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 4 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
approved by the voters in a statewide referendum in the general election following the second session.
Thus the second session acting on this resolution would have to follow the next House of Delegates elections, which will not take place until 1985. Assuming it clears its first legislative hurdle and the 1986 Legislature approves it, it will be on the ballot for popular approval or rejection in November of that year. It should be noted that Robb leaves office in January 1986, and since the amendment would not apply to the governor in whose term it is enacted, the first chief executive who might take advantage of the change would be the governor who is elected in 1989 and who takes office in 1990. Thus, the first governor who might run for re-election could not do so until the campaign of 1993, almost a full decade hence.
As a matter of historical interest, only two governors have served more than one term since the state began choosing its chief executives by popular vote. This was an innovation incorporated in the historic Constitution of 1851, which also set the term at four years. Earlier constitutions required that the governor be elected by the General Assembly, and the Constitution of 1830 fixed his term of office at three years.
The first two-term governor was William “Extra Billy” Smith, who was elected by the legislature in 1845 for a three-year-term, and again in 1863 for four years, this time by popular vote. Thus Smith guided the Old Dominion through both the Mexican War in his first term, and presided over her surrender at the end of the Civil War. He actually completed only about 15 months of his second term before the war ended.
The second repeat governor, of course, was Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. who served as a Democrat from 1966-70 and as a Republican from 1974-78.
When the present Constitution of the state was in the process of being drafted in the late 1960s, there was considerable legislative sentiment in both Houses for the two-term provision. The more conservative view prevailed, however, and in the end the new document retained the traditional single-term restriction.
Since then amendment efforts to affect the change have surfaced on several occasions, none of them successful.
This time around the proposal has strong bipartisan support, especially in the Senate. However, it also has strong opposition.
Senate Majority Leader Hunter Andrews of Hampton favors it. Andrews is one of the most powerful and respected members of the upper house, and he believes a single term does not give a governor sufficient time to formulate and implement his program.
House Speaker A.L. Philpott of Henry takes a contrary view. He fears that two terms would allow an individual political machine to become too entrenched and difficult to dislodge. In what appeared to be a somewhat surprising reference to the old Byrd Organization, Philpott said last week, “We’ve been through that one time. We don’t want it to happen again. I’ll do everything I can to kill (the Holland resolution) in the House.” Earlier in his career, Philpott had been considered a Byrd organization stalwart. He is still a man of strong conversative conviction.
Dr. Timothy Sullivan, a top Robb aide and professor at the Marshall Wythe School of Law, agrees with Andrews. “It seems to me,” he said, “that the people of the Commonwealth are the losers when they don’t even have the option, in a competitive two-party state, to continue policies which have only been barely begun by a governor. I think it’s time we should think very seriously about giving them that option.”
Holland believes a governor's effectiveness is dimished by the single-term restriction.
“As soon as a Virginia governor is elected under the present system,” he said, “that governor becomes a lame duck.”
The Holland resolution clearly has a rocky legislative road ahead of it, but more and more states aie adopting versions of the two-term concept. Indeed, the idea may be picking up steam in Virginia.
A growing number of lawmakers and political observers agree, with Andrews and Sullivan, that Holland has a point.
Besides, no one can say that a 10-year lapse between the initiation of an idea and taking action on that idea isn’t the conservative approach to change.
And in Virginia, that’s important.
88.7%