Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, May 17, 1993 TAG: 9305170266
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
How else can you explain why a bill - aimed at cracking down on drunken drivers - was passed by the General Assembly, signed by Gov. Wilder, but still won't become law?
Let's see now. If we've got it straight, the bill signed two weeks ago by the governor was no good. It read exactly as it did when originally passed by the legislature. But it had been invalidated because Wilder didn't sign it in the 30 days it was on his desk after the assembly session ended in February.
He didn't sign it because he wanted the assembly to approve 10 technical amendments at its so-called veto session last month. He returned it to the legislature. Lawmakers approved four of his amendments. He said, nope, 10 or none - and because you didn't approve 10, I'm signing the bill with none.
They said, nope, we now "own" the bill with none and you can't have it back. You've got to sign the bill with four amendments.
He said "in your face," ordered a Xerox copy of the original bill and signed that. They said, your signature on this piece of paper is worthless.
He said potato, they said potahto, he said tomato, they said tomahto, let's call the whole thing off.
So it's a dead issue - killed by what Wilder says was his unplanned, unintended veto - unless one side or the other decides to sue, and a judge brings the measure back to life.
This is the latest set-to in a two-year-long dispute between Wilder and the legislature over a foggy constitutional question as to "severability" of the governor's proposed amendments to bills.
Actually, it's just the usual kids in a sandbox: the executive branch and the legislative branch, each determined to have its own way - no matter how arcane or irrelevant to the public the cause of the dispute.
What's not irrelevant to the public is that the doomed bill might have saved hundreds of lives.
It was a booze-it-lose-it bill, long pushed by former Attorney General Mary Sue Terry and others, which essentially would have brought on-the-spot suspension of the driving licenses for anyone stopped by police for driving under the influence.
The concept - swift and certain punishment - has proved one of the most effective that states can employ to reduce the carnage caused by drunken drivers. Thirty states have such laws.
Yet the concept seems star-crossed in Virginia.
At Terry's urging, a booze-it-lose-it bill was passed with sizable majorities in both the House and Senate at the 1992 assembly. Before it could be sent to the governor, it fell victim to political machinations that often mark an assembly's final hours.
Some Republican lawmakers made no secret of it: They were determined to deny Terry - now the Democratic nominee for governor - a legislative victory.
Could an anti-Terry motive have figured into the latest defeat for the bill? Who knows? It's all insider politics.
Wilder professes to favor booze-it-lose-it legislation. He blames the assembly for the screw-up. Lawmakers, in turn, blame Wilder.
The public should blame both.
by CNB