My latest op-ed, title above, appeared in Wednesday’s Virginian-Pilot. The frequent changes to the constitution of Virginia – including the three amendments on the ballot this November – got me to thinking. Perhaps it is time for a constitutional convention. The last time the constitution was revised was 1971.
Rather that a slew of amendments, the General Assembly should call for a constitutional convention. From Article XII, Section 2:
The General Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, call a convention to propose a general revision of, or specific amendments to, this Constitution, as the General Assembly in its call may stipulate.
The General Assembly shall provide by law for the election of delegates to such a convention, and shall also provide for the submission, in such manner as it shall prescribe and not sooner than ninety days after final adjournment of the convention, of the proposals of the convention to the voters qualified to vote in elections by the people. If a majority of those voting vote in favor of any proposal, it shall become effective on the date prescribed by the General Assembly in providing for the submission of the convention proposals to the voters.
I’d love to be a delegate to such a convention. In fact, I know what sections I’d want to delete 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Beware of what you wish. Virginia is still a pretty conservative state, and the right will dominate any convention. The last state constitutional convention in 1901 codified Jim Crow in Virginia. I wouldn’t hold out much better hopes for a convention today.
A well-written article, Vivian. I would also like to see the cities and counties given the power to tax and spend as they see fit, but I want the citizens rights to be uniform throughout the State.
If counties can tax and spend as they see fit, what is the need for Richmond?
Another interesting article, Vivian. Like you,I would particularly like to see the antiquated Dillon Rule and the anachronistic system of constitutional officers done away with. I believe that governmental policies are best formulated by the level of government closest to those affected and that the duties of the municipal governments increasing day to day accountability and efficiency.
The above should have read “I believe that governmental polices are best formulated by the level of government closest to those affected and that the duties of the constitutional officers would be better transferred to the municipal governments.”
I agree about the antiquated system of constitutional officers, although not about the Dillon rule. But, I think a constitutional convention would create too big an opportunity for partisan interests, on both sides, to try to get things into the constitution that they haven’t been able to win through legislation.
I am missing something on the need for the first two proposed amendments. Why is it necessary for the definition of an extraordinary tax burden be different in Fairfax County versus Page County? Also, disability is already a provision in the current article. So, why the need for a special provision for disabled veterans?
In both of these what is the scope of the problem we are trying to solve?
As for a redo of our state constitution, does the document as a whole need rework or can we just make a few amendments?
The current law (not the constitution) sets income and net worth requirements on a case-by-case basis. Every time it needs to be changed, the general assembly has to weigh in on it. So that’s the reason for the 1st amendment.
The second one is to, essentially, remove the age and income restrictions (see item 1) for disabled vets. So they can be any age and earn $1 million a year and, if 100% permanently and totally disabled, be exempted from real estate taxes.
I think it needs a whole rework.
In the first case, the Virginia code allows for differences between geographic regions. The code also allows for the greater of the VA set limit or HUD’s limits for geographic area to be used in establishing the exemption/reduction. I guess I don’t see what the issue is still.
As the current clause is written, I don’t see an age restriction for disabled persons, only an income & net worth one. Why should the income & net worth piece be removed? The clause currently states: “…persons not less than sixty-five years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled…”
Are you looking at this and this?
You are correct on the age thing for disabled. As to why to remove the income and net worth requirements – well, there’s the whole patriotic thing 😉
I can only assume, then, that the 1971 revision was not done via convention. So how else, given the current constitution, could it be completely revised?
The General Assembly created a commission in 1968 to draft a new constitution. The commission was appointed by Governor Mills Godwin and chaired by former Governor A.S. Harrison. The new constitution was drafted as a series of amendments to the 1901 Constitution, which were approved by the General Assembly and voters through the usual amendment process. For a bit more detail, see the foreword to the House of Delegates publication “Constitution of Virginia” (.pdf).
Excuse me, that should have said “amemdments to the 1902 Constitution”. You almost have to be as picky as a lawyer to talk about this stuff.
Ah, that makes sense. I’ll take that way as well.