Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 30, 1994 TAG: 9412240006
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: G6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
QUESTION: Shall the constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize the General Assembly to reopen and extend the statutory time period for bringing civil lawsuits which involve intentional injuries to minors.
What this would do: This amendment would allow the General Assembly to change the amount of time victims of child abuse have to file suit against their abusers.
Existing law gives victims in cases involving intentional injuries to children two years from the date the injury occurred up to their 20th birthday to file suit.
After many victims testified they may not remember abuse or understand how it has affected them until they are older, the General Assembly revised the law. In 1991, it extended the statute of limitations in child abuse cases up to age 28. This new time limit was to apply to past and future cases of abuse.
But in 1992, the state Supreme Court ruled that the segment of the law dealing with past cases of abuse was unconstitutional. So, the statute of limitations reverted to its original time period - up to age 20.
If the proposed amendment passes, it would give the General Assembly the constitutional grounds it needs to re-pass the 1991 law.
Who's pushing this: Coalition for Amendment #1, of which state Sen. Joseph Gartlan, D-Fairfax County, and state Sen. Mark Earley, R-Chesapeake, are the honorary chairmen. Other backers include the Medical Society of Virginia, the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, the Virginia Nurses' Association, the Psychiatric Society of Virginia, the Mental Health Association of Virginia and the National Organization for Women.
Who's against this: No organized opposition so far.
QUESTION: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to revise voter registration provisions, including two changes that will (1) delete the requirement that you must apply in person to register and allow registration by mail and (2) eliminate the requirement for canceling your registration if you have not voted in four years?
What this would do: This amendment would bring state law into alignment with new federal laws and prevent the need for Virginia to keep two separate sets of voter lists.
The state constitution currently does not allow people to register to vote by mail. However, a new federal law requires states to allow voters to register by mail for federal elections. Those registered-by-mail voters would be eligible to vote in presidential and congressional elections, but, under current Virginia law, not state and local elections.
Also, Virginia's constitution currently requires that registrars purge their voter lists of all voters who haven't voted in four years. The new federal law forbids states from canceling a voter's registration for federal elections simply because they didn't vote recently.
If Virginia's constitution isn't changed, Virginia would be required to keep two sets of voter rolls to keep track of who's eligible to vote in some elections and not others.
If this amendment passes, the General Assembly would be allowed to change state law to bring it into alignment with federal laws, so registrars could keep a single voter list.
Who's pushing this: The NAACP, League of Women Voters and other voters' rights groups.
Who's against this: No organized opposition so far.
QUESTION: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to revise the procedures followed (1) by the governor to veto or propose amendments to bills passed by the General Assembly and (2) by the General Assembly in response to the governor's vetoes or proposed amendments.
What this would do: This amendment deals with several procedures followed by the governor and General Assembly in passing bills and amendments.
nUnder the current constitution, during the assembly's regular session the governor has seven days to sign, veto or propose amendments to a bill. If the governor does not act, the bill becomes law. But when a bill is passed late in the session, and the governor does not act, the bill does not become law.
The proposed amendment would eliminate this inconsistency, by always treating the governor's inaction as bill approval.
Currently, the constitution also allows the governor to recommend amendments to any bill passed by the General Assembly. Once the General Assembly accepts or rejects these amendments, the governor may sign or veto the bill or offer another set of amendments.
Also, the constitution presently does not say if the General Assembly must accept or reject the governor's amendments to a bill as a block or if the assembly can divide the amendments and act on them separately.
This became an issue when former Gov. Douglas Wilder proposed 86 amendments to a budget bill. The Senate wanted to rule on the amendments separately, while the House wanted to vote on them as a block.
If passed, this amendment would limit the governor to offering only one set of amendments to any bill, and it would allow the General Assembly to act on the Governor's amendments separately or any combinations.
Finally, this proposed amendment would rid the constitution of another inconsistency.
The current constitution states that only during the specially convened veto session can the General Assembly reject the governor's amendments and pass the original bill into law.
If passed, this amendment would allow the General Assembly to have this option to reject the governor's amendments and pass the original bill during its regular session as well.
Who's pushing this: Bi-partisan support in government.
Who's against this: No organized opposition so far.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB