Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 8, 1994 TAG: 9402100001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In the 218 years since firebrand revolutionary Patrick Henry became the first (enfeebled) governor of the newly independent commonwealth, Virginia's chief executive has, to be sure, accumulated enviable constitutional and statutory authority:
To hold the purse strings of what is now a $32 billion biennial budget. To push levers controlling colossal government machinery. To appoint thousands to boards and commissions. To veto legislation with little fear of overrides.
Virginia's CEO even enjoys budget line-item veto authority, a prerogative denied U.S. presidents. In relation to the powers possessed by other states' executives, Virginia's ranks as one of the Big Enchiladas.
Except in one important regard: His job can last only four years. Constitutionally ineligible to run for a successive term, Virginia governors are lame ducks from the day they're inaugurated.
Legislators, meanwhile, with no limits on the number of terms they can serve, may rise through the General Assembly's insider ranks to gain power that rivals the governor's.
This is no brief for upending checks and balances on executive-branch authority. But legislators' fear of executive power - rooted in Patrick Henry's time - is off base today. So, too, are other arguments defending the governor's short lease on the office.
Which is why Virginia's constitution should be amended - to give future governors the opportunity to seek immediate re-election for a second four-year term, and, more important, to give voters the opportunity to re-elect a governor if they so choose.
Under the current setup, the outgoing governor draws up the budget plan that will guide the state for two years after he leaves office. The new governor can propose amendments, but mostly all he can do is tinker around the edges. He gets no chance to fashion his own budget until halfway through his term. By then, he may have lost momentum to push through his program, in part because political focus has already shifted to speculation about possible successors.
Sure, the old system has produced good governors. But progress can be stymied by arbitrary, forced eviction of outstanding executives. Four years in many cases isn't enough to fully develop and implement constructive change. And the impact of major initiatives, such as Gov. Allen's plan to abolish parole, often can't be felt until after a one-term governor has left.
Well, goes the argument, doesn't a one-term limit ensure that a governor's performance will be more purely statesmanlike, above the fray of partisanship, not driven by personal political ambitions?
Get real. The last governor, Democrat Douglas Wilder, did serious damage to his administration by launching a campaign for president less than halfway into his term. He spent much of the second half positioning himself for a possible race for the U.S. Senate. Republican Gov. George Allen - less than one month in office - already is being touted as a potential vice-presidential candidate in 1996.
A one-term limit does not insulate a governor from political considerations, nor should it. This f+iiso a political office. Possibility of re-election is one form of accountability.
What the one-term limit does do is deny voters an option on the ballot. It constricts their political choice, denying them the right to keep in office a governor they want to stay the course.
Virginia is one of only three states still clinging to the outdated notion that a four-year term limit for governors serves the public interest. It doesn't. Lawmakers should start the two-year procedure that will allow Virginia voters to ratify a constitutional amendment making second terms possible.
Wednesday: Make voting easier.
by CNB