Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 7 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
By GEORGE BOWLES
When Virginia’s voters go into the polling booths Nov. 2. some may be surprised to find they have more to do than choose a new U.S. senator, a congressman from their district, and a member of the House of Delegates. Also on the ballot will be three questions relating to proposed amendments to the state constitution. These changes in the Commonwealth’s charter have already been approved by the required two sessions of the General Assembly. On Election Day they will be placed before the voters in a statewise referendum—the last step before they become a part of the state’s organic law. If approved by the voters, they will become effective Jan. 1. Two of the measures are relatively non-controversial. The first would allow the General Assembly to establish new procedures for restoring voting rights to felons who have served their time. At present this can be done only by the governor. The second would delete the requirement that registrars record the marital status and the occupations of those registering to vote. It adds the requirement that prior legal names of the registrants be recorded.
Complicated Question
But the third question is more complicated, and debate on whether or not it should be passed will likely stir considerable interest in the weeks ahead.
It will appear on the ballot as follows:
“Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize the General Assembly to limit the introduction of legislation in the odd-year short session?” Yes or no.
On its face, the idea looks like a good one. Any move to stem the tide of bills flowing into the legislative hopper would appear more than welcome.
But critics of the amendment raise some valid points, beginning with the manner in which the limitation would be implemented.
The amendment would require, at the beginning of each odd-year 30-day session, the assembly adopt a resolution setting forth the types of legislation it will deal with during that session. The question immediately arises as to how agreement on such a resolution can be reached without hamstringing the lawmakers and compromising their responsibility to represent t!?eu concerns of their constitutents.
In other words, as cumbersome as the present, system amittedly is, is it wise to say to a senator or delegate that he can't
86.4%