorporated.
MADAM PRESIDENT. Yes, ma'am.
MADAM PRESIDENT and members of
the Senate, I would appreciate
it if you would extend to her
the very warm welcome of the
Senate.
>> Yes, doctor Johnson, thank
you for coming again and
blessing us with your presence
and with your prayer in
reminding us there are very
important things, and one of
them is to recognize that we
are not it. Thank you very much.
Your 30 years as a teacher.
Thank you for teaching the
future, because that's who our
children are, the future, and
also for your other ministry,
because teaching is a ministry,
but then your spiritual
ministry in our community.
Thank you very much for your
sacrifices to us senators. Let
us give her the warm welcome of
her Senate. Senator Sturdivant,
the senator from Colonial
Heights.
>> Good morning, MADAM
PRESIDENT. I rise for an
introduction.
>> Good morning.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. Joining us
in the gallery today is Camilla
Simon and her husband Jack.
Single. They are residents and
voters here in the Richmond
area. I met them this morning,
spoke with them briefly. And
the reason they're here is MISS
Single voted early in this
election that began on
SEPTEMBER 19th. And she voted
in a way that she now regrets.
Following the introduction and
at least the initial passage of
this constitutional amendment
to partially undo the
redistricting commission here
in the Commonwealth. And so she
is the face of what a lot of
voters in the Commonwealth have
experienced as a result of this
process. And she's here to
watch over the debate and the
vote today, and we're happy to
have her and her husband, MR.
Single. And we ask that the we
offer them the warm welcome of
the Senate.
>> Thank you for coming and
seeing your Senate in action.
We're so glad to have you and
that you're part of the process,
the legislative, all of the
processes. And we're glad that
you have participated in it.
Senators, let us give them the
warm welcome of their Senate.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Again, the senator from
Colonial Heights.
>> I'd also ask that the
journal reflect that my
seatmates, the senior senator
from Virginia Beach and the
senator from Isle of Wight are
away from the Capitol on
pressing personal business.
>> The Journal will so reflect.
Thank you, Senator. The senator
from central Fairfax County,
Senator Saleem.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise for an introduction.
>> The Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Joining us in the gallery today
are the Virginia High School
Democrats. The Virginia High
School Democrats is a student
run advocacy and campaign
organization dedicated to
supporting Democratic
candidates and policies. With
over 700 members and chapters
across every corner of the
Commonwealth, it is its mission
is to empower the next
generation of young leaders and
advocate for the issues that
matter the most to students.
They made the trip down here
bright and early this morning
to be with us, to show support
for the passage of H.J. 6007,
and to be part of the defense
of American democracy. I ask
that you give them the warm
welcome of their Senate.
>> Well, I'm supposing that you
are the there that we are
talking about, but you
represent your high school of
Democrats. And thank you so
very much for participating and
at your age for being involved
in the process and
understanding that this is
about your future as well.
Senator, let us give him the
warm welcome of his Senate. The
senator from Franklin County,
Senator Stanley.
>> Good morning, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Good morning.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. MAY the
Senate Journal reflect that my
seatmate, the senator from
Spotsylvania, is away from the
Capitol today on pressing
personal business.
>> Thank you, Senator. The
journal will so reflect. Is
there any other business for
the morning? Our hearing? None.
The clerk will call the
calendar.
>> Senate calendar for Friday,
OCTOBER the 31st, 2025. Happy
Halloween. Regular calendar.
House joint resolution on third
reading. Hjr. 6007. Proposing
an amendment to section six of
article 11 of the Constitution
of Virginia. Proposing an
amendment to the Constitution
of Virginia by adding in the
schedule a schedule a section
numbered six, relating to to
apportionment. Congressional
districts, limited authority of
the General Assembly in.
>> To modify.
>> To modify sorry classes
reported from the Committee on
Privileges and Elections.
>> And we have.
>> And there's three floor
amendments.
>> Senator head. The Senator
from.
>> Amendment number one.
>> Your microphone. Senator.
>> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT. Is it
on now?
>> Yes. There we are. The new
system is a little a little
difficult. We have have floor
amendment number one that I'd
like to present, and we can
waive the reading of that.
We'll be fine.
>> The question is shall the
reading of the floor amendment.
The head floor amendment number
one be waived? Those in favor
of that motion will say aye.
Those opposed? No. The reading
of the floor amendment is
waived. Senator head.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT
and members of the body. This
amendment does. It makes a very,
very simple change the
consternation some of the
biggest consternation of this
action, aside from the fact
that we don't need it and that
it goes against the will of the
people, and that we have a
perfectly good system in place
as it is, simply ensures that
if this is successful, and that
if this goes forward and is
approved by the voters of the
Commonwealth, that the
redistricting would not be done
by the Partizan members of the
General Assembly, but would
also go to the redistricting
commission. Very, very simple
amendment. So.
>> And present.
>> Senator head, just a matter
of.
>> Order. I move the amendment
so.
>> All of them together are one
at a time.
>> I only have the one. So just.
>> Okay.
>> Just this one.
>> All three together. All
right. The senator from eastern
Fairfax County, Senator
Surovell.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT,
parliamentary inquiry.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> I think there might be a
little confusion. I just want
to make sure we're clear. Floor
amendment number one refers to
all three amendments, and we're
going to do them all together
as a bloc. Is that correct?
>> That is correct, Senator.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking of the amendment.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I encourage
the body to vote against this
floor amendment. Aside from the
fact that it would probably
prolong this process by another
who knows how long, it's
substantively flawed. Number
one, it's a poison pill because
the purpose of the amendment is
for a redraw to be done not by
the Commission, but by the
General Assembly. And so it
completely defeats the purpose.
Number one. Number two, I just
want to note for the record,
I've been hearing a lot of
things about this commission
that are inaccurate. I want to
make sure the record is clear.
First of all, I'm the only one
here that's pure. Or maybe
Senator Van Valkenburg. No, no,
he's not. He's not pure. He was
a big supporter, but I think
I'm the only one here that
actually voted against this. Oh,
okay. There's a few other
people that moved up from the
other chamber. A couple
senators from Henrico and a few
others, but oh, and one from
Prince William. But but in any
event, I voted against this at
the time because I thought it
was a bad idea at the time. I
voted for it the first time
when we had about two hours to
read it. When it came out on
the floor that day in a
conference report. But after I
had a year to reflect on it and
listen to people, I changed my
mind. The first of all, this
commission that we have right
now, first of all, is not
independent. It's not
independent. It's made up of
half legislators and half
people that are picked by
legislators. That's not
independent. That is a
political commission full of
politicians and people picked
by politicians. And if you look
at the people that actually
served, they're all very, very,
very political people. So the
commission itself was not
independent, number one. Number
two, I've heard some people say
in the last week that it was
Nonpartizan. It's not
nonpartizan, it is a partizan
commission. It could not be any
more Partizan. If you go look
at the people who served on it,
they were either politicians or
extraordinarily partizan people.
Third thing is that it's not
bipartisan. Well, it might be
half Democrats and half
Republicans. There's a big
voice missing because about 40%
of Virginians identify
themselves as independent. So
the idea that this commission
in some way reflects some kind
of a better way, I thought at
the time, and as proved out. It
was it was not. In fact, it was
a process that was designed to
generate gridlock, which is
exactly what happened, which is
why our Supreme Court ended up
having to draw the maps,
because nobody could agree on
anything, because it was full
of partizans. And I would
submit that even if we were to
adopt this amendment, we'd
probably see the exact same
result and the Supreme Court
would be probably be drawn maps
again. And so it's this is not
advancing this purpose at all.
It's a poison pill. I would ask
that we vote against it.
>> Senator Obenshain, the
senator from Rockingham.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, speak. I
speak to the bill.
>> Senator MAY continue.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
What we've heard is Senate
Majority Leader thumbing his
nose at two thirds of
Virginia's voters, 66% of
Virginia's voters voted for
this constitutional amendment.
And I get he's philosophically
pure. He voted against it every
step of the way, and he
continues to be against it. The
rest of us here presumably
support the constitutional
amendment, although that has
come into question by virtue of
the introduction of this
particular bill. You know, who
are we kidding? You know, we
either respect the will of the
people of the Commonwealth of
Virginia or we don't. You know,
I hear the majority leader
suggest that, you know, yes,
this is a political body and
that they couldn't possibly be
expected to work together to
generate a result. Heaven
forbid that we actually link
arms and work together on
something. You know, I tell
people all the time that dirty
little secret about the way
that we work down here is that
we have 90% of the bills, 90%
of the stuff that we work on
are just fixing problems. You
know, they're not Republican
problems. They're not
Democratic problems. They're
not Partizan problems. They're
just problems that we need to
fix. And we link arms and work
together extremely well to get
those things done across
Partizan lines. All of us have
worked with our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle on
bills, and I'm proud of that.
The other 10% of the things we
work on, I call cats and dogs
bills. You know, they're the
reasons we have Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and
conservatives. They're the
things we're supposed to
disagree on. And what the
voters of Virginia said is we
expect redistricting to be an
issue that we work across the
aisle on, that we link arms
that it not be a cats and dogs
bill, that it be something that
we expect you to work with your
colleagues to get resolved. And
while I think that the I
respect the majority leader's
opinion that it didn't work, I
take issue with that. I you
know, I think it worked exactly
like it was supposed to work.
You know, we both sides
introduced or advocated for,
you know, their own view of
redistricting and first time
out of the gate, they couldn't
come to an agreement and it
broke down, you know, during
that process, what happened?
Some of the legislative
proposals were advanced. I mean,
the, the, the commission
proposals that were advanced
were clearly designed to
protect incumbents looking at
where everybody lived and drawn
circles around their houses and
making sure that we didn't
interrupt or disrupt the
service of sitting members, you
know, and and it broke down
over that. And it the way that
it was artfully drafted by the
patrons of that constitutional
amendment, there was a way to
fix it. And it goes to the
Supreme Court. And the Supreme
Court did its job. I don't know
that any of us love the way
that the Supreme Court did it.
There were an awful lot of
people double and triple bunked
my friend and seatmate over
here and one other member of
the Senate, I was put in a
district with three sitting
members of the Senate of
Virginia. I didn't love it.
Senator from Charlottesville
probably didn't love it. The
senator from Augusta County
didn't love it. But you know
what? And I think a large
number of us were in that
situation. My friend, the
senator from Hanover was double
bunked with somebody else. The
senator from the the PRESIDENT
Pro tem was put in a district
with somebody else. And, you
know, we lived with it. And we
came out of that with a bunch
of new members. And let me tell
you, the next time
redistricting goes to
redistricting commission, I
think there's going to be an
attitude adjustment. I don't
think that the members of the
redistricting commission are
going to be very excited about
having that go to the Supreme
Court again, and I suspect that
the intention of the drafters
of this artfully drafted
constitutional amendment would
probably agree that that it's
going to cause the members of
that commission to do exactly
what the citizens of the
Commonwealth of Virginia expect
them to do. And that is work
across the Partizan aisle to
come up with districts that
make sense. Not for the
incumbents, not for the people
who are staking a claim to an
elected office. It is not my
office. It is not your office.
It is not the office of any
member of Congress. They are
the people's offices, and they
expect it to be treated that
way. So I do not. I can't
fathom why there would be any
objection to enforcing to
adopting the will of the people
of Virginia. 66% of the people
of the will, of the will, of
the of 66% of the people of
Virginia who voted for this
constitutional amendment to
give this decision, important
decision to the redistricting
commission, as opposed to hyper
politicizing it, going back to
what we had before, you know,
there were a lot of good people
who were involved in that
process before creating this
redistricting commission. You
know, a group called One
Virginia 2021 spent enormous
energy. I don't know where they
are. I hope they're in the
gallery today watching. I hope
they're if they're not here
watching, I hope they are
online watching because this
this amendment, you know, if
we're going to go down this
road, if we're going to go down
this road and change the will
of 66% of the people of
Virginia, the least we can do.
And what we owe to them is to
at least give it to the
redistricting commission. So I
would hope that we'd show our
commitment to the the process
that we created, along with the
people of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and give this to the
redistricting commission.
>> Senator Favola, the senator
from Arlington.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Good morning.
>> Good morning.
>> I am speaking to the
amendment before us.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you. Ladies and
gentlemen, I would encourage
you to vote no for the three
amendments before us. And for
two simple reasons. We do have
the experience of the 2023
redistricting commission.
Actually, it was 2022, perhaps
by the time they did their
actual work and they and they
couldn't do their work, they
could not come to agreement. So
we have the example that the
redistricting commission did
not operate the way many of us
had expected and did not
produce the results that voters
had expected. One, two, I think
it is incredibly important that
we are not overruling the will
of the people for this, for the
resolution before us, absent
these amendments to take effect,
there's an entire process ahead
of us. The General Assembly
would have to adopt this
constitutional amendment
language in 2026, and then the
constitutional amendment
language would go before the
voters, so the voters can
decide if the General Assembly
can have the limited authority
to redraw congressional
districts one time mid-cycle.
So this in no way takes away
any decision making authority
from the public. We're giving
them an option, and it is an
option. I can tell you that
many of my constituents have
asked for. They're wondering
why the PRESIDENT Of the United
States is asking so many states
to redraw their districts to
minimize the vote or voice of
many communities, because he
and his allies on Capitol Hill
are intent on actually
memorializing policies that are
hurtful. Our voters are asking
to have that voice, and they're
asking that we protect
democracy, that we not allow
gerrymandering to happen
throughout the country. And we
sit back. So at the end of the
day, they're going to have the
decision. Nobody else. And I
think that's what we have to
remember. Again, I ask this
body to defeat these three
amendments. Thank you, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Stanley, the senator
from Franklin County.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise to speak to the
amendment.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, members of
the body, this amendment is
sound. It preserves the
Commission and allows the
Commission to do the work that
only a short time ago we said
it should do, and we thought it
so important. We enshrined in
our Constitution. We made it
permanent or supposedly
permanent, because we believe
that that will build a stronger
foundation for this democratic
system here, this form of
government created by our
founding fathers for those that
came after us. Because I dare
say that those who have sat in
this chamber longer than ten
years have been subjected, as
we heard, to gerrymandering
redistricting. Lord knows I was
here one year in a special
election. Redistricting was the
very next year. And lo and
behold, when the maps came out
onto the floor and they were
secretive and they were all in
backrooms, I couldn't even find
my county, let alone where I
lived. And that was a battle.
Let's not forget the Bethune
Hill case or the house maps
were determined to be racially
gerrymandered. That's
embarrassment to the
Commonwealth of Virginia. But
that's the way that was being
played until all of us came
together and said, whoa, let's
do something different. And I'm
reminded, you know, not just as
a lawyer, but during a time I
built houses. And I'm reminded
how firm the foundation must be
to rest tons and tons of
material that becomes a home on
top of it. If you pull a truss
out, remove a block from the
foundation. Not only does it
become unstable, it weakens the
whole system, makes it almost
unlivable, unsafe. And this is
what we're trying to do now
with hb 6007. Are we say to
ourselves, the commission was
just not good enough. And let's
understand why, why, why do we
suddenly need to do this mid
during the mid ten year decades
that we have, we have in our
Constitution that says only
every ten years, but this
changes even that. And that was
in the Constitution long before
the redistricting commission.
My good friend from Eastern
Fairfax, who I've known for
many, many, many years, way
past the time in which both of
us were elected to office, grew
up together in the Fairfax
County Courthouse, says, oh, it
didn't work. I want to correct
the record because the
commission did not work well. I
sat on the commission. It was
frustrating. As the senator
from Hanover says, it was time
consuming. It was emotional.
But the senator from Hanover is
exactly right on what went on.
But in the end, it demonstrated
that it did work. And I must
concur with Senator Obenshain,
who says, listen, I think
they're going to do it a lot
better this time because I know
I will. If I ever were to sit
on that commission again, we
should leave it to the
commission that we trusted
merely five years ago. But I
want to be direct with you,
because I think it's time we
call hb 6007 what it is and why
we need this amendment. We are
witnessing a deliberate
abandonment of principle at the
moment that it's become
inconvenient. The system is
working as intended, and it's
working against Democrats
politically right now in their
own mind. Fair maps don't give
Democrats the Locke they want.
Fair maps don't give
Republicans the the Locke. They
want fair maps, give Virginians
what they deserve, which is
representation reflecting their
actual political diversity.
Virginia has among the closest
elections in the nation because
Virginia has a fair
redistricting process, and it
appears right now that my
friends on the other side of
the aisle can't stand it.
Here's the proof. Democrats are
proposing unamended H.J. 6007
to authorize mid-decade
congressional redistricting
authority. That's an admission.
We're hearing it from the other
side. Now that the commission
is working, and that admission
is by them saying it's not
working because it's not
working to their favor. If the
commission were truly broken,
Democrats would be demanding
reform to fixed it. Instead,
they're proposing what amounts
to an escape hatch through this
H.J. 6007. I want to be blunt.
My friends on the other side
want power to draw maps through
this H.J. 6007 that entrench
Democrat power in the
Commonwealth of Virginia in the
halls of Congress, the call for
mid-decade authority is coded
language for we want more
control. Every concern about
implementation means give us
the discretion, every
suggestion about needing
flexibility means we want the
ability to gerrymander six five
in the Congress right now,
which accurately and adequately
reflects the mood, the
political moods in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, of
the voter. But here's the real
deal. Democrat leadership
supported the Commission when
they thought they'd lose and
needed protection. And did they
come before this chamber when
they secured power after the
elections occurred and say
honestly, hey, man, we've
changed our minds. We want to
abandon the commission? No, no,
they didn't. Instead, they're
trying to now authorize what
they can't openly defend
mid-decade redistricting,
overturning what the voters so
overwhelmingly approved. Having
said on the commission, allow
me, especially for those that
weren't sitting in this body,
in this chamber when it
occurred, let me remind you
what we created together.
Together, a 16 member hybrid
commission. Half the
legislators have citizens
voting requirements, demanded a
consensus. Six of eight
legislators, six of eight
citizens had to approve the
maps criteria that protected
racial and ethnic minorities,
preserved communities of
interest and maintain
transparency with public
hearings and public data
releases. Public engagement,
public involvement something
that we never, ever had in
redistricting decisions before.
And then we instituted a
Supreme Court fallback, which
we then had to use. And this
model is being used by other
states, and it's working. It's
not experimental, not untested.
It's proven, proven to succeed
when we allow it. The evidence
is overwhelming. Electoral
competitiveness is among the
highest in the nation, and
certainly here as well. If the
system were broken, as my
friend from Eastern Fairfax
claims, we would see evidence
of it. We don't. We see the
opposite. A system that we
created to take power out of
the hands of politicians and
give it to the people. A system
that actually works. So now on
this amendment and ultimately
the vote on H.J. 6007, the
question before this body is
simple one are we abandoning
our commitment because the
majority party finds the
outcome now inconvenient? Are
we telling Virginia voters that
66% of you who supported and
voted for the commission, that
their representatives have
changed their minds now because
it's convenient for them to do
so? Are we saying to those
voters that their wishes no
longer matter now that the
power has shifted? Because
that's what 6007 enables? And I
believe members of the Senate,
that the choice before this
body is clear. MADAM PRESIDENT,
will we honor the commitment we
made to Virginia voters, all of
us Republicans and Democrats?
Will we prove that bipartisan
principle can survive political
challenge? Will we reject H.J.
6007 or this amendment? Will we
maintain the protections that
the voters created for our
system of government, or will
we tell the voters today that
we lied? That reform was only
something we wanted when we
weren't in power? Does
principle change the moment?
Circumstances shift politically?
Will we once again replace
voter power with legislative
power? I know which choice I'm
making. I'm supporting this
amendment because it returns
the authority back to the
commission. I'm asking my
Democratic colleagues to vote
for this amendment, because
it's the only way to fix this
resolution that's broken, not a
commission that's broken. I'll
close by reminding you this. I
have a list here that's made up
of all the voters in the
Democrat districts. The
districts to my right are held
by Democrats. Overwhelmingly,
they voted for in Chesterfield
in the 15th district, 71% voted
for Richmond City, 69% voted
for it in Chesapeake, 63% voted
for it. It goes on and on and
on. High 60s and 70s. Only one
district, one part of a
district, didn't go for it.
Overwhelming numbers. And I'm
also reminded, and they're
going to bring it up today and
they're going to bring it up
again as they did. We're doing
this because of Texas and North
Carolina. Well, California's
doing it too, as my friend from
Hanover said to his child, just
because it's being done by
others doesn't make it the
right thing to do. But I will
say this. Our friends to the
immediate north, we touch a
border with the state of
Maryland. Their Senate, their
Senate PRESIDENT, almost
entirely Democrat, said, we're
not doing this. We're not
getting involved. And, you know,
I must answer the question when
they say, well, you know,
they're picking up 3 or 4 seats
here or five seats, this is
what Trump is doing. But do my
friends on the other side of
the aisle forget that? In 2018,
two years after Donald Trump
was elected, the first time
there was a 41 seat Democrat
pickup in Congress without
shifting lines, without doing
anything else, and if they were
that confident 3 or 4 seats
here and there isn't going to
make any difference. Ladies and
gentlemen, I ask that you agree
to this floor amendment. It's
the right thing to do. It's the
right thing to do for Virginia.
And I thank you for listening.
Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> The Senator from
Charlottesville, Senator Deeds.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I move the
pending question.
>> Yes.
>> The question is, shall the
pending question be. Ordered?
Those in favor of that motion
will record their votes. Aye.
Those opposed? No other
senators ready to vote. Have
all senators voted? Does any
senator desire to change their
vote? The clerk will close the
roll.
>> Ayes 21. No 16.
>> Ayes 21. No 16. The pending
question has been ordered. The
question is. Shall the head
amendment number one in a block
be adopted? Those in favor of
that motion will say aye. Those
opposed? No.
>> No.
>> This will be a recorded vote.
The question is, shall the head
amendment number one in a block
be adopted? Those in favor of
that motion will record their
votes. Aye. Those opposed? No.
Are the senators ready to vote?
Have all the senators voted?
Does any Senator desire to
change their vote? The clerk
will close the roll.
>> 16 noes, 21.
>> Ayes, 16, noes 21. The
amendment number one fails the.
The junior Senator from
Virginia Beach, Senator Rouse.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I move that the amendments be
agreed to.
>> And speaking to that motion.
>> Sir.
>> The Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
First, before I begin, I want
to I know this is a very.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I don't
mean to interrupt the senator,
but parliamentary inquiry. We
do not have another set of
amendments.
>> The Senator is correct. I
it's I do believe the junior
senator from Virginia Beach
meant House joint resolution, a
resolution, not an amendment.
6007 with the senator. Like to
restate.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Let me correct the record. My
motion. MADAM PRESIDENT, I move
that the House Joint Resolution
6007 be agreed to speaking to.
>> That motion. The senator
still has the floor. Thank you.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Before I begin, I know we're
going to there's already been
spirited debate around this
issue and this subject. But as
CHAIRMAN Of Privileges and
Elections, I do want to thank
members of the committee on
both sides of the aisle for
their decorum, especially
during the time where we have
seen unprecedented assaults on
voting rights, not only within
our country, but within our
states. We have seen the purge
of voting rolls. We have seen
the tried to restrict access to
the ballot box. We've seen even
bills put forth to limit early
voting. But yet we remain
vigilant to protect voters in
Virginia. And that is why we're
here today, to provide
Virginians the option, the
option of whether or not they
want to redraw congressional
districts. Now, my good friend
and colleague from Franklin
County stated that we do not
see evidence, evidence of the
system affecting Virginia's,
but we do see evidence that the
system is being rigged by a
wannabe dictator out of
Washington during this
Republican shutdown. We've seen
we've seen this dictator be
enabled by a coequal but yet
separate branch of government,
a government that refuses to
stand up to him. Now,
Virginians MAY have something
to say about that. In a few
years. You see, they MAY not.
They MAY see what's going on
now, but they will remember the
federal layoffs. They will
remember their empty stomachs
as Snap benefits run out and
tomorrow's the first. They will
remember their empty pockets,
but they also remember their
mailboxes full of bills,
medical bills, mortgage
payments, rent payments. They
will remember all of those
things, and perhaps they MAY
want to say something about
that. And so this resolution
gives them an option, gives
Virginia's voters an option by
way of referendum. What it does
not do, it does not eliminate
or dissolve the Virginia
Redistricting Redistricting
Commission. It is not a mandate.
But what it does do is that it
gives them a say so and how
their country is being ran and
how their representatives,
representatives are
representing them. MADAM
PRESIDENT, I move that the
constitutional amendment, I
move that the House resolution
H.J. 6007 be agreed to. Thank
you.
>> Senator Van Valkenburg, the
Senator from Western Enrico.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, speaking to
the resolution.
>> The Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, members of the
body, I ask for your indulgence
today with a little bit of time
here, but I'm not going to
apologize for trespassing on it
because you all have been
trespassing on my time all week.
I've had to be here all five
days in the school week, and so
you are going to get my George
Washington and Louis Brandeis
quotes. My students aren't. And
that is a promise. Senator
Suetterlein not a threat. So as
many of you know, I care very
passionately about
redistricting reform. In 2020,
I carried the constitutional
amendment to make it a reality.
And for many people, I became
the face of that of that
amendment because of my public
defense of it, particularly
when on the lesser side of the
Capitol, we had a very spirited
interparty debate. I've got a
lot of scars from those couple
of weeks. You know, Don Beyer
once said that in his eight
years as lieutenant governor,
the ugliest debates that he saw
were the ones that were over
Partizan redistricting. And I
can assure you that he was he
was right. But five years later,
my faith in that amendment is
stronger than ever, because I
disagree with my colleague from
eastern Fairfax County. The
amendment worked. It worked.
And you don't have to take my
word for it. You can read about
it in 538 or from uva or the
Brennan Center or the Princeton
Gerrymandering Project, who all
agree with what I think that it
worked. Princeton said that
Virginia now has, quote, some
of the fairest district maps in
the country, unquote. And I
think the amendment delivered
three things that we had hoped
for fair maps, better and more
diverse representation, and
stronger and more effective
government. I believe all three
of those things are true. You
know, many of my colleagues and
many people in the public like
to point to the messiness of
the process for why it failed
the Gridlock Commission, the
fact that the Supreme Court
ultimately had to intervene.
But the truth is that was the
process the amendment created.
And those who read it carefully
realized that that amendment,
along with the enabling
legislation, was going to lead
to those final, fairer maps.
Now, I don't think our
amendment is perfect.
Personally, I would prefer an
independent commission without
legislators and I a language
towards that before the next
census. But after the qualified
success of the last process,
and with the more balanced maps
that came out of the 2022
process, I also believe, like
some of my colleagues on the
other side, that the commission
will be smoother in 2031
because if it's not, we know
that the courts will make it
smooth for us and that will be
better than legislators drawing
their own lines. So the
question then becomes, well,
why are we here today? And up
to this point, I haven't really
elaborated on, I think some of
the key points that this entire
conversation has missed over
the last week. But to start,
you know, many people ask why I
support this current revision
to the redistricting amendment.
And the first thing I would say
is I support it because it does
not undo or come even close to
undoing the hard won
redistricting reforms we fought
to achieve. Many, many of you
might have seen that the former
governor, Doug Wilder Wilder,
suggested that we should scrap
the whole thing, saying, quote,
strip it out of the
Constitution entirely. I would
not support that. I will also
not vote to change the enabling
legislation for the Commission,
because that enabling
legislation made that work
possible and led to a
successful Supreme Court
process and to those fair maps.
But this amendment doesn't
repeal that either. If I
thought any of those crucial
reforms we fought for were in
danger, that we were moving
backward to a pre amendment
system permanently, I would be
a no vote. But that's not what
this is, and that's not what
we're doing today. We are
taking a truly proportional
response to an extreme
situation. The current outbreak
of opportunistic mid-decade
redistricting means that we are
in a truly unprecedented
constitutional norm. Breaking
time since Baker v Carr
established one person, one
vote more than 70 years ago,
we've only had two states
mid-decade redraw lines, two
for purely political reasons,
and we've never had a PRESIDENT
Threaten and strongarm state
governors and legislators for
changes to their states maps
for Partizan games. Never.
That's a fact. Never. Yet that
is exactly what we are seeing
now because of PRESIDENT
Trump's jawboning three states
in the last two months, more
states than in the previous 62
years have redrawn their maps
for political reasons, and more
states are following in their
footsteps. And why? The reason
is because, quote, he's
entitled to those seats,
unquote, entitled the PRESIDENT
Is entitled to those seats. But
what's really going on here is
fear. It's fear of facing
voters. The PRESIDENT Knows
that if 2026 is a fair fight,
Republicans will lose seats and
he will face a legislative
branch willing to stand up to
him and check his power. Those
are facts. That is why we're
here, because the PRESIDENT Is
trying to avoid accountability
and avoid the voters. And so
Virginia Democrats are
responding proportionately.
We're not trying to end the
practice of fair maps. We are
asking the voters if in this
one limited case, they want to
assure that a constitutional
norm busting PRESIDENT Can't
rig the entire national
election by twisting the arms
of a few state legislatures
which haven't reformed their
process like we have. And as
the senator from Loudoun said
in committee the other day, I
think what my friends on the
other side of the aisle are
really afraid of is, is that
the voters are going to agree
with us for all this talk about
the will of the voters. I feel
pretty confident that if this
thing does go to them, they're
going to pass it and the voters
will have their say, and Donald
Trump will have to face the
music in 2026. You know, many
of my friends on the other side
of the aisle like to say that
we Democrats have what they
call Trump Derangement syndrome,
you know, and if I'm honest and
if I'm honest, sometimes we do.
Okay, sometimes we do. I got a
little bit of TDs going on, and
we mistake policy differences
for existential crises. And by
the way, we often do it at our
detriment because voters can
see when it's real and when
they can, and they can see when
it's not real. But if sometimes
Democrats catch the TDs bug,
the people on the other side of
the aisle have become far too
reliant on the diagnosis. And
this is a moment where
Republicans are too eager to
rush to that false diagnosis.
Rather than discuss the
legitimate concerns and grapple
with the reality of what is
happening. And that is why we
need to take a look at the
bigger picture, at why this
measure is just as necessary as
the initial amendment itself
was. But let's be honest, no
one in this body and no, no
Democrats nationally should be
patting themselves on their
back and congratulating one
another for saving democracy
when they respond to Trump's
unprecedented redistricting
actions. This resolution does
not save democracy. This
resolution is a break glass
maneuver for a truly
unprecedented moment. It is
necessary, unfortunately, that
we have to do it. But it is our
best attempt to bust out the
first aid kit for a democratic
system. But that's all it is.
It's a patch. It's not a cure
because with this movement,
we're still circling the drain
with Donald Trump and the maga
movement. We're still living on
his terms of engagement. And
the reality is that both
parties need to rid themselves
of their addiction to him. If
we want America to have another
250 years of constitutional
democracy, you know, in
Federalist One, Alexander
Hamilton argued that it was up
to us to prove to the world
that a people could form a
government based on reason and
choice, and not on accident and
force. He also warned us in
that essay that the biggest
danger to our experiment would
be populist leaders. He wrote
that of, quote, those men who
have overturned the liberties
of republics, the greatest
number have begun their career,
their career by paying an
obsequious court to the people,
commencing demagogues and
tyrants, but merely avoiding
the worst of that danger will
not rebuild our democracy.
Democrats can't just rest on
that. In FEBRUARY of 18, 1861,
Abraham Lincoln said, quote, I
have never had a feeling
politically that did not spring
from the sentiments embodied in
the Declaration of Independence.
And roughly 100 years later,
Martin Luther King would call
this America's promissory note,
because I would argue America
hadn't lived up to it yet for
all of its citizens. And for
too long. Over the last 50
years, the average American has
felt disconnected from that
creed, feeling that politicians,
including Democrats, don't help
make it true for the average
person. It is partly from that
frustration that we have ended
up where we are now. Beginning
to fix that problem means
taking hard votes that cut
against the status quo and
revitalizes our democracy. At
the federal level, this means
banning gerrymandering at the
federal and state level. It
means getting big money,
including corporate money, out
of politics. It means
implementing reforms like
ranked choice or fusion voting
so more Americans can feel
heard and represented. It means
reforming our primaries, ending
the filibuster, and making
Congress actually work so that
it represents the people it's
supposed to represent. And we
don't have to make it up. We
can look to our history to see
where politicians have met the
moment, from reconstruction to
the Progressive era to the
civil rights movement, we have
seen movements reform our
democracy for the better. So
people feel engaged and we need
to meet that moment right now.
Because until most people feel
like we are truly listening to
them, not just our strongest
supporters, donors, corporate
lobbyists or other elites, we
will never move beyond this
cynical spiral of apathy. So
the larger moment that this
break glass in case of
emergency amendment emerges
from requires more than this
act of defense. If we really
want to save democracy, it
requires a broader commitment
to reform, but it also requires
something less abstract and
something more tangible,
requires reforms that not only
let people's voice be felt in
politics, but give them
realistic paths to more
prosperous personal and
economic futures. In his 1915
speech True Americanism, Louis
Brandeis said, quote, If the
American is to be fitted for
his task as ruler, he must have,
besides education and
industrial liberty, also some
degree of financial
independence. In other words,
you can't eat a vote. We must
meet the cost of living moment
this upcoming session and in
future sessions. That means
tackling housing and energy,
which are two of the biggest
drivers of a family's budget
crunch. It means continuing to
ensure that people can earn a
decent wage at a job that
provides dignity and means
strengthening and investing in
an education system that truly
lifts people up and provides
genuine economic mobility. Many
of these pieces of legislation
will be controversial. They'll
require tough votes. But if we
we must be willing to take
those votes and stand firm
against opposition, because in
a moment where people are
struggling and where middle
class life feels more tenuous
than ever, we can't ask people
to defend democracy if
democracy is not defending them.
Democrats must transcend
PRESIDENT Trump and represent a
clear alternative path. But my
Republican colleagues have a
role to play here, too. They
got to unwind themselves from
this destructive cyclone. Their
party is in the midst of what
George Washington spoke about
in his farewell address, that
partizanship would be the way
to power for, quote, cunning,
ambitious and unprincipled men.
Partizanship is nothing new.
And the Republicans are right.
The Democratic officials have
had their share of Partizan
lowlights as well, and
expansion of executive power as
well. But the dynamic dragging
their party down right now is
different in kind, not in
degree. From 1801 to 2020, with
one big exception. We had over
200 straight years of peaceful
transfer of power. And then
2020 we did not. We've long had
gerrymandering, but until now
we've never had a PRESIDENT
Demand it from a bully pulpit.
We've had presidents use
emergency powers, but we've
never had a PRESIDENT Declare
emergencies as a fig leaf for
the policy demands like we do
now, from tariffs to deploying
soldiers in our American cities.
And we have never had a
PRESIDENT So consistently
equate political opposition
with evil intention, or
denigrate ordinary citizens
simply because they didn't vote
for him or dared to protest his
actions. It is shocking to me
that we have a PRESIDENT That
will gleefully post a video of
himself dumping excrement on
American citizens that is far
beyond Hillary Clinton's
deplorables, or Mitt Romney's
47% comments. This shift from
ordinary partizanship to half
cloaked authoritarianism has
even filtered down here. We had
four members in the General
Assembly at the insurrection on
JANUARY 6th. We had members of
the House of delegates calling
Mike pence to decertify
Virginia's election results, an
election he won by 9%. And
we've seen a governor's
administration illegally purge
voters and deliberately
withdraw us from a pact to
improve election security
purely because of maga
conspiracy theories. So if
Democrats sometimes suffer from
Trump derangement Syndrome
syndrome, Republicans are
whistling past the grave in
many respects. So part of me
for being so long, MADAM
PRESIDENT. But I don't think we
can have a proper discussion
about this resolution without
acknowledging the broader
context, which is the fight
over what it means to be
America. What does our
Constitution mean? We're having
real fights. Many of them are
going to take decades to solve.
But when we think about what is
happening today here, we should
recognize both its importance
and its limits. Its importance
lies in preventing a norm
busting PRESIDENT From gaming
the system and ensuring that
there are consequences for his
unpopular actions. But let us
not fool ourselves. This is not
the actual real work. I want to
close with a quote from former
PRESIDENT Bill Clinton. It's
actually one of my favorite
quotes. He once said, all that
is wrong with America can be
fixed by what is right with
America. I fear that many on my
side have forgotten how to use
the tools of what's right from
America, but that PRESIDENT
Trump and his enablers have
forgotten what's right with
America at all. Thank you,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Sturdivant, the
senator from Colonial Heights.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I would ask if the senator from
Virginia Beach would rise and
yield for a question.
>> Will the junior senator from
Virginia Beach, Senator Rouse,
rise and yield for a question?
I yield the Senator yields. The
senator from Colonial Heights
has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
the senator from Virginia Beach
if he would agree with me that
this proposed constitutional
amendment was first made
available to the public earlier
this week. On Tuesday, OCTOBER
28th.
>> Senator Rouse has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I will
yield that question to Senate
Majority Leader on the basis
that the bill was assigned to
Privileges and Elections
Committee on Wednesday when we
received it from the House.
Thank you.
>> Well, the senator from
eastern Fairfax, answer the
question, sir.
>> What's the question.
>> Senator from Colonial
Heights?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
if the majority leader would
would agree with me that this
proposed constitutional
amendment was first made
available to the public earlier
this week on Tuesday, OCTOBER
28th.
>> Senator from eastern Fairfax
has the floor.
>> I don't think that's an
unfair characterization.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the
majority leader yield for an
additional question?
>> Will the Senator yield again?
>> Sure.
>> Senator yields the senator
from Colonial Heights.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
the senator from Eastern
Fairfax if he would agree with
me that early voting in this
election began on SEPTEMBER
19th.
>> Senator Surovell has the
floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would
agree with the Senator that
voting was made available to
voters who chose to exercise
their right to vote early if
they wanted to. And they
obviously, by making that
choice, chose not to find out
what might happen to be
released to the newspapers.
Over the 45 days leading up to
the election. But that's their
choice, and some people availed
themselves of it.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the
majority leader yield for one
final question?
>> Final question, Senator
Surovell.
>> Sure.
>> Senator yields Senator from
Colonial Heights.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
the Senator if he agrees with
me that a million or more
Virginians had already voted by
the time that this
constitutional amendment was
made available to the public on
OCTOBER 28th.
>> Senator from eastern Fairfax
County.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I believe
that, yeah, there's probably
about a million people that
voted before that. They also
voted before some news was
released by some Partizan
Republicans about one of the
candidates for statewide office.
They were also released before
the they also voted before the
government shutdown happened.
They voted before the east wing
of the white House got torn
down. There's some people that
voted. Some people voted before
they found out whether or not
the us Senate or the United
States government was going to
fund the tax credit, the tax
credits, to keep our health
insurance premiums low. In
Virginia. There's a lot of
different things that they
chose not to be made aware of.
Some people probably already
made up their mind and felt
like they didn't need more
information to vote, so they
voted.
>> I thank the senator. MADAM
PRESIDENT, speaking to the
resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, thank you.
This proposed amendment, it's
not just bad policy. It's a
violation of the process. It's
a violation of principle. It's
a violation of the public's
trust. And let's start with the
most basic fact that we all
agree on. Early voting began in
this election on SEPTEMBER 19th.
Over a million Virginians had
already cast their ballots. And
yet this amendment wasn't even
made public until OCTOBER 28th.
And so those voters, those
Virginia voters, more than a
million of them, had no
opportunity to know where their
Delegate candidates stood on
this constitutional change
before they had the opportunity
to vote. And we met one of
those voters today. These are
real people. That completely
undermines the intervening
election, safeguard that our
Constitution requires. MADAM
PRESIDENT, but this amendment
doesn't just trample the
process that we have created
and put in our Constitution. It
betrays the people's will.
Because in 2020, as has been
said today and throughout this
week, Virginians voted by a 2
to 1 margin to end
gerrymandering in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and to
create a redistricting
commission. They said very
clearly, those 2.3 million
Virginians that politicians
should not be drawing the maps,
they called very clearly for an
end to gerrymandering. And yet
this amendment that we are
considering today would strip
that commission of its
authority and give that power
back to the very politicians
that the voters removed from
the process. And what's worse,
it's being done in the middle
of an election. That's not
reform, that's reversal. It's
not transparency. It's a power
grab. It's been rushed, it's
been secretive, and it's
purposefully timed to avoid
accountability in this election.
Now, if we care about the
integrity of our elections,
about the rule of law, and
about the message that we send
to the people of Virginia, then
this body must reject this
amendment. We cannot rewrite
the Constitution in the shadows
while voters are still voting.
We cannot undo mid election
what the people overwhelmingly
decided at the ballot box just
five years ago. MADAM PRESIDENT,
this process is wrong. The
timing is wrong and this
amendment is wrong. And I would
urge the Senate to reject it.
Thank you.
>> The senior senator from
Prince William, Senator McPike.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Parliamentary inquiry.
>> The Senator MAY state it.
>> Has the PRESIDENT Determined
the vote necessary to pass
House Joint Resolution 607?
Would that be 21 votes?
>> Which PRESIDENT Are you
speaking of, sir?
>> MADAM? MADAM PRESIDENT, my.
>> No. It is a simple majority,
Senator.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Majority elected, but same
same.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Saleem, the senator
from central Fairfax.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise to speak on the
resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I'm in support of this
redistricting amendment because
what's happening around this
country should worry every
single one of us, no matter
what party we're in. In 2020,
before my time in the chamber,
Virginians made history. They
voted to take politics out of
map drawing. They said enough
games, enough back door deals.
Let's make redistricting fair
and transparent. And somehow,
after decades of back and forth,
we got something on the books.
Fast forward 2025. Across
America, we're seeing something
new and dangerous, something
that has never been seen before.
PRESIDENT Donald Trump and Vice
PRESIDENT Jd Vance have been
calling on Republican
controlled states to draw their
congressional maps right now,
not because of new population
data, not to fix mistakes, but
to lock in power before the
next election. And one by one,
those states have bent the knee.
Texas redrew its map to wipe
out competitive seats. Missouri
held a special session just to
do the same. North Carolina
pushed through a map to add
another Republican seat, with
Trump cheering all this on.
That's not that's not
representative democracy.
That's raw political muscle.
And here's the truth. If
Virginians are asking us, we
have to stand up. And we have
to stand up to those who are
changing the rules mid-game and
vote. And our voters will lose
power. If we don't, our voices
in Congress will get weaker,
not because our people changed,
but because somebody else
decided to cheat the system.
This amendment does not replace
the redistricting commission
Virginians voted for. It does
not hand control back to
politicians. What it does is
give us the ability to respond.
If other states redraw their
maps for Partizan gain, it
limits it's temporary and it's
accountable, and it still gives
the final word to the voters
through a referendum. That's
not a paragraph that's
protecting fairness. Now, I
know some of you will say we
have to stay above the fray. I
get that, but democracy isn't
self-cleaning. It doesn't
defend itself. If we sit by
while other rigs the system,
democracy won't quietly die
quietly in the darkness. It
will die right in front of us
in broad daylight, while we
pretend not to see it. We can't
let that happen. Not here, not
in Virginia. We will not bend
the knee to any national figure
who thinks states should. Who
thinks states should be tools
in their Partizan game, or how
they created their own crown.
We will not watch our voters
lose representation because
others have decided to rewrite
the rules. Colleagues, this
amendment is about standing up
for Virginia, for fairness, for
democracy itself. We didn't
start this fight, but we have
an obligation to finish it with
integrity, transparency, and
the courage to defend what's
right. Because when history at
this moment is written, let it
say Virginia saw what was
happening and chose to fight
back. Thank you, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, will the
gentleman from Central Fairfax
rise for the purposes of the
question?
>> Well, the senator from
central Fairfax County rise and
yield.
>> I rise and yield.
>> The Senator has risen.
Senator. Senator Stanley.
>> Has the floor.
>> I believe it's the third day.
It's really the fourth day or
fifth day. MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask my
friend, the senator from
Central Fairfax, in accordance
with this. You know, he's
talking about this. This is
only a triggering mechanism if
if there's redistricting in
another state, then we, the
body of the Senate and the
House can go and redistrict to
countermand that. Would the
Senator agree with me that that
triggering would even include
perhaps a boundary adjustment
adjustment in the state of Iowa
or changing a couple seats here
and there? That one slight
change to redistricting map in
any state in the in the United
States of America could
actually trigger us to have the
ability. Then if this passes to
go and change our maps.
>> Senator Saleem has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I will
yield to our privilege and
elections chair, Senator Ralph.
>> Well, the senator from the
junior senator from Virginia
Beach. Yield.
>> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise
to answer the question.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
No, this resolution is very,
very narrowly written. And so
what it does is allows us in a
very small time frame to redraw
districts. If another state
redraw districts that are
unconstitutional, if somehow
another state draws the
district and they make a line
change, we still have to be
under the guise of the federal
federal Voting Rights Act of 65,
as well as Voting Rights Act of
Virginia that takes into
account race and population.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, will the
gentleman yield for another
question?
>> The junior senator from
Virginia Beach.
>> Thank you.
>> Yields Senator Stanley has
the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. If I
understand the gentleman
correctly, then when we
determine something to be
unconstitutional or we think
it's wrong in the redistricting,
then we will have the power
based on this enactment of this
change to our constitution, to
make that subjective
determination to whether we go
back and redraw the
congressional lines or not. Is
that true?
>> Junior senator from Virginia
Beach has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, with the
senator from Franklin County.
Please clarify his question.
>> Senator Stanley.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I thought
I'd stated it clearly, but as a
lawyer, I can certainly ask
some convoluted questions over
the course of time. What I'm
saying is, is I thought I heard
the senator say, oh, this only
happens. We'll only the body,
the House and the Senate can
only redraw the maps if another
state redraws their maps that
are unconstitutional and done
for a specific purpose. Who
makes those determinations
under your interpretation of
what this resolution stands for?
>> Senator Rouse.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
If you read House Joint
Resolution, I point to Senator
to lines starting on line 30.
Three, line 37, where it states
and it pertains to the senator
from Franklin's question. And I
will I'll read it for the
record, but it states in line
30 that in the italic letters
there that except that the
General Assembly shall be
authorized to modify one or
more congressional districts at
any point following the
adoption of a decennial
reappointment law, but prior to
the decennial census, in the
event that any state of the
United States of America
conducts a redistricting of
such states congressional
districts at any point
following that state's adoption
of a decennial reapportionment
law for any other purpose other
than the completion of the
decennial redistricting in
response to a federal census
and reapportionment mandated by
the Constitution of the United
States and established in
federal law as ordered by any
state the federal court to
remedy. And here's the most
important part an unlawful or
unconstitutional district map.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, final
question to the gentleman.
>> Well, the senator, junior
senator from Virginia Beach,
yield again.
>> Are you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator yields. Senator
Stanley has the floor.
>> I thank the gentleman, and
I'm not trying to confuse him
or trap him, but as I read
underline 34. It says that this
body can determine and that
body down the hall can
determine to redistrict for any
purpose other than to
individual things, completions
of their original program or
when the when the court has
ordered changes to their maps.
And I guess what I was saying
was, any purpose that falls
outside of the two exceptions
would also necessarily include
about resolving split precincts,
which is a common exercise,
would it not? Because as a
lawyer, you must and I know
you're not one, but and
congratulations on that fact
that you must understand for
any purpose is a very broad
statement, is it not.
>> Senator Rouse, MADAM?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I will
respond to the Senator from
Franklin County that as he is
fully aware of, that none of
the maps are being drawn are in
absolute, that they all will be
reviewed by our courts, and the
courts will have the final say.
So whether the maps are
constitutional, Lee valuable or
not.
>> I thank the gentleman.
>> Senator York, the Senator.
Senator Diggs, the Senator from
York.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking to the resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you. Our view, our
Constitution as a long term
contract between the citizens
of the Commonwealth and the
government. It guides
legislators on how to conduct
the business of government and
also protects our citizens from
the government. The Bill of
rights is the best example of
that protection. Our
Constitution can be viewed as a
marriage that is based on
mutual respect and trust. It's
there for the long haul. It
gives us a calm consistency on
how to conduct ourselves during
extraordinary times, and how to
weather a storm and survive
through those times, and not be
tempted to lose our way through
those times. The Constitution
should not have expiration
dates where amendments are cast
aside like a carton of expired
milk. This amendment is being
proposed not to protect our
citizens or to make our
government better. This
amendment is about increasing
the political power of the
Democrat Party. It has an
expiration date so that if the
political winds change, the
Republican Party can't do the
same thing in a few years. The
Constitution states that
redistricting should be done
every ten years to address
changes, changes and shifts in
population so that all people
are equally and fairly
represented. Our current maps
meet that criteria. This is
what our citizens voted for 66%
a few years ago. This amendment
circumvents that ideal and is
presented for no other reason
than to increase political
power. That is the threat to
our democracy. And this is
wrong on so many fronts. And I
also find it curious that it's
wrong for other states to
decide to redraw their maps
because someone asked them, but
it's okay for us to do it
because the Democrat Party has
asked us to do it. It depends
on who's doing the asking,
whether it's right or wrong. We
should not fall into that trap
much as the Democrats in
Maryland have refused to do.
Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator. From Shenandoah,
Senator French.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise to speak to the
resolution.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> I just want to take a moment
to talk about this process and
the quality time that we've all
got to spend together this week.
One thing has become crystal
clear to me. The wedge between
rural Virginia and urban
Virginia has been driven even
further. As a senator from
district one, I've worked hard
to prevent that from happening
with my people and letting them
know that we are in this state
together. Our job here is to
make laws. And legislation that
represent all the Virginians,
no matter where they live. If
this bill comes to life, our
congressional map will look
like a hurricane prediction
chart. A mess of spaghetti and
confusion. It will stretch our
representatives so thin that
our legislators will be out of
touch with the people they
represent. Overall, this bill
is bad for Virginia people. And
that's not just my opinion.
It's something that many of the
folks in this body said
themselves just some short five
years ago. In closing, I'd say
this. I've sat here by the
window looking out, wishing I
was home, weaning calves,
harvesting crops on the farm.
But I'm still proud to be here,
sacrificing to represent the
hard working people of rural
Virginia. However, when it's
said and done, we're. To me,
this is about like a bunch of
teenage boys on the farm. When
dad's gone and we cut the
muffler off the truck, old
diesel truck, and we're not
doing nothing but making a lot
of noise and blowing smoke.
Virginians. Virginians are
smart. They know what's good
for them. And by and large,
they're satisfied with how the
district stand today. I'm
confident, just as before, if
given the opportunity, they're
going to vote that 66 to 34 to
keep it the way it is. I urge
this body not to forget who we
work for and who we serve. Let
the people of Virginia, not the
interests of Washington, guide
us in our decisions. Thank you.
>> The Senator from Prince
Edwards Senator ciphers.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I ask if
the Senator from Virginia Beach
would rise and yield for a
question.
>> Will the junior senator from
Virginia Beach rise and yield?
>> Are you.
>> MADAM Senator yields.
Senator cyphers has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, we've heard
a lot this week that the
resolution before us is an
extraordinary response to
extraordinary circumstances. I
would ask the Senator if during
his time as a Virginia
legislator, has he seen or
introduced other legislation
that amends statutory or
constitutional law because of
mistakes, omissions or changes
in the underlying conditions to
which the law applies? Or is
this a new concept?
>> Senator Rouse has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, if the
gentleman. Where is he from?
Again? I'm sorry.
>> Prince Edward.
>> Prince Edward is the senator
from Prince Edward. Clarify his
question in that response. Give
him a chance to respond. But I
would go on to say we have
three constitutional amendments
right now that are before the
people. This is along the lines
of the same process.
>> Senator Edwards. Senator
Cyphers.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, so so I
think I understand the response
is that it is normal to amend
legislation when circumstances
change or when there are
mistakes or omissions. Is is
that correct?
>> Senator Rouse?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, this is a
resolution that we're going to
put forward to the people that
starts a process to give
Virginians an option.
>> a follow up question, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Will the Senator from
Virginia Beach yield again, the
Senator yields Senator Edwards
cyphers.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, article 12,
section one of the Virginia
Constitution lays out the
process by which the
Constitution MAY be amended.
One requirement is what we
referred to this week as the
intervening election that must
take place after the first
passage of an amending
resolution. And before the
second passage. I would ask the
Senator if he knows the purpose
of this intervening election.
>> The junior senator from
Virginia Beach has the floor,
MADAM.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, in response
to the Senator, I would say
that the process for
constitutional amendments that
it must pass both chambers
twice with the intervening
election before going to
referendum for the people. And
that's the process that we're
following.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would
further clarify that the
purpose is to give voters the
opportunity to reset their
representation in the House of
delegates. And last follow up
question, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Will the junior senator from
Virginia Beach yield again?
>> I yield, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Cyprus has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
the Senator if the Senator is
aware that when article 12,
section one, was updated in the
constitutional revision of 1971,
early voting did not exist.
>> The junior senator from
Virginia Beach has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm fully
aware of that as well. And
perhaps the junior senator
within the Senate should also
study the the Constitution even
more. Thank you, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Cyphers.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'd like to
state for the record that it
appears to be well established
that the intent of the
intervening election and the
constitutional amendment
process is so that voters can
respond at the ballot box
between the two passages of
amending resolution. I'd
further state that since early
voting did not exist when the
amendment process was written,
the authors had no reason to
contemplate a scenario in which
the House of delegates votes
were already cast by more than
1.1 million people before the
first passage of a resolution.
I would agree that there are
times that we need to amend law
due to changes in underlying
conditions and. Speaking to the
amendment, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm
sorry. Speaking to the
resolution. MADAM PRESIDENT, I
agree that that there are times
when we need to amend law due
to changes in underlying
circumstances. But, MADAM
PRESIDENT, I would submit that
in this case, the underlying
conditions that have changed
are not the political dynamics
in Washington, but rather the
fact that the Constitution that
we are sworn to support did not
contemplate a scenario in which
1.1 million voters had already
voted before the first passage
of an amending resolution. If
we want to propose
constitutional changes, MADAM
PRESIDENT, perhaps they should
be based on good faith
interpretations of existing law
and a desire to strengthen the
constitutional principles
rather than compromise them for
political convenience. Thank
you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> For what purpose does the
Senator from eastern Fairfax
County rise?
>> Well, Senator from Prince
Edward, yield for a question.
>> Senator will yield.
>> I yield.
>> Senator yields. Senator
Surovell has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Given the senators decided to
try to give us a lesson on
constitutional history. I have
two copies. I have a copy of
Dick Howard's commentaries, The
Constitution of Virginia. I
also am aware that the law
library. We have copies of the
debates from 1969. What in
those books supports your
theory that the entire point of
having an election between
election, between the
introduction, constitutional
amendments was the intent? Was
the intent behind this
constitutional provision? What
in the books? I understand you
have a theory. What actual
support in a book do you have
for that?
>> Senator Cyphers?
>> MADAM? MADAM PRESIDENT, as
an entrepreneur and a private
citizen as opposed to an
attorney, I would like to defer
this question to my colleague
who understands constitutional
law substantially better than I
am, with the caveat, MADAM
PRESIDENT, that I believe that
we should respect the
understanding of Constitution
as it relates to private
citizens and voters and people
who are not attorneys, as well
as those that are well
practiced and well studied in
that field.
>> Senator Obenshain, will you
yield?
>> I think he's yielding to me.
>> All right. The senator from
Rockingham has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, in
answering the senator from
eastern Fairfax, I think
Senator from eastern Fairfax
knows very well that there MAY
be only a couple of people in
this chamber who have perused
the Eddic Howard Treatise on
the Constitution of Virginia,
or know Professor Howard. I
know, know Professor Howard. I
do know Professor Howard. I've
worked with him. I've read his
treatise, as a matter of fact,
the senator from eastern
Fairfax helped me procure a
copy of the treatise, and I'm
grateful for that. And I spent
a little bit of time last night
looking at the treatise for
that specific purpose. And it
does not address it, but what
it does address and what is
clear is that Professor Howard,
he spent a lot of his career
helping write constitutions
around America and around the
world, and he, in doing so,
drew upon the work of others.
You know, we as lawyers, you
know, one of the things that we
learn early on is not it's not
always necessary to be original.
It is to borrow good ideas that
have worked well in others. And
in this instance, that
provision requiring an election
is a provision that has been
adopted in, I believe,
approximately ten other state
constitutions. And professor,
law professor D.C. Wright wrote
in the Duquesne Law Review in
2021, talking about all of
those provisions and the
purpose for those provisions in
constitutions all over the
United States of America,
including Virginia's
constitution. And he said many
state constitutions require
that a proposed amendment be
approved by successive
legislatures, with an
intervening election of at
least one House before final
ratification. The requirement
of an intervening election is
designed to provide a check on
hasty constitutional change,
ensuring that a proposal has
survived the test of public
opinion before it becomes a
part of the Fundamental Law. In
this way, the electorate,
through its representatives
chosen in the interim, has an
opportunity to affirm or reject
the wisdom of the proposed
amendment, and I would
respectfully submit to the
gentleman that this action in
calling us here four days
before our statewide election,
clearly contravenes that
provision. If it was simply to
put this on the ballot and not
pull a fast one on the citizens
of the Commonwealth of Virginia
and evade the purpose of that
constitutional provision, we
should have been here months
ago. The PRESIDENT Of the
United States, whether you
agree with it or not, called
for redistricting back in JULY
of this year, Texas made its
initial steps towards
redistricting in the beginning
of AUGUST of this year. If
these professions of heartfelt
conviction that this is
necessary to save the Republic
were sincere, we could have
been back here in AUGUST,
should have been back here in
AUGUST. Instead, we are here
for days before a statewide
election. After 1 million
Virginians have already cast
their votes. It is in clear
contravention of the purpose of
that constitutional provision
here in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. I hope that answers
gentleman's question.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, the Senator
yield for a question.
>> Will the Senator from
Rockingham yield I yield.
Senator yields. Senator
Surovell has the floor.
>> Does the Senator agree that
prior to 1870, there was no
process for amending the
Constitution, and that in 1870
that the 1870 Constitution, the
amendment process was added?
Does he further agree that at
that time the Constitution
required intervening election
of both the House and the
Senate before the Constitution
could be amended?
>> Senator.
>> With that.
>> We have another question.
>> Will the Senator yield the
Senator yields? Senator
Surovell has the floor.
>> The Senator also agree that
if the intent behind the
amendment was to allow the
voters to pass on the elected
officials that are actually
going to vote on the amendment,
that the voters of Virginia
will not have an opportunity to
pass on the voters or the
people that are serving in the
state Senate, with the
exception of the senior senator
from Chesterfield, I hope
before the amendment is voted
again in a succeeding session.
>> MADAM Senator Obenshain.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, what I
would say to the gentleman is
that the provision was changed
as described in order to change
the process. It permits a
constitutional amendment to be
made or to be advanced every
two years instead of every four
years. And while I know we're
not spending time or not
supposed to talk about folks
down the hall, but there are
100 elections of members down
the hall, and I know that many
members of this body think
we're the only ones who matter.
And we are. But there are a lot
of people there are a lot of
people across the Commonwealth
of Virginia who believe that
the members of the House of
delegates ought to be held
accountable for their votes as
well. And this process
undermines the ability of the
people of the Commonwealth of
Virginia to express their
opinions, as has been described.
This has this was conducted
under cover of darkness. The
the purpose of this this
special session was revealed in
the New York Times last week.
The text of this constitutional
amendment was revealed two days
ago in order to prevent those
million people from seeing the
text, and probably to prevent a
good many more from even
talking about it or knowing
what has happened this week in
this chamber and the chamber
down the hall.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, Senator,
yield for another question.
>> Senator from Rockingham
yields Senator Surovell has the
floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
the Senator. Does he also agree
that in the Constitution that
predated the current
constitution of 1971, that that
Constitution required a 90 day
period of time when the
amendment was to be made
available and posted at the at
the courthouses before the
election. The election after
the first adoption. But that
that language was removed from
the Constitution. And because a
lot of things have changed
since 1870, I know that in 1870
they invented chewing gum and a
telephone. Electric streetcars,
staplers, light bulbs. But
since 1870, people don't get
their information quite the
same way. And so when they
change the Constitution in 1969,
in the floor debate, they felt
it would be better to require
90 days notice to the voters
before the voters actually vote
on it, not before the next
General Assembly, not before
the election of the people that
would vote on it the second
time. Do you agree that that
they made that change because
they thought that was a more
modern way to approach this?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Obenshain has the floor.
>> Senator Saslaw is no longer
in this chamber, and I don't
think anybody in the chamber
has the recollection of the
intent of the drafters of the
prior constitution. But I would
say that I give the majority
leader, and whoever crafted
this scheme great credit for
being very crafty, but I would
suggest that this absolutely
contravenes the intent of the
drafters of the current
constitution under which we
operate. It does not require it
to be posted for 90 days before
the election. However, it does
require there to be an
intervening election after the
passage of this constitutional
amendment in its first instance,
and that is being violated by
virtue of the fact that this
election is already underway,
that 1 million Virginians have
already cast their votes. And
this is a deliberate and clear
effort to disenfranchize those
million Virginia voters,
constituents of every single
member of this body and the
body down the hall.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Surovell.
>> With the gentleman yield for
one last question about this
bill.
>> The Senator from Rockingham
yield, Senator yields. Senator
Surovell has the floor.
>> With the gentleman agree
that in the APRIL 2nd, 1969
debates of the House of
delegates debating the
constitutional revisions that
the House of delegates, MR.
Slaughter, I guess he was a
state delegate at the time.
>> French slaughter.
>> Yeah. French. Before he ran
for Congress, I guess that he
he he stated, we provide there
must be 90 days between the
date of approval by the second
General Assembly and the
submission of the proposed
amendment to the people, we
struck out any reference to
publication because of some
question about what sort of
publication might be required.
We felt the real purpose would
be served by requiring a lapse
of at least 90 days between the
between the final action of the
General Assembly and the
submission of the proposal to
the people so that they would
be informed. Can you agree that
that's what he said in
explaining why the General
Assembly removed the 90 day
requirement before the election,
the intervening election for
the amendments?
>> Senator from Rockingham.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I do not so
agree. I agree that that was a
comment made by Delegate
Slaughter in the chamber down
the hall. The debates over the
Constitution were carefully
chronicled, and as the Senator
is well aware, there are 100
members down the hall, 40
members up here. Every single
one of us is entitled to our
own opinion. Delegate slaughter
had his opinion, and the intent
of the Constitution is clear.
Notwithstanding the removal of
that language, there was no
provision. There was no early
voting at the time that
Constitution was adopted. We
have since adopted a 90 day,
whatever six week period of
early voting before the
election. This contravenes the
current provisions of our
current Constitution, its
letter and its spirit.
Irrespective of the changes
from the prior Constitution.
>> Thank you gentlemen.
>> Senator Craig, the Senator
from Chesapeake.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, now that
the the legal titans have
finished that scholarly lesson,
I was wondering if I could if I
could.
>> The senator resumes his
position.
>> Yes, MADAM PRESIDENT. MADAM
PRESIDENT, I want to address
what's happening here in
Richmond this week, not just
H.J. 6007 itself, which
disregards the clearly stated
will of Virginians to have
independently drawn
congressional maps in favor of
altering power structures in
Washington, but also this rush
to ram it through in what is
clearly a compromised and
abbreviated process. Because
process matters, MADAM
PRESIDENT, especially to
Virginians who hold sacred
their right and responsibility
as citizens of this great
Commonwealth to be participants
in their government, not just
on the receiving end of the
whims of this body. Because,
MADAM PRESIDENT, the part of
the process that's being
trampled on this week is indeed
the part that ensures citizens
are the ultimate authority in
making changes to our
Constitution. In 2020,
Democrats championed championed
a bipartisan redistricting
commission to protect
themselves, and voters approved
it with 66% support. It was
celebrated as a victory for
democracy and for fairness in
2020, Democrats said. The
people deserve fair, a fair,
nonpartisan process in 2025.
Democrats are seeking authority
to override that process for
political reasons. In 2020,
Democrats said courts and
commissions protect minorities
better than politicians. In
2025, Democrats are proposing
to give that power back to
politicians in a way that
prioritizes natural national
power structures over fair
representation. In 2020,
Democrats said. Gerrymandering
is cheating. In 2025, Democrats
are proposing H.J. 607 to
authorize mid-decade
redistricting to enable that
exact cheating. In 2020,
Democrats said voters have a
right to choose their
representatives in 2025. H.J.
607 seeks to strip this right
when politicians deem that
political dynamics in
Washington take precedent over
the concerns of its citizens.
That's what a complete
abandonment of principles looks
like. And it's what voters
across this Commonwealth have
had enough of. I'd like to be
clear about what H.J. 60707
actually does. It takes the
authority to redraw
congressional districts away
from the the Independent
Redistricting Commission. The
citizens voted 2 to 1 to create
in 2020 and gives it instead to
the General Assembly at any
point between now and OCTOBER
2030, triggered by the actions
of another state. To say it
another way, authority is
granted to the General Assembly
to use congressional
redistricting as a means of
manipulating power in
Washington, instead of ensuring
that every Virginian has fair
representation in Congress. To
make it worse, this very
consequential shift of power is
not triggered by the Virginians
that we represent, but rather
by the actions of a legislative
body of another state the
Virginians did not elect. This
is unprecedented in the history
of our nation, and for good
reason. We've been told this
week that this is an
extraordinary response to
extraordinary times. What's
being communicated here is that
in the history of our nation,
this is the first time that the
situation was so dire that the
very body entrusted to steward,
the steward, the laws of our
sovereign state would entangle
her Constitution, the very
basis basis of her sovereignty
in a way that undermines its
very purpose, an extraordinary
response indeed. I realize that
there are some strong opinions
in this chamber about the
choices that voters made in the
last presidential election. I
would remind the body that
those are the choices that the
voters of the United States
made. But, MADAM PRESIDENT, I
would suggest there's nothing
unusual nor extraordinary about
these strong feelings. We've
all been there at some point in
our lives. But, MADAM PRESIDENT,
principles that bend to
circumstances are not
principles at all, and our
Constitution exists to ensure
that regardless of what's going
on with current events, our
bedrock of principles stays
intact. As poorly conceived as
I believe the legislation
itself is, the disregard for
the constitutional amendment
process is equally concerning.
Virginia's Constitution
requires a clear, deliberate
process for amendments. Any
constitutional change must pass
the legislature twice with a
general election. The
intervening election between
those passages. This is an
intentionally slow and
deliberate process to ensure
the Constitution doesn't become
a tool for political maneuvers,
and to ensure that the people
of the Commonwealth have the
ultimate oversight and control.
The legislature gets two
opportunities to vote during
the constitutional amendment
process, and up to this point,
citizens have always had two
opportunities to vote as well.
The first time as the
intervening election, an
opportunity to respond to the
first passage of an amended
resolution. If the politicians
get out of line, the
intervening election is the
people's opportunity to replace
them. The second time is the
referendum after a second
passage in the General Assembly
this week. We've heard over and
over that people will have
their chance to vote as if
we're the ones granting them
that opportunity. But, MADAM
PRESIDENT, that right is
granted by the Virginia
Constitution and lies beyond
our discretion and indeed
beyond our jurisdiction. We did
not create this right, and we
cannot legally take it away
because we think that the
political winds make it ripe
for the picking. And yet that's
exactly what our friends on the
other side of the aisle are
trying to do here this week,
when article 12, section one
was updated in the
constitutional revision of 1971,
early voting did not exist. The
authors had no reason to
contemplate a 45 day early
voting period, because the only
way that anybody could vote
early was by absentee, which
had very strict requirements,
required an oath, and only took
place after the ballots were
printed, usually 2 to 3 weeks
prior to an election. To be
clear, the purpose for the
intervening election was so
that voters had the opportunity
to review the first passage of
the amending resolution and how
their representatives voted
before they cast their votes in
the next general election. And
to be equally clear, it was not
possible in 1971 to have 1.1
million voters cast their votes
45 days before Election Day or
well before Election Day. It
appears to me to be beyond
reasonable dispute that the
maneuvers this week
opportunistically undermined
the intent of the
constitutional amendment
process, and that the authority
that is being treated as
disposable is authority
reserved for the citizens. I
hope every Virginian hears this
loud and clear and reclaims
that authority using the power
of their vote. In the coming
days. Virginians deserve
assurance that the rules won't
change based on Partizan
calculation. Thank you, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> The senator from Stafford.
Oh, I'm sorry, the senator from
Chesapeake. Senator Craig.
>> Thank you. MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise to speak to the
resolution.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Members of this committee, I
want to talk about what's
really happening with H.J. 6007.
And I want to be direct. It's
not about Virginia. This is
about national power politics
playing out in Virginia on
Virginia stage, using
mid-decade redistricting as a
weapon. H.J. 6007 is not about
addressing implementation
issues with the commission.
It's about the Democratic
Congressional Campaign
Committee in Washington seeing
Virginia as a potential pickup
in their national strategy to
control the House of
Representatives. Washington
Democrats just need three more
seats nationally to retake the
House majority. Virginia has
six Democrats and five
Republicans in Congress.
National Democrat strategists
believe that with H.J. 6007 Mid
Decade Authority, they could
redraw a map and help flip a
seat or two or even ten. This
would directly serve National
Democrat interests, but it does
nothing to serve Virginia's
interests. The timing of H.J.
6007, positioned as an urgent
matter, was not authored based
on constituent demands. It was
authored based on instructions
from national leadership.
Here's what's remarkable the
same H.J. 6007 style logic is
being discussed in California
right now. It's coordinated.
This is a national Democrat
strategy, and Virginia
Democrats are taking their
marching orders from Washington
in 2020. I wasn't serving as a
senator, but I was in my 18th
year as chief of staff to then
Senator John Cosgrove. And
during that time, I was engaged
in bipartisan conversations
around redistricting.
Republicans held the majority,
and most Virginia Democrats
supported the creation of a
redistricting commission. Why?
Because when you're in the
minority, structural fairness
becomes strategic necessity. It
was a defensive move. It was
perfect. When you're in the
minority party, the
constitutional amendment
establishing the commission
passed overwhelmingly in
Virginia, including my own
district. It was a clear
mandate. The voters in Virginia,
then 2022 happened. Democrats
took control of the legislature.
So Washington sent a message to
Virginia. Democrat leadership
passed H.J. 6007 and help us
win nationally. And Virginia
Democrats dependent on National
Party support and National
Party money, began offering
H.J. 6007 Democrat leaders.
Legislators are consumed with
this resolution while they
focus on D.C. Mandated projects.
They're ignoring Virginia
problems. Because here's the
thing Virginia families are
struggling and they're
struggling with real issues,
and they demand state
government attention. The
rising cost of living. Families
are struggling to afford
housing, groceries, utilities,
health care. Access is still a
crisis in rural Virginia.
Schools need resources. They're
public safety concerns. We need
economic opportunity for
workers. Infrastructure needs
support for our farmers. Thank
you. Tammy French stability to
for small business owners. I
could go on. These are the
issues Virginia voters care
about. These are the issues
Virginia Democrats should be
focused on, especially five
days before a very important
election. This isn't Partizan
issue about redistricting. It's
about fundamental. It's about a
fundamental question should
state decisions serve state
interests or national party
interests? I want to direct a
question to Democrat
legislators supporting H.J.
6007. Did you support it
because your constituents
demanded you to? Did you
support it because you believe
it's right for Virginia? When
national Party leadership calls,
do your constituents come first
or second? When D.C.
Strategists want something and
Virginia voters want something
else whose interests prevails?
Six H.J. 607 is your answer to
those questions. It's a
disservice to the Virginians
who elected us. That's a
betrayal of the principle that
elected officials should
represent their constituents,
not national party committees.
Here's where Virginia
Republicans stand. We will
oppose H.J. 6007 as a tool
designed to serve D.C.
Interests rather than Virginia
interests. We will focus on the
real problems Virginia families
are facing. And again, cost of
living, health care, education,
jobs. We believe state
government should be
accountable to state voters,
not national party committees.
We will challenge H.J. 607 in
court and in the court of
public opinion. We will remind
voters that their state
government belongs to them, not
D.C. Political interest to
Virginia voters. Recognize
what's happening. Decisions
about H.J. 607 are being made
in Washington, not Richmond.
Your tax dollars will pay for
the future legal battles and
redistricting wars created by
this resolution. This is not
how representative government
is supposed to work. Virginians
deserve leaders who answer to
them. Our state government
should be focused on solving
Virginia problems, not playing
political chess. Republicans
believe Virginia should be
first. They should come first.
And we will not neglect
Virginia. Problems for national
political gain. Republicans
remain steadfast in their
commitment to the people of
Virginia. It has been my honor
for the last five days to be
away from my family, but to be
here fighting for Virginians.
Thank you.
>> Senator Durant, the senator
from Stafford.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking to the resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, colleagues
of the Senate for more than two
centuries, Virginia has stood
at the crossroads of American
liberty. Our founders taught
the world a very simple truth.
Government exists to serve the
people, not to rule them. We
should be striving to live up
to those ideals, not racing to
the bottom of political
cynicism. Virginia must set the
example once again, reminding
the nation that principled
self-government is still
possible. And yet today, that
principle is under threat. In
just a few days, the people are
going to elect a governor.
They're going to elect an
attorney general, they're going
to elect a lieutenant governor,
and they're going to elect
every member of the House of
delegates. And yet, here we are,
nearly at the very end of that
election, being asked to
consider a resolution that
would redraw the political map
of Virginia while ballots are
still being cast. Right now,
Virginians are voting.
Candidates are on those ballots.
And this Senate is being asked
to change the rules of
representation while that
election is underway. That is
not proper. That is not fair.
And it is a dangerous precedent
for a chamber sworn to serve
the people, not to manipulate
their voice. Let's remember how
we got here. We've talked about
this numerous times, but it's
worth reminding. It is a rare
act of unity that this General
Assembly did what you thought
was possible. We voted and this
chamber 38 to 2, to create a
bipartisan, voter approved
redistricting commission. And
many of the members who are
here cast votes, supported that.
We came together. It was
Republicans, Democrats and
independents alike on the
ballot who agreed to end that
old system of self-serving
mapmaking. The people of
Virginia ratified that work
through a constitutional
amendment, saying with one
voice, the power to draw
political lines belongs to the
people, not to politicians.
Some of us said Virginians have
told us loud and clear, this is
what the voters want. This
package fully encompasses the
kind of reform Virginians have
asked for a long time. That's
not Partizan words. That's
words of principle. Some of you
promised Virginians that
politicians would no longer
draw their own maps, and some
of you took an oath to protect
that fair representation. So I
ask you, will you stand by that
promise? That was a covenant
that's now being threatened.
This resolution would dismantle
that commission. Let's make no
mistake about it. There is no
other way but to set it aside,
to seize back that pen and
withdraw Virginia's
congressional lines for
Partizan gain. Let's call it
what it is. It's not reform.
It's not modernization. It is
purely a political grab, a grab
that would tilt Virginia's
representations and silence
neither half of our voters and
undermine the very premise of
fair elections. That hypocrisy
is staggering. Many of the same
voices behind this effort has
spent years denouncing that
manipulation. And yet here we
stand, exactly where we were.
And if that isn't the height of
political cynicism, I don't
know what is. We've talked
about other states. We've
talked about we talked about
California and others as
justification. But again,
Virginia is not those other
states. We do not follow the
worst instincts of others. We
lead by the best traditions of
this Commonwealth. We are the
birthplace of this American
democracy. We are the words of
Jefferson and Madison and Mason
still echo through these very
halls. Power is not owned by
the powerful. It is on loan
from the people. This moment is
a turning point, a test of
whether we will still be worthy
heirs to that legacy.
Virginians have always prided
themselves on working together
across lines that divide others.
If we abandon that that spirit
now, that Virginia way, we will
lock ourselves into political
tribes that can no longer
cooperate or compromise. And
that is not the Virginia way.
That's why this resolution is
not just misguided. It's
dangerous because if we pass,
it will not merely be draw
lines on a map. We would draw
the lines between governed and
the government. If any of us
cast a vote to strip this power.
And I think all of us could
step back if one person said to
us, what are you really proud
of that you've accomplished
here and your work? We could
all think about it. There might
be some commission work that
we've delved into. There's one
thing that you come to your
mind you're really proud of it,
that you know you've moved the
needle to make life better in
this commonwealth, but nothing
else will not make one bit of
difference if you do this,
because they have forsaken that
one duty that defines us in
this constitutional republic to
represent the people, not to
rule over them. It really tests
the very fabric of this country.
Once enough people have been
left unrepresented, and we have
already seen states where
millions of voters no longer
have a voice because of this
gerrymandering. That is when
the greatest nation ever will
begin to be fully tested, to
strip Virginians of fair
representation in the middle of
an election is not is not it is.
It is a profound betrayal of
that trust. It is an assault on
the oath we swore. It is a
wound on the very heart of the
self-government. We should
never allow this. We should not
remain silent on it. And we
should not betray the people
who sent us here. Thank you,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Hackworth, the
senator from Tazewell.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking briefly to 6007.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> You know, MADAM PRESIDENT,
every time I come to Richmond,
I learn something new. And
today I learned just here in
this chamber that the senator
from Franklin knows how to
build houses. Who would have
knew that? Actually asked him
the name of his company. It was
bdk, which meant which? Which
means Billy. Don't know. So
that's why that he's not
building houses anymore. But
one thing that I do know, MADAM
PRESIDENT, is I have a
breakdown of the 2020
redistricting amendment vote in
Senate District 5 in 2020, and
my most blue precinct in Senate
District five voted
overwhelmingly at 86% to pass
this 86%. And, you know, I
remember getting calls asking
what? And I'm sure a lot of
members here, MADAM PRESIDENT,
got the same calls. What is
this? How do you how do you,
you know, explain this to me
because it was rather
complicated. And some of their
mind what we was trying to do.
And, you know, when we look at
the will of the voters of
Virginia, especially in Senate
District five, we have 68%, 73%,
69. The lowest that we had was
in my own county. That was in
the 60s. So for that reason,
MADAM PRESIDENT, I will be
voting against H.J. 6007.
>> The Senator from Lynchburg,
Senator Peake.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise to speak to the
resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> I'm not going to restate
most of my colleagues have have
given all of the the real good,
valuable constitutional reasons
why this is a bad idea and what
we're doing. I also point to
our colleague down the hall who
we don't. We rarely hear good
things from, but I would
Delegate Lee Ware from Powhatan
stated this on the first day,
you know, Texas embarking on a
mid-decade redistricting was
probably not a good idea. But
because they have embarked on
that endeavor does not mean
that we have to engage in that
endeavor. And that's all I'm
going to say on the real
constitutional grounds. On to
speak to the senator from
Henrico about us imposing on
his time. That is just now.
What if we go into next year
and we actually get to go into
the redistricting? I mean,
ladies and gentlemen of the
Senate, that would be almost
like having 2 or 3 Christmases
in one year. Are we really
deserving to have 2 or 3
redistricting in one decade? I
submit to you that, ladies and
gentlemen, we are not worthy of
the pleasures and joys. We have
not been so good that we should
have an extra redistricting in
this decade. And in spite of
that, I'm afraid we might. And
do we really want to redraw our
congressional districts to go
from 6 to 5, where we have
fairly equal representation in
Washington, D.C. Where each
side is fairly represented,
where depending on who's in
charge of the House or who's in
charge of the Senate or who's
in the white House, we have
pretty equal representations
with both parties. We have
relatively equal influence with
both parties. Depending on what
happens in these elections, 10
to 1 will destroy that. And
we've talked about the reasons
for an intervening election. So
now I'm talking to the citizens
of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
who I suspect about 8 million
out of the eight and a half are
gathered around their Apple
iPads. Watching us debate this
issue this morning, but they
can still have the final say on
Tuesday, today and tomorrow.
They can go vote for MADAM
PRESIDENT. And this will all
end. They can go vote for
Republican House of delegates,
and this will all end. So
citizens who voted 2 to 1
against Partizan gerrymandering
will still have the final say.
So wake up people who have not
voted yet. A million of you
have voted. 2 million of you
have not. 2.5 million. If you
don't like this fiasco.
Boondoggle travesty that we
have been called here a week
before the general election to
do something that is clearly
unconstitutional. People go
vote. There are 2.5 million of
you out there who have not
voted, who traditionally vote
in the governor's election. Put
a stop to this. Please go vote
Tuesday, NOVEMBER 4th. I can't
wait to see the results of that
election. MADAM PRESIDENT,
people speak against this.
>> The Senator from Roanoke.
Senator Suetterlein.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking to the resolution.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Gerrymandering was wrong when
Patrick Henry tried to
gerrymander James Madison in
1789. It was wrong here in
Virginia in 2011. It was wrong
here in Virginia in 2012. And
it is wrong anywhere. It is
happening today. For years,
Virginia Democrats declared
their support for redistricting
reform. And yet today, there is
significant Democratic Party
cheering for rolling back the
commission that was established
and instituting a ten one
congressional gerrymander. The
gerrymander carved up small
towns and put people in cities
and rural communities far from
their representatives. What's
being envisioned now would be
an even worse version of that.
And that's not right to the
people in the cities that are
represented by people far, far
away in rural areas or vice
versa. All for not because of a
larger common interest, but
simply because of a Partizan
effort. When the League of
Women Voters approached me
about the redistricting reform
about a decade ago, I was
supportive of the concept. I
was someone that had been
elected to a district that
included parts of Wytheville
and parts of Christiansburg and
parts of Rocky Mountain, parts
of Hillsville, and parts of so
many other counties that were
all divided. And I knew why we
needed reform. I was a little
skeptical, though, and cautious
because I suggested that
Democratic support for
redistricting reform might wane
when their political prospects
increased. And as William
Safire observed, quote, I've
been right and I've been
paranoid, and it's better to be
paranoid. A few years ago,
Democrats agreed to a medicaid
expansion work requirement
compromise and almost
immediately work to dismantle
that work requirement. The
bipartisan concealed carry
reciprocity agreement that was
negotiated by Governor Terry
McAuliffe, has faced constant
attacks from other members of
his party that also briefly
supported that compromise. And
here we are again, seeing a
bipartisan agreement fraying. I
fear that every time this
happens, it makes it far less
likely there will ever be any
more bipartisan agreements here
in the Commonwealth. The
PRESIDENT Mistakenly called for
redistricting changes
mid-decade, redistricting
changes in JULY, and Texas
started acting in AUGUST.
Instead of a full debate here
in Virginia. Then we find
ourselves considering a
gerrymandering amendment on
Halloween after a million votes
have been cast here in the
Commonwealth's election, the
redistricting commission was
ratified by two thirds of
voters five years ago. On the
same day, a smaller but
significant majority of voters
here in Virginia gave PRESIDENT
Biden the Commonwealth's
electoral votes. What's being
envisioned now is a quick
springtime referendum election
deemed too small for small town
mayor elections to reverse a
two thirds mandate delivered by
the voters on the same day
PRESIDENT Biden was elected.
Gerrymandering should be
rejected here. It should be
rejected. Everywhere in this
resolution should be rejected.
Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator head, the senator
from Todd.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking to the resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
This is a so much has been said
and it's been been, first of
all, the my friend, the senator
from Roanoke just pointed out
it is Halloween. I do, for the
record, think that that is
probably an appropriate day for
us to be taking such scary
action as this, because this
whole thing has felt more like
a specter from beyond the grave.
And it's it's unholy. It is
just it is it is really awful
what we're doing here. But I'm
I'm perplexed by some of the
comments that I've heard from
the other side of the aisle.
The senator from from eastern
Fairfax started off this
morning with the amendment that
I had proposed to let us put
this back to the redistricting
commission, rather than it
being Partizan and attacking
the concept, saying that this
commission that we've got in
place is bad anyway because
it's not independent, which it
never claims to be, that it's
not nonpartizan, which it never
claims to be. It is a
bipartisan commission. But he
made comments that really
betrayed, I think, the real
intent, which is we want this
to be a Partizan decision that
disturbed me when I heard that,
and then I heard the the
senator from Central Fairfax
make reference to the fact that
in 2020, we made history in
Virginia because we moved
ourselves from being classified
as one of the states that had
the most gerrymandered
districts to one of the states
with the least gerrymandered
districts. And indeed, what we
propose, what we adopted, what
we did to our Constitution,
then to create the way that we
establish congressional
districts was so good that it's
being looked at and mirrored in
other places. I think we ought
to be proud of that. But here
we are seeking to dismantle
this in reaction to the actions
of some other states. You know,
we're we're the we're the
leader. We're the state that
when we got here first, we've
been a representative body. I
mean, the we've been here since
1607. We've been a
representative government in
Virginia since 1619, starting
the way the oldest
representative democracy in the
new World, we ought not be
following anybody because we
lead, we don't follow, we don't
react, we respond, we set the
example, and we have that all
together in the way that we do
redistricting now. And I you
know, I'm perplexed to why we
would, you know, maybe, maybe
if Stephen f Austin and Sam
Houston had stayed in Virginia
a little longer before going
down to Texas, they would have
gotten a little bit more seated
in the way that they should be
behaving down there. And we
wouldn't be in this, this
conversation, but we certainly
shouldn't be following suit on
something that has stirred up a
hornet's nest. When you can,
somebody has to be the adult in
the room. That should be who we
are. We are the adults in the
room and the adults in the room
is the one that say, enough of
this, we're going to stop it.
And the way we stop it is not
by continuing to do it. We stop
it. And the way we stop it is
to stick with our guns on this.
And then you look at what we
did in 2020 and look at the the
districts that we've got and
what they reflect as far as the
population of Virginia. We
adopted this. And then the next
congressional election we had
was just last year after the
new districts were drawn. And
in that election, Virginia
voted 46% for Donald Trump. And
54% for Kamala Harris. At the
same time, we reelected all of
our members of of Congress or
elected all of our members of
Congress. And what we ended up
with was out of 11 members of
Congress, five Republicans and
six Democrats. And if you do
the math on that, that gives us
45% Republicans and 55%
Democrat, which is an almost
perfect mirroring of the
overall statewide presidential
election vote. You can't get it
any better than that, folks.
You absolutely can't get it any
better than that. And it is our
job to represent the people,
the entirety of the people of
the Commonwealth as a
collective body, and each one
of us to represent them as our
constituents in our districts.
So we've got it right, whether
we like to admit it or not,
whether you like to admit it or
not, we got it right. And we
have good districts that need
to be left alone. But I'm also
concerned when we had the
arguments about the
constitutionality of this and
the 90 day issue in the
Constitution, whether that goes
back and forth, what confuses
me about that argument is that
you have the Constitution, but
we also have the code. I'm not
an attorney. I don't ever claim
to be one. Never wanted to be
one. Except maybe briefly.
Maybe MAY have wanted to be one
briefly. Then I thought better
of it. Well, I'm not being rude,
just my brother was one. I see
what that is one. And just
don't, don't don't need to. We
don't need to have two in the
family. But when I look at this
resolution on lines three, four
and five of the resolution, it
says proposing an amendment to
section six of the article of
article two of the Constitution
of Virginia and proposing an
amendment to the Constitution
of Virginia by adding in a
section or in the schedule a
section numbered six. Okay, so
we have an amendment proposed
here in the form of this
resolution. And then I look in
the code of Virginia in a
section that some have said is
obsolete, but it's still there,
which means it's still valid
and it still needs to be
enforced. And we all have a
duty to follow both the
Constitution and the laws of
Virginia. And it says in
section titled title 30,
section 30, Dash 13, that the
clerk of the House of delegates
shall have published all
proposed amendments to the
Constitution. This is one of
those from his office and to
the clerk of the Circuit court
of each county and city, two
copies of the proposed
amendments. And that's the ones
that don't get to that point
until they've passed, one of
which shall be posted at the
front door of the courthouse,
and the other shall be made
available for public inspection.
Every clerk of the circuit
court shall complete, shall not
MAY shall complete the posting
required not later than three
months prior to the next
ensuing general election of
members of the House of
delegates, and shall certify
such posting to the clerk of
the House of delegates and the
clerk of the House of delegates
shall report to the General
Assembly at its next regular
session. The session the action
taken by him under this section,
including the costs incurred in
the printing. Et cetera. Et
cetera. So there's no way we
can do this. I mean, you can do
this today. You're going to do
this today. You know that
you're going to do this today.
It's going to get the 21 votes.
You're going to pass it because
you're not going to pay any
attention to what the people
are screaming about out there,
or any of the arguments that
are valid than any of us are
going to have made. You're
going to do that. We know that.
But if you're going to follow
the law after you've done that,
you can't take this thing up
again and have it be valid and
legal unless you post it 90
days ahead of the next ensuing
election, which in this case,
to make that valid would be the
election that will take place
for the House of delegates in
2027. So by the time you got it
done and got it out there for a
vote, again, it wouldn't be
valid anyway because you've
already got an expiration date
on it that the clock would have
run out before you could ever
get it done. This is a reckless
action, guys. We're better than
that. In this commonwealth. The
people didn't ask for this.
Washington asked for this. The
Democratic Committee asked for
this. But your constituents
didn't ask for this. I suppose
that the possible exception of
that might be the senator from
Arlington, because her her, her
locality was the only one that
actually voted against it, but
only a smattering of those
voted against it. It was very,
very close election there. But
we're supposed to follow not
just the Constitution, but the
laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. And you can't do this
without violating the law.
Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator McDougle. The
senator from Hanover.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise to
speak to the resolution.
>> Senator has a floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I must say
I listened to a lot of
discussions and some of my
colleagues have known for many
years, some for less time. Some
of the discussions we've had on
this floor, some of them we've
had privately, we've talked
about Trump Derangement
Syndrome. It is a real thing.
We've talked about the Schumer
shutdown because of health care,
not going to Americans, but to
going to other people not
legally present. We've heard
talk about dictators. I've
heard talk about the
Constitution. MADAM PRESIDENT,
I'm disappointed because these
conversations are about a
reaction to something that's
happening outside of Virginia.
And I'd reference Reagan and
what we talk about when she
does things I don't like a lot.
And this is something we do
talk about. We frequently see
that children will react and
say, well, they did it over
there, so we have to do it.
MADAM PRESIDENT, here in
Virginia, we don't have to do
that. We don't have to take
that bad step. My friends
across the aisle are talking
about the PRESIDENT, which they
term a dictator. MADAM
PRESIDENT, some of the actions
that I view as not being
democratic or favor democracy
or introducing resolutions with
the public, only has the
ability to see them for a
couple of days before they're
voted on. MADAM PRESIDENT, it
does not seem democratic to me
that it be done in the dark of
night, right before an election,
after over a million people
have voted. MADAM PRESIDENT, I
heard my colleague across the
aisle talk about how when the
original constitutional
amendment came through, he had
a year to reflect. MADAM
PRESIDENT, the members in the
body down the hall had three
days. The members here had four
days. MADAM PRESIDENT, I heard
talk about how the
redistricting commission was
not independent, not bipartisan.
All those all those things. And
we heard it worked. It worked.
So, MADAM PRESIDENT, I also
heard about other things that
the PRESIDENT Is doing, how
horrible this PRESIDENT Is
versus former presidents. MADAM
PRESIDENT, I remember in this
body, when a member who was
across the aisle decided to
retire so his daughter could
become a judge pursuant to our
rules, how a PRESIDENT From the
other side of the aisle had
members of this body
investigated and how grand
juries were convened for that,
I didn't find that to be
terribly democratic either. So
there's blame to be thrown
around. But, MADAM PRESIDENT,
when that occurred, we didn't
change the Constitution. We
didn't try to rush something
out when nobody had opportunity
to see it. The public had an
opportunity to digest it that
lacked transparency. Two wrongs
do not make a right, as has
already been said on this floor.
MADAM PRESIDENT, Senator from
said, we all are aware what the
vote will be in just a few
minutes. We also are aware that
there will be a lot of
conversations in the public,
probably on this floor again
and likely in the courts going
forward. But I want to make
sure that in that conversation,
we all know what we're talking
about. It has been termed this
is giving another option to the
people. MADAM PRESIDENT, I saw
some social media
communications from some of my
colleagues showing ten one this
is not giving the public an
option. This is to draw ten
Democratic congressional seats
and one Republican
congressional seat in Virginia.
This is not about options. This
is very directed. So to be
transparent, that's what this
vote is. You're saying that we
do not care about how we've
done things constitutionally.
We don't care about
transparency. We don't care
about fair districts. As the
senator from Henrico
articulated, we care about
making sure that there will be
ten Democratic seats from
Virginia next NOVEMBER. That's
what this vote is. MADAM
PRESIDENT, we will continue to
have different views on policy.
Some of us feel very strongly
that our energy prices are
higher, significantly because
of the Clean Economy Act. Some
of us feel that the tax on
employees only actually hurts
employees and puts less money
in their pockets. There are a
lot of things that we will
debate and discuss going
forward. But MADAM PRESIDENT,
this process is one that we
should not engage in because we
don't like things in Washington.
Virginians are better than this.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The day of the dead is being
celebrated by many this weekend.
We should not be celebrating
the death of our democracy here
in Virginia along with them.
>> The Senator from Hampton,
Senator Locke.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking to the resolution.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm not
going to say all of this stuff
that I had written down. I just
want to make two points. One,
let's be real and talk about
D.C. Strategy and hypocrisy.
But for two, vote swing in this
chamber and in the House of
delegates, we would still be
here in a special session
called by the governor. And
instead of receiving daily
sanctimonious missives as the
minority party on this side of
the aisle, we would be asking,
why are we in the middle of a
mid-decade effort to redistrict
in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
as dictated by the Lord of of
Pennsylvania Avenue, minus the
East Wing? And that's Lord with
a little l because be assured,
if the proverbial shoe was on
the other foot, a director from
D.C. To the governor would have
been adhered to quick, fast,
and in a hurry to undo the
constitutional amendment in
Virginia midstream. And not one
of you would be talking about
the sanctity of the bipartisan
redistricting commission, or
the needs of the voters or or
respect for the will of the
people. Instead, every effort
would be made to carve out as
many red seats as possible.
i've also heard that we are not
Texas. We are not North
Carolina, so I'm a bit baffled
by that hypocrisy to. I'm
baffled because since JANUARY,
we have been making decisions
based upon a plethora of of
eo's that have been sent down
from Washington, and they have
been incorporated into Virginia
policies, whether they made
sense or not, whether they
invalidated the Virginia code
or not. And they were sent out
to executive agencies and
institutions for those agencies
and institutions to adhere to.
21 state ags have challenged
those as unconstitutional, but
not ours. So don't talk to me
about we don't listen to what
other states do or what
Washington does, when in fact
we would be doing the exact
same thing if the shoe was on
the other foot. Thank you,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Favola, the senator
from Arlington.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise to
speak in support of the House
Joint Resolution Senator has
the floor. Thank you, MADAM
PRESIDENT. To my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle,
one of the one of the common
themes of all your remarks is
well intentioned as they might
be had this ring of fear. And I
say to you, that is not what
this resolution is about. This
is a resolution of hope and
empowerment. We should never be
afraid of giving voters another
opportunity to voice their
concerns. That's what this is.
We're not redrawing anything
today. We're not doing anything
magical. We're saying to voters,
if this goes through the
process we have laid out and
we've explained that multiple
times, should the
constitutional amendment go
before the voters, they will
have the final say. We are in
no way undermining the
principles that all of us have
stood for over time. All of us.
I just think we need to point
out that part of our democracy
is actually holding lawmakers
accountable, and part of our
role is defending Virginians.
And those are two really
important jobs that we must
embrace. We were given the
constitutional authority to
embrace, and we need to do that.
And in terms of the
accountability piece, I mean,
we have a PRESIDENT Who went
out and actually said, people
who disagree with me are my
enemy. And why don't you
Republican states go ahead and
silence those voices, silence
the voices who disagree with my
policies, even though those
policies are harmful, they're
harmful to millions of
Americans, and they're harmful
to Virginians. They're harmful.
We have to remember, the
federal government is a strong
fiscal partner. It used to be
it used to be a strong fiscal
partner with Virginia and a
number of states. Our Medicaid
expansion dollars, we're
getting 90% of the costs of
that from the federal
government, nearly 700,000
working Americans have health
insurance because the federal
government was willing to
incentivize states to
participate. Those are for
Virginians who are benefiting
from this. When we decided to
participate in Medicaid
expansion in 2016, I think when
we actually got everything
implemented, we expected about
$2 billion in economic activity
to flow through the
Commonwealth. That meant new
jobs. That meant more access to
health care, especially in our
areas that are underserved.
Many many of you across the
aisle are representing those
areas that are underserved. We
wanted to stand with you, and
we did, and we led the way so
Virginians could get health
care. But again, the federal
government was a strong fiscal
partner. I do want to say snap,
okay, we know those benefits
are paid for by the federal
government. 800,000 Virginians
receive Snap benefits, and now
they're all at risk. All of
them are food banks are just
overflowing with demand. How do
you think people feel who need
these programs to support their
families, to gain financial
security, to stand on their own,
which is what we all want,
right? Self-Reliance. We've all
had speeches on that. The
programs that are being cut by
PRESIDENT Trump and his
Republican allies are
undermining the financial
security of hundreds of
thousands of Virginians. How do
you think they feel when the
PRESIDENT Goes out and says,
people who disagree with me, I
don't want to hear about it.
People who disagree with me, I
don't want to hear their voices.
I want my policies, quote,
PRESIDENT Trump. I want them to
continue. This is all about
cutting the Social Security
safety net or the safety net.
That's what this was about.
They gave big, big tax cuts to
the ultra wealthy. But ordinary
Virginians are struggling. Why
would we not give Virginians
the opportunity after this very
measured process goes through
all the hoops that have been
laid out in our Constitution
and in our laws. Why would we
not give Virginians the
opportunity to voice their
concerns? There's no reason.
Don't be afraid. There's no
reason to not give individuals
that opportunity. None at all.
I'm not going to presuppose how
they'll vote. I don't know
what's going to happen in APRIL.
I never would have presumed
we'd be in the situation we're
in now, where the rule of law
no longer seems to be the
guiding principle, where our
Constitution is not honored by
federal lawmakers. I never
would have guessed we would be
in this situation. I have no
idea where we'll be in APRIL,
but I can tell you this the way
things are moving now, it's
important enough that
Virginians be able to weigh in
in APRIL. This is a very
measured, a very measured
policy that we would put before
them, very measured. And you
know that. So let's not be
fearful. Let's be hopeful.
Let's embrace our
responsibilities both to ensure
accountability and to fight for
our working Virginians. Let's
be proud. MADAM PRESIDENT, I
renew my motion that we support
this House joint resolution.
>> Senator Surovell, the
Senator from eastern Fairfax
County.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Speaking to the motion.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I want to hit a couple of
things just to make sure our
record is clear. Then talk
about why we need to pass this.
So first of all, I know there's
been some chatter about some 90
day rule. Got really hot a few
days ago. Senator from
Rockingham and I had a little
colloquy about that where I
think I think I made clear that
this 90 day thing in the
Constitution is dates to the
Constitution of 1870, back when
people used to go to the
courthouse on their horse on
Saturday mornings to get their
news for what's going on in the
county. In 1971, that got
eliminated. And for some reason
it was they failed to eliminate
from the code because it was
parallel language in the code.
But just for the record, it's
important to note that last
last week we had a meeting of
this entity we created called
the Code Commission. Code
Commission had a meeting to
update and codify title 30.
That's the title that relates
to the General Assembly. And
one of the things the Code
Commission did was recommended
to delete section 3013 from the
Code of Virginia. And in the
drafting note that was handed
to the Code Commission before
they unanimously, and on a
bipartisan basis, voted to
remove this code section from
the code, which I've heard many
people saying is so important
and so critical to this
drafting note says this section
is proposed for repeal
provisions in the first
paragraph. In article four,
section seven and ten of
Constitution Virginia are
redundant provisions in the
second paragraph, which I just
talked about, predate the code
of 1919 and are not reflective
of the modern constitutional
amendment process. So in other
words, they recommended to
remove it from the code because
it's not consistent with the
Constitution. In other words,
it's not constitutional. And so
when we meet in JANUARY and we
codify title 30, we're going to
be deleting that code section
from the code unless members of
the code commission and I would
note, including the minority
leader, choose to change his
vote. MADAM PRESIDENT, I'll
yield.
>> Senator from Hanover has the
floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I heard my
name used in vain, so I thought
I'd better rise for a question.
Does the gentleman. Is the
gentleman aware that the Code
Commission operates on? Well,
is gentleman aware that the
Code Commission did not take a
final vote at that meeting? And
there were a number of changes
suggested, and it was in
concept. And the return, the
final version back for review
at our next meeting.
>> Senator Surovell has the
floor now.
>> I've never served on the
code commission. Senator
Edwards always wanted it to be
his. He would never let any of
us play with his toys, so I've
never served there. But I
checked with staff. It was my
understanding from staff that
there was a unanimous vote
taken to support that
recommendation, to remove it
from the code.
>> Senator from Hanover.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, so I ask
the gentleman again. So were
you not aware that it was a in
concept and the final version
has not yet been produced to
return back to the code
Commission or and are you not
aware that there's no bill
that's actually been proposed
or introduced to be moved
forward?
>> Senator. Surovell.
>> First of all, MADAM
PRESIDENT, I yield.
>> That is correct, Senator.
>> And secondly, I'm not aware
of the specifics of the actions.
All I'm aware of is that staff
told me there was a unanimous
vote taken to support that
recommendation, which I just
stated. That's my understanding.
But I wasn't there. You were.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the
Senator yield for additional
questions?
>> Will the Senator yield? And
has everybody had been running
roughshod over the rules? I
decided to just let it be.
>> It's all good, MADAM
PRESIDENT. It's been a long
debate. I yield.
>> The Senator yields. Senator
from Hanover has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, was the
Senator aware that the then
Democratic clerk of the House
of delegates, Suzette Denslow,
on the last constitutional
amendment, sent a letter that
would comport with that code
section for which was not
presented by staff to the
members of the Code Commission
for their discussion or debate.
>> Senator from eastern Fairfax
County.
>> I've seen a letter
circulated on Twitter. I
haven't talked with MISS
Denslow to find out if she did
that or not in the brief time
she served as clerk. But I've
also heard that clerk Nadeau
says that's not something he
does, but this is all hearsay.
I've read on on the internet.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the
Senator yield for additional
question?
>> Additional question? Senator
Surovell sure. I'll yield.
Senator yields. The senator
from Hanover has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I'd ask the Senator if he is
aware of the fact that any sort
of communication of that form,
or the fact that it still was
presented in the last 40 years,
that information was not
presented at the Code
Commission in its discussion by
staff or members of the
committee prior to its last
meeting, but has been presented
since the last meeting.
>> Senator Surovell.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm not a
member of the AUGUST Code
Commission. I'm not aware of
what's been presented, what
hasn't. But I do know is that
the Constitution of Virginia
was changed to delete this
requirement and that
publication, 90 days in advance
of this election is not
constitutional mandate like it
formerly was. And therefore
anything in the code saying
that I would think is
unconstitutional.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, with
Senator yield for additional
question.
>> Additional questions.
Senator Surovell, sir. Senator
yields the Senator from Hanover.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, does the
Senator concede that this
provision has been in the Code
of Virginia at least since that
1971 constitutional revision?
>> Senator Surovell has the
floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would
agree that there have been
versions of it. It's been
recodified a couple of times as
different sort of ministerial
changes were made to it that
related to other code sections
through time, at least in my
review of the legislative
history. So some version of it,
yes.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, would,
Senator yield for additional
question?
>> Another question, Senator
Surovell. Sure. Senator yields
Senator from Hanover.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, would the
Senator agree that he's either
been in the House or Senate for
approximately 18 years now?
>> Senator Surovell.
>> No, it's been about 16 years.
Might seem like 18 years, but
it's only been 16. Okay.
>> So, MADAM PRESIDENT, with
the senator, yield for
additional questions.
>> Additional questions.
Senator Surovell. Senator
yields. Senator from Hanover.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I would ask
that in those 16 years of his
service in either the House or
Senate, has he ever introduced
legislation to remove this code
section from the Code of
Virginia that he does not now
feel should be followed by the
ministerial members of this
body or the clerks across the
Commonwealth of Virginia?
>> Senator Surovell has the
floor.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, first of
all, I'd say to the senator,
don't tempt me. I'd like to put
in lots of bills. Number one.
Number two, this would be the
perfect kind of bill I would
put in if we didn't have bill
limits. And number three, MADAM
PRESIDENT, we have the bodies
like the Code Commission to
take care of sweeping out
unnecessary code provisions
like this when they recodified
titles, which is what they've
proposed to do. So I don't
think that's necessary. And no,
I haven't put that bill in.
>> Senator from Hanover.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, maybe this
will be the final question. Ask
the Senator if he's aware of
the letter dated APRIL 9th,
2019, from a g. Paul Nadeau on
the House of delegates
letterhead, addressed to clerks
of the Circuit Court,
referencing proposed amendments
to the Constitution of Virginia
for posting. That reads, as you
MAY be aware, code section 3013
of the Code of Virginia directs
the clerk of the House of
delegates to have published all
proposed amendments to the
Constitution of Virginia in
fulfillment of that statutory
requirement. Please find below
links to the five proposed
constitutional amendments to
the Constitution of Virginia
that were agreed to by the
General Assembly. They're
listed, and at the end, he
thanks them for their
cooperation in this matter.
Were you aware that the House
clerk, Nadeau, did send a
letter to that effect? Because
I think you indicated he had
never sent one. So you're aware
of that 2019 letter?
>> There's a senator first
yield.
>> Yeah. I'll yield.
>> And does the senator wish to
respond?
>> Sure. I'll be happy to
answer again. I haven't I don't
talk to Clerk Nadeau a whole
lot anymore. Ever since I left
the other body, I run run into
him every once in a while. But
I did read, I believe, either
on Twitter and a newspaper
story or somewhere, that the
speaker spoke with Clerk Nadeau
about whether he does this
regularly, and he indicated
that he did not. So that was my
understanding of what the
public record was. I'm not
familiar with that letter.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I thank the
Senator and I hope that he'll
go back and look at that letter
from MR. Nadeau from 2019 so he
could familiarize himself with
it.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MAY I resume.
>> Senator MAY continue.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
Ladies, gentlemen. So in
addition to the this 90 day
requirement that we're in the
process of repealing right now,
that hasn't been in our
Constitution for over 54 years.
There was also some talk about
early voting. And when that
began and I while I was sitting
here, I pulled an article from
2009 written by James Alcorn in
the Richmond Public Interest
Law Review, in which MR. Alcorn
notes the history of absentee
voting in Virginia. And he said,
first of all, it dates back to
the Civil War, when the members
of the Virginia Confederate
Armed Services, absent from
their homes because of the
presence of the public enemy,
were permitted to vote absentee.
So that's when it started in
our state was in the Civil War.
Then it talks about how
absentee voting became more
widespread when we allowed
soldiers during World War One
to vote absentee, and then
other states questioned the
constitutionality of absentee
voting, but was upheld by the
Supreme Court of Virginia in
1928 1928. This has been going
on. People have been you know
what? People have been voting
before, before Election day,
since 1928, since 1864. Can you
believe that? This early voting
folks, is not a new thing? And
stop telling the voters it's a
new thing and stop pretending
like it's a new thing. It's not
new at all. It's over, what,
160 years old now? Now, MADAM
PRESIDENT, I'll make sure that
the record is clear on that.
Now, with regard to this
underlying amendment, there's
been a lot of talk today about
about how we shouldn't get all
hot and bothered by what other
states are doing about or about
what the Trump administration
is doing to our state and to
our country. I take I take
offense at that. I didn't get
elected to this body just to
focus on. The the, you know,
local curiosities of what
happens in my, my, my little
community. Remember, I
represent the homes of George
Washington and George Mason.
George Mason wrote a document
that ended up being the first
declaration of rights that was
ever adopted in the world,
ended up being parroted all
across the country. George
Washington put his butt on the
line. He put his neck on the
line. He put he was one of the
wealthiest people in America.
He put everything on the line
because of what was happening
to what was then the colony of
Virginia, and then the people
of America. And what they
decided to do was take a stand
against monarchical tyranny.
They decided to take a stand
against somebody who thought he
was a king. Our state, you all
should remember. I think
everybody does remember where
the birthplace of American
democracy, Washington,
Jefferson, Madison, Mason, they
created a republic where people
would govern themselves through
fair representation, something
called democracy representation,
meaning people who vote get to
pick their elected officials
and their elected officials
make the government. That's a
founding principle of our
country. When Patrick Henry
said, give me liberty or give
me death in this Capitol, he
meant the liberty of these
people to choose their own
government, a government that
would make decisions for them.
And not the liberty of
political parties to rig
elections through
gerrymandering, to rig the
outcome of a national election.
That isn't what Patrick Henry
stood for right down the street
at Churchill when he said that.
When Jefferson wrote,
governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the
governed, he meant actual
consent, not consent that's
manufactured artificially by
some computer programs that
decide what a body is going to
look like. When Madison
designed our system of checks
and balances, he understood no
branch should be allowed
unchecked power. Gerrymandering
has broken that system. When
Virginians adopted our
redistricting system, this
amendment not independent
commission, not bipartisan
commission, not nonpartisan
commission, but when we adopted
it in good faith. Republican
controlled states have gone the
opposite direction. California
created a commission. New York
created a commission.
Republican states did not. And
when Virginians voted for this,
they did not envision what's
happening in our country today.
Nobody did because nobody
thought it was humanly possible.
Nobody thought that the
Republican Party would just hop
in line and not even fight back
against government tyranny.
Nobody envisioned a tyrant who
would ignore our constitution,
our law, on a daily basis. No
one. I never thought I'd see
the day when a Republican
PRESIDENT Enacts by fiat.
According to the economist. We
heard from at odu, from odu, at
the Senate Finance Committee
meeting just two weeks ago, the
largest tax increase as a
percentage of gdp in the last
50 years without a vote of
Congress. That's what the
tariffs are, folks. Make no
mistake, the largest tax
increase in the last 50 years,
the percentage of gdp. I
haven't heard a peep. Not a
peep out of a single Republican
in this state. I've heard about
it from Rand Paul. I've heard
about it from a few other
people that have the courage to
speak out. And I've heard a
bunch of rural Republicans that
are upset that they can't sell
their soybeans, that Trump's
trying to sell their cattle to
Argentina right now. But I
haven't heard a single thing
out of people who purport to
represent the rural people of
this state. While tariffs ruin
the economy, the largest tax
increase. So much for the party
of Reagan. But a tax increase
like that is taxation without
representation. I never thought
I would see United States
Congress completely abdicate
their responsibility to conduct
any kind of government
oversight to the PRESIDENT.
It's gotten so bad that
PRESIDENT Trump even called
himself the speaker last week.
I never thought I'd see a
United States Supreme Court
who's completely abdicated its
responsibility to enforce our
Constitution and limit the
power of the different bodies.
A Supreme Court has thrown out
norms, centuries and centuries
of norms established by
Virginians like John Marshall
called stare decisis. Virginia
voters did not envision the
federal power grab that we see
today. They didn't imagine
Texas, Missouri, Indiana. And
by the way, a couple of hours
ago, Ohio engaging in the most
extreme Partizan gerrymandering
in American history. This is a
coordinated national strategy
to grab power. And the
fundamental problem here, the
fundamental problem that we are
giving ourselves the option to
address is the Virginia cannot
fight with one hand tied behind
its back. We joined this
country as part of the
Constitution back in 1883 by
making a deal with the other
states that we would all treat
each other a certain way. We'd
all be fair to each other. We
embraced fair redistricting
because we believe in good
government. But what we did
this, the Republicans doubled
down on gerrymandering. The
result? Democrats might be able
to win more votes nationwide,
but still be locked out of
Congress for a decade, even
though winning election after
election after election after
election nationwide by more
votes. That's not democracy.
It's not what we signed up for,
and it's not sustainable. We
have an election coming up in
2026. Those 2026 midterms are
going to be a referendum, a
referendum on our nation's
direction. But you know what?
If gerrymandering has already
decided the outcome? The
people's voice is going to be
silenced. That's not democracy.
The constitutional remedy for
administration that goes off
its track is congressional
oversight. But that remedy is
meaningless if gerrymandering
makes it mathematically
impossible for people, for the
opposition, to actually win an
election. We're not arguing
that Democrats deserve to
control Congress, but we are
arguing that voters should
decide who controls Congress.
Gerrymandering is preventing
that. Now, I want to make clear
our founders were not native.
They were not naive idealists.
They understood power.
Washington didn't defeat the
British by refusing to fight.
Jefferson didn't expand
democracy by deferring to his
opponents. Madison didn't
protect our Constitution by
allowing enemies to subvert it.
John Marshall didn't empower
the Supreme Court by sticking
his head in the sand. Patrick
Henry, you know, he also didn't
say, you know, the king of
England. That's some guy across
the ocean. He's not here in
Virginia. We don't need to
worry about some of the
arguments I've heard today. You
didn't hear Virginians saying,
well, the Tea Party is just
some little Massachusetts thing,
not part of the fight here in
Virginia. Maybe there were some
that said it. They ended up
leaving the state after the
revolution. We faced a hard
choice today, maintaining our
commitment to fair
redistricting while watching
Republicans gerrymander their
way into permanent power. Or we
need to acknowledge that when
only one side plays by the
rules, the rules become
unilateral disarmament. Now,
some people might call this a
power grab. I've heard that
called a couple of times today.
That's not what it is. This is
about whether our democratic
system will function as
intended, whether our voters
will have a meaningful choice,
whether Congress can check
executive power, whether
gerrymandering has rendered
that function impossible. I
would prefer a federal law
banning Partizan gerrymandering
nationwide. I would support
that constitutional amendment
in a heartbeat. The us Supreme
Court had a chance to do it
when they could have adopted
the vote waste theory in the
Wisconsin case, it was there a
few years ago. They chose to
punt. Look what's happened. But
absent those solutions, we
can't allow certain Partizan
tyrannical majority to continue
to gerrymander itself into
permanent power while we sit
around inside our commitment to
principle. Virginia's role as
the birthplace of democracy
gives us a special
responsibility not to stand by
idly while democracy is
dismantled. But it's our job as
the leading colony in the state
that created our country to
defend it with every tool at
our disposal. That is what we
are called to do. And that's
why this body was created. By
the way, if you go back and
look at the history books, the
Senate didn't even exist until
1776. So we're not asking for
immediate action. We're we're
just asking for a serious
conversation about whether our
current approach is sustainable
to American democracy. We need
to study the impact in other
states of gerrymandering. We
need to study different
scenarios. We need to engage
the public. We should have a
debate. I welcome the debate.
Let's have a debate over the
next three months. Let's have a
debate over the next six months.
Let's have it. I'm sure we're
going to hear it again in
JANUARY. We need to make sure
that Virginia is not
permanently disadvantaged in
the fight for congressional
control. MADAM PRESIDENT, what
do you do when one side refuses
to play by the rules? Do you
maintain your principles and
accept defeat, or do you
recognize that preserving
democracy, sometimes requiring
tools you find distasteful to
prevent permanent entrenchment
of minority rule? We owe it to
our constituents to have this
conversation. We owe it to
democracy to consider all the
options. We owe it to our
future generations to ensure
that people, not the mapmakers,
pick their representatives and
decide who's in control of the
federal government. The 2026
elections are coming. The
American people are going to go
to the polls expecting their
votes to actually count. But if
gerrymandering is already
decided, their outcome in Texas,
Missouri, Florida, Ohio,
Indiana. North Carolina, those
votes are going to be
meaningless. Our Virginia votes
are going to be meaningless. So
we honor Virginia's founders
today by not clinging to
principle while losing power,
but by understanding, as they
did, that the preservation of
democratic government sometimes
requires us to match the
tactics of those who would
destroy it. This amendment, if
we choose to present it to
voters next spring, will give
Virginians the ability to
return to the forefront of
protecting American democracy,
and I'm proud to support it. I
would hope we'd vote yes.
>> The question is. Shall House
Joint Resolution 6007 be agreed
to? Those in favor of that
motion will record their votes.
Aye. Those opposed? No. Are the
senators ready to vote? Of all
the senators voted, does any
Senator desire to change their
vote? The clerk will close the
roll.
>> Ayes 21. No 16.
>> Ayes 21. No 16. The
resolution is agreed to.
>> Memorial resolution.
>> The Senator from Prince
Edward. For what purpose does
the Senator from Hampton Rise?
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, prior to
taking up Senate Resolution 704,
I have a motion.
>> The Senator MAY stated.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, prior
review of resolutions related
to normally
come before the Committee on
Rules. So therefore I ask I
move that Senate Resolution 704
be submitted to the Committee
on Rules.
>> Without objection, Senate
resolution 704 is remanded to
the Committee on Rules. Senator
Surovell. Calendar completion.
>> And query the clerk that
complete today's calendar.
>> No, sir. I'm just kidding.
>> Okay.
>> Yes, sir. It does.
>> Thank you. And thanks for
lunch today. And breakfast.
>> MADAM Speaker. MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Senator from Mecklenburg.
Senator Mulkey.
>> Can I have a point of
personal privilege?
>> Senator MAY stated.
>> Since I was supposed to be
with a victim of domestic
violence today at court, I'm
going to take a few minutes to
speak on the behalf of domestic
violence victims. And I know
that we all want to get home,
including myself. But today is
the last day of Domestic
Violence Awareness Month, and
as we have been here this week,
a lot has been said about
political violence and how we
condemn that. And there's a lot
of passion about that subject
and as it should be. But. The
very the gentleman from, I
believe, Prince George, King
George, King George gave a very
passionate account of a story
when his family was, was.
Singled out, a threat to his
family, his wife, his children,
child, children and himself.
Their life was threatened and
how life changing that was and
how they would never forget
about that. And he asked a
question, I think he said, can
you imagine how that felt? And
I sit here and I said, yes, I
can. How about every day for 30
years, every day? And it made
me think even further that what
if that threat was in your very
own home? And what if that
threat came from the very
person that you were supposed
to go to and say, protect me
from this threat, protect me
from this person, that's going
to hurt me? What if that threat
came from the very person that
said, they're going to love and
protect you for the rest of
your life? And what if that
threat came from the person
that should help you find
somewhere safe to go and stay
so that you wouldn't get hurt?
That's what victims that I help
every day deal with in my
nonprofit. And today I was
supposed to be at court with
one holding their hand because
the courts are not friendly to
victims. And so in the United
States, around 24 people per
minute are victims of physical
violence, rape and stalking by
an intimate partner. 1 in 3
women and 1 in 10 men
experience some form of
physical violence by a partner
in their lifetime. 85% of
domestic violence victims are
women. Every day, nearly three
three women are killed by an
intimate partner. A woman
experiences physical abuse
every nine seconds. Only 1 in 5
domestic violence victims with
physical injuries seeks
treatment. But the sad
statistic is that most domestic
violence incidents are never
reported, including mine. In 30
years. Never once, never once
did I call 911. Never once did
I tell my parents. Never once
did I tell anyone. The question.
You always hear. Why didn't you
leave? Why didn't you just walk
out the door? I mean, I was a
successful business person. My
husband and I, we owned a
business together. Very
successful. The reasons we
don't leave, we fear our
abusers. Violent behavior will
escalate. We fear the threats
that we'll be killed. We fear
that we'll have no financial
ability to take care of
ourselves. There's nowhere to
go. We believe that our
religious beliefs do not look
favorably upon divorce. We want
our children to have two
parents, and the list goes on
and on. It makes me think of a
story. We had a vigil last week.
Of the lady that we honored,
Jackie and Jackie. She was an
older lady, an elderly lady,
and Jackie had also never
called 911 because all of her
abuse was mental and emotional.
And Jackie had decided for her
was also 30 years, and she had
just had enough and she could
not take another day. And so
Jackie made a plan. She found a
place that she could rent, and
she told her daughter, I'm
leaving, I'm going to leave him.
I'm finally going to leave him.
And and that she had planned
when he wouldn't be there, that
she was going to leave. And
Jackie had her suitcase packed,
and he was a fine, upstanding
gentleman. He ran a homeless
shelter, and everybody thought
he was the greatest guy on
earth. The the conditions to
stay in his homeless shelter
was you had to go to church
with him, and you had to be
drug free. And everybody loved
him, including myself. And the
day Jackie had her suitcase
packed and was going out the
door, and she was on the phone
with her daughter, he happened
to come back home and he picked
up his gun and he killed her
because that's what's happened.
And that's why we don't leave.
We know the real threat is when
we leave. That's when we get
killed, is after we leave or
when we're leaving, and when we
try to walk out that door. And
that's why we don't leave. And
so I just want you to listen
and hear. I know y'all don't
want to hear about this subject.
It's not a popular subject to
talk about. It's not a fun
subject. Nobody wants to hear
about it. But I want you on
this month of awareness to hear
it and to know. And I know that
I think it's one fourth of this
body's is attorneys. And and I
want you to know that the
courtroom is another place that
victims of abuse get
revictimized, because family
courts are not friendly to
victims, because people don't
understand that most victims of
domestic abuse end up with a
mental illness because of their
abuse, and they're often often
referred to as crazy. And
probably by the time they get
to a courtroom, they are crazy.
Many of them suffer from
anxiety, depression. For myself,
I have ptsd. I was even not
granted a renewal of the fourth
time of a protective order
since I left 11 years ago,
because I took three ptsd drugs,
and the judge decided that I
was a drug addict. So if you
are an attorney, I would beg of
you to learn about narcissistic
behaviors, about coercion,
about how manipulative,
manipulative you know what I'm
saying? That abusers can be and
how they present themselves and
how they use children as
possessions not because they
want them, but because that is
the best and easiest way to
hurt a mother. And these roles
can be reversed as well. And
when you're vetting judges, oh
my GOD, please, if they're
going to be in the juvenile
courts, don't just get your
best friends buddy. Make sure
they know. The job they're
going to be doing and how they
serve, how they how they. This
is people's lives. These are
children's lives. These are
women's lives. It's probably
the biggest disappointment I
had when I came here to the
General Assembly is how the
judicial process works. I
thought I was coming up here
with my 50 questions about what
how you're going to serve in
the courtroom. And I found out
it's just who knows who and
what party you're with. So
disappointing. And since my
notes are everywhere because
I've just been writing them
down everywhere I go this week,
I gotta find my final thing I
have to say about this. No, I
don't think the government can
fix this problem. No, I
definitely don't. I don't think
the government can fix any
problem. I mean, just look at
what we've done this week. But
I hope and pray that Virginia
can set an example for the rest
of the country in its support
for advocacy, not only for
intervention of victims, but
also for prevention and helping
young people learn a different
way of life that they MAY be
learning in their own homes so
that we can stop this vicious
cycle. I also hope that
Virginia can set an example by
being the state that gets it
right in our courtrooms, and
where victims are protected and
children are not allowed to use
be used as property. And that
they don't end up with a parent
that is the abuser. Thank you.
>> Senator Hashmi, the senator
from Richmond City.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise for a point of personal
privilege.
>> The senator has the floor.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
First, I just want to thank our
colleague for her words, her
personal testimony, and I hope
that she knows how deeply
moving her testimony has been
and that she is fully supported
by members of this body. Thank
you for sharing, MADAM
PRESIDENT. I rise also to thank
our colleagues who have
sacrificed a week of their
their lives, their professional
and personal personal lives to
join us today, this whole week,
to work hard to respond to the
urgency of the moment at hand.
I want to highlight that the
work that we've been engaged in
this week is to strengthen, not
to dilute. As many have argued,
Virginia's redistricting
process. It is about the people,
and it is about honesty.
Honesty about what is happening
all across this nation. Honesty
about the crisis points that we
are facing, honesty about the
intentional damage that is
being inflicted on the various
communities that we represent,
our farmers, our veterans, our
rural families, seniors,
immigrants, lgbtq family and
friends, children in poverty,
and so many more. We must
remind ourselves that yes, we
are Virginians, and critically
as well, we are Americans.
America is in crisis, and
Virginia has the opportunity to
respond in this most
precipitous moment. This is a
moment that we must meet with
urgency, and it is incumbent on
us to act. It is incumbent on
us to answer the calls of
Virginians in every corner of
the Commonwealth, who have made
one message loud and clear.
They are angry at the direction
of this country. Across our
country, we're witnessing a
crisis of faith in our
democracy and a crisis in
democracy itself. The refusal
to accept the results of the
2020 election engendered the
violence of the insurrection of
JANUARY 6th, 2021. And while
that tragic moment and the
horrific images of people
storming our us Capitol
continue to resonate powerfully
in our minds, that tragedy has
been compounded even further
over the subsequent years.
Since 2020, we've seen
amplified efforts to discredit
the lawful results of elections,
to consolidate political power
and to rewrite the basic rules
of fair and equal participation.
Statehouses across the nation,
from Florida to Texas to Ohio,
have taken up revisionist
history, along with the
redrawing of maps and the
writing of laws in order to
prioritize party and politics
over the people. These are not
isolated incidents, nor are
they happening in a vacuum.
There is a clear and direct
line from the centuries of
dispossession,
disenfranchisement and
dehumanization of black and
brown people. There is a clear
line to what is happening today.
There is also a clear and
direct line from Jim Crow, from
segregation and redlining to to
what we are seeing today. These
are not and I would like to
remind us about the words of
Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine,
whose words helped to give
birth to American liberty. He
warned us long ago, the right
of voting is the primary right
by which all other rights are
protected. And when that right
is manipulated or subverted,
when lines are drawn in ways
that suppress voters, every
other right is undermined. The
right to vote and the right to
fair representation are
foundational. Our foundational
to the right to economic
justice, the right to social
justice, the right to civic
engagement. And so when we
fight for fair representation,
we are actually fighting for
better wages. We are protecting
health care and health care
access. We are responding to
the dismantling of public
education. This effort is not
just about protecting
representation. It is quite
literally about access, equity
and justice. If we in Virginia
fail to act, we risk the we
risk following the same path
that we have seen elsewhere, a
path that replaces trust with
cynicism, and where voters
believe that the outcome is
rigged even before the first
ballot is cast. That is how
democracies falter, not with
one tragic, magnificent
collapse, but with the steady
erosion, the steady erosion of
fair representation, one
district at a time, not with a
bang, but with a whimper. As
the poet T.S. Eliot warned,
Thomas Paine also reminded us
those who expect to reap the
blessings of freedom must
undergo the fatigue of
supporting it. And this moment
right here, right now, is our
collective fatigue. It is the
hard work of protecting
democracy from the slow decay
of vile self-interest,
contemptuous disregard for the
rule of law, and the
debilitating destruction of
demagoguery. So we have been
called upon to act with courage
and conviction, and some have
asked, why now? Why the urgency?
Some have accused us on this
side of the aisle of playing
craven political theater. And
as we all know, the theatrics
does have a certain role to
play in politics. However, the
serious nature of this moment
is far beyond theatrics, and it
is also well beyond the
hysterics of hypocrisy.
Virginia is among the states
that have felt the immediate
and immense economic pain from
the chaos of the Trump
administration. We know that he
is eroding the rule of law and
his relentless pursuit of power.
We know that we must face the
moment with urgency, rather
than sit on the sidelines as we
watch our democracy be stripped
away in ways that will take
generations to repair. All
across Virginia, tens of
thousands of our constituents
have marched, they have rallied.
They have called upon us to act,
to take a stance, to respond to
the chaos and destruction of
Trump's Washington with more
than just empty words. And this
week, we did just that. And
Virginians are proud. So today
is the first step in an
endeavor to stand up against
the unlawful power grabs and
return power back to the people
of Virginia. It is through our
actions today that we MAY give
Virginians a voice in deciding
the future of America. Madam
president, I conclude my
comments with a reminder of
what Abraham Lincoln urged of
us, his fellow citizens in 1862,
that in moments of grave crisis,
moments of historic urgency, we
are called to act boldly and
with full determination. It is
Lincoln who said the dogmas of
the quiet past are inadequate
to the stormy present. The
occasion is piled high with
difficulty, and we must rise
with that occasion. As our case
is new, we must think anew and
act anew. We must disenthrall
ourselves, and then we will
save our country. MADAM
PRESIDENT, we have just taken
our first steps in disenthrall
ourselves from the dogmas of
that quiet past. Thank you,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator ciphers. The Senator
from Prince Edward.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise for
a point of personal privilege.
>> The Senator MAY continue.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. I'm. I'm
disappointed that that we were
not able to hear a resolution
today that didn't require
anyone to agree with all of the
views of of Charlie Kirk, but
rather to agree that one of the
most fundamental principles and
values that we share as
Americans is the idea that we
should be able to speak our
minds in open debate, and that
we, when we come together in
open debate and speak our minds
clearly and respectfully, that
we avoid, as Charlie Kirk said
many times, really bad things
from happening. I don't think
there's any I don't think
there's any doubt, MADAM
PRESIDENT, that our country has
become more and more and more
divided, that it has become
more and more and more partizan.
And based on the the things
that are going on this week,
that we are resorting to more
and more and more extreme ways
of dealing with that. But,
MADAM PRESIDENT, we are in a
period here where political
violence has become a repeating
theme. And if there's a body of
members in the United States of
America that should be able to
stand up and say that above all
else, we believe in respectful
debate. We believe that we can
duke it out on the floor, but
be kind to each other in the in
the hallways of the General
Assembly or on the streets of
America, that we would be able
to set the example that
regardless of political
divisions, everyone in America
should enjoy that same
privilege and should practice
practice those same principles.
So, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'm deeply
disappointed. But my hope is
that as we move forward in this
body and in this country, that
we can find ways to rise above
these differences, that we can
agree to universally condemn
political violence, and that we
can seek to come together on
the things that we can agree on
without this, this absolute
stone wall, when it comes to
things that we don't. At the
very least, MADAM PRESIDENT, my
hope is that we can hear each
other out and that we can be
heard out without the fear of
of violent retribution. Thank
you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Saleem, the senator
from central Fairfax County.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I rise on
the point of personal privilege.
>> The Senator MAY say on.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
As a Virginian, as a public
servant and as a muslim, when I
ran for office, I believe that
serving your community is one
of the highest form of
gratitude. But lately, we have
seen a troubling rise in
Islamophobia across our nations.
And even here in Virginia,
Muslim candidates and public
servants have been harassed,
called, foreign, or treated as
their faith, treated as though
their faith makes them less
American. This is wrong. This
is un-American. This is
dangerous. We're also seeing
national leaders, including
PRESIDENT Trump and his
administration, use rhetoric
that demonizes Muslim public
figures or candidates,
portraying them as a threat to
this nation. This kind of fear
mongering does not unite us. It
divides us. It undermines the
value that makes America strong.
Our founders understood
something profound. Freedom of
religion isn't just about
worship, it's about dignity.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the
Virginia Statute for religious
freedom right here in our
Commonwealth, because he knew
government has no place
deciding who belongs based on
their faith. That principle is
being tested again. But the
answer cannot be silence. It
has to be solidarity. When we
see Islamophobia, anti-Semitism,
or any act of hate, we must say
clearly this is not Virginia,
this is not America. My faith
teaches me compassion,
perseverance, and standing here
as a muslim Virginian, I am a
proof that our democracy still
has room for hope. So I hope we
can ensure that no child in
Virginia grows up thinking that
their faith is a barrier to
leadership. And I also hope
that we all support in building
a commonwealth where our
diversity is not our weakness,
but our greatest strength.
Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Locke, the Senator
from Hampton.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise on a point of personal
privilege.
>> Senator.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, this week,
each day we received a
political communication from
the governor. These missives
chastised Democrats as though
we were children and not an
independent branch of
government, quite capable of
making decisions and policy
choices independent of his
office. I would like to address
a couple of things he has
chosen to focus on in these
unwarranted missives. First,
the government shutdown is not
the fault of Democrats. Last
time I checked, there's a
trifecta in D.C. Executive,
legislative, and judicial. They
control everything. The problem
they have is an inability to
govern. They and he believe
that if they say it enough and
repeat it enough, everyone will
believe it. Well, people losing
their jobs did not start with
the government shutdown. Media
blackouts did not start with
the government shutdown. All
the cuts and slaps at health
care, education, housing and
disruptions to communities did
not start with the government
shutdown. The government
shutdown has exacerbated a
gaping wound caused by an
administration that does not
care about people. Only
unchecked power grabs. Second,
while I find it admirable that
the governor now cares about
food insecurity and has issued
a state of emergency relative
to Snap, why not ask those who
chose to cut funds out of the
program in hb one in the first
place? To think about those in
need? Further, the governor has
issued a total of 438 vetoes
over three and a half years. Of
the 438 vetoes, 111 were bills
that put Virginians first.
Those bills addressed housing,
health care, economic security,
and voting rights. For someone
who claims to care about the
concerns of Virginians, is
telling that a quarter of his
vetoes have blocked the very
issues he claims he wants to
fix. The math just ain't math.
Finally, I want to address the
attacks that have been levied
against us regarding political
violence. I would like to know
how we're defining it. There's
absolutely no one on this side
of the aisle who does not
oppose political violence in
any form that it takes. I knew
Speaker Melissa Hortman. And
was not only horrified by what
happened to her and her husband
and Senator John Hoffman, but
was completely appalled by the
response of PRESIDENT Trump
that he was not even familiar
with her murder and would have
lowered the flags had Governor
Wallace asked him to. Why did
the governor have to ask him to?
It seems that there are double
standards when it comes to
political violence. Utterances
regarding political violence.
Let us not clutch our
moralistic pearls and point
fingers. If we're not
condemning the actions of any
and all acts that occur. Spare
me the selective compassion and
sympathy and strategic
indifference. Is it political
violence to enslave people
against their will, yet refuse
to even support a resolution
acknowledging the same? Is it
political violence to lynch
people for whatever unnamed sin,
yet not support a resolution
acknowledging the same? Again,
spare me the selective
compassion. I would like to end.
With a story shared with me by
one of my former students.
She's a brilliant young woman
who just recently graduated
from uva Law School. After
graduating from Hampton, she
took a job on Capitol Hill that
that evolved from her time as a
fellow with the Congressional
Black Caucus. That job was in
the office of the House
Majority Whip, Congressman Jim
Clyburn. His office was
directly across from Speaker
Nancy Pelosi. She was at work
on JANUARY 6th, 2021. On that
day, when the Capitol was
stormed by insurrectionists,
she and other staffers had to
barricade themselves inside
Congressman Clyburn's office.
She heard people coming up the
stairs and pounding on the
congressman's door. She told me
that they had to push against
that door to keep people from
breaking into the congressman's
office, calling from for Jim.
They heard people going over to
Speaker Pelosi's office yelling,
Where is Nancy? And breaking
into the speaker's office? She
and the staffers managed to
keep that door closed. But
afterwards. She said that even
though they survived that day,
even though they didn't think
that they would, they had to
undergo months of therapy, and
many of them still do.
Political violence comes in all
forms and affects all of us in
many ways. I have relinquished
my state license plates. And
upgraded my home security
because of it. So don't point a
finger at me because three
would be pointing back at you.
Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> Senator Peake, the senator
from Lynchburg. Thank you.
>> Thank you, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I rise to a point of personal
privilege.
>> Senator has the floor.
>> And I'm going to hearken
back to some of the priors,
points of personal privilege.
It appears here we are on
OCTOBER 31st, four days before
a statewide election. And I
swear, I believe that one of
our members might be running
for statewide office based on
the prior point of personal
privilege. And the name of
Abraham Lincoln was brought
into play. And the plight of
our black and brown citizens
was brought into play. Thank
goodness, in this very body, a
member of the party of Lincoln
sits above us all. An immigrant
from Jamaica, elected to
statewide office, sits above us
all. That is what we stand for
in the Republican Party. Oh,
that's who we nominated to be
the next governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. We do
have an election coming up. And
so at this time, I had not
anticipated, I honestly had not
planned on imposing on y'all's
time the week of this last week
of OCTOBER. But here we are,
MADAM PRESIDENT, thank you for
the past four years where you
have led this chamber with
grace, dignity and excellence.
Thank you for your service to
the Commonwealth as the
PRESIDENT Of this body. And in
four days, I can't wait to have
you elected as the next
governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Thank you, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Is there any other business
to come before the Senate?
Hearing? None. The clerk will
report any announcements on the
desk.
>> There are no announcements,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> The Senator from Portsmouth.
Senator Lucas.
>> Good afternoon, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
>> Good afternoon.
>> MADAM PRESIDENT. I move that
the Senate do now recess
pursuant to Hjr 6001 until
reconvened with at least 48
hours notice by the call of the
chair of Senate Committee on
Rules.
>> The question is, shall the
Senate recess, pursuant to
House Joint Resolution 6001,
until reconvened with at least
48 hours notice, by the call of
the chair of the Senate
Committee on Rules. All in
favor of that motion will say
aye. Those opposed? No. The
ayes have it. The motion is
agreed to. The Senate stands in