13 / 36
V
irginia
C
apitol
C
onnections
, S
pring
2017
13
retain one’s reputation for ethical conduct. The temptations and
lack of accountability can lead to dishonest and questionable
practice. But David Bailey and Tom Hyland worked together to
hold themselves and others to a higher standard.
“I really want to emphasize the impact that David Bailey has
had on me,” continued Hyland. “It’s very easy to slide. He was
always a solid rock there for me. You can talk to him and work out
what’s on your mind. He’s had more of an impact on me than any
person who I’ve ever worked with or for. I’d still be working there
if it wasn’t for my health.”
Hyland retired in 2008 due to health problems. Still, he
continues to pursue truth through his work with the Loudoun
Archaeological Foundation, an organization he co-founded with
David P. Clark in 2007. Hyland finds a thread of a clue, following
the tension until he finds the revelation. From discovering valuably
pottery locked in a shed to buttons from the Revolutionary War,
these finds lead to a greater understanding of the past, which allow
Hyland to continue building upon his foundation in truth.
Lydia Freeman is a graduate of Bluefield College, former intern
at David Bailey Associates, and currently Teach for America fifth
grade teacher in Northampton County, NC.
meaningful campaigns and appeals to voters every year. Instead, the
product of some 50+ years of redistricting, gerrymandering, litigation
and Supreme Court decisions is poor turnout, meaningless Election
Day choices, gerrymandered districts and essentially unbeatable
incumbents.
What is most appalling and disturbing is that the process
in Virginia could be improved so easily. Twenty one states use
nonpartisan redistricting commissions. This removes the conflict
of interest from the districting process. Doing this decreases the
likelihood of going to court because neutral districting principles
(maintaining equal populations, tending to minority populations,
respecting municipal boundaries) take precedence.
Instead, the conflicts of interest that inhere in the process render
it appallingly expensive. As an example: since the legislature did a
poor job drawing the congressional district lines last time around, a
special master was called in at the cost of more than $80,000. You
read that correctly: the taxpayers forked out $80,000 for someone
to draw 11 districts—and there is no guaranty that they will pass
constitutional muster.
To put this in perspective: $80,000 would hire one or two teachers
for a year in most of our Commonwealth’s public school systems.
That fee does not include litigation costs, court fees, and the
opportunity cost of dedicating legislators’ time to tweaking district
lines that could be otherwise spent on the budget, health care, road,
jobs, etc. Virginia has 40 Senate districts and 100 house districts.
One can only imagine how much the taxpayers will bleed to pay
consultants (instead of a commission) to draw district lines.
In defense of this system, legislators or apologists will argue that
redistricting should be in the hands of elected officials because they
know best what is in the interests of their constituents. But, if we
end up turning the process over to private consultants and litigants,
that connection is clearly broken. Virginia’s redistricting history over
the past several decades indicates that this connection is seldom
preserved. So, redistricting serves the interests of incumbents,
political consultants and litigants—all at the fiscal and democratic
expense of the voters whose interests the process should be serving.
It’s time to join the other 21 states that use redistricting commissions.
Actually, I’d advocate for a more drastic measure: we should
abandon the use of single-member electoral districts. While our
current method of electing one legislator per district is commonplace,
it is not constitutionally required. The Constitution is silent with
regard to the method of casting votes. In fact, early in our history,
many states elected legislators and members of congress at large.
More recently, many municipalities have changed the way they elect
officials and a few states have changed the way they elect governors
or allocate Electoral College votes.
It is important to acknowledge that the single-member district is
neither constitutional nor unconstitutional in principle. But, it may
be the case that it is unconstitutional in practice. I suggest that it is.
The Supreme Court’s voting rights decisions have emphasized
the right to cast a meaningful ballot and a right to fair and effective
representation. A meaningful ballot requires elections to be orderly.
Ballots should not be confusing. We should exercise at least some
control over registration to ensure that only eligible voters vote. A
meaningful ballot should make a difference at least to the extent that
it is cast in a competitive election.
Fair and effective representation presumes that when citizens
collectively cast their ballots, the elected officials will embody at
least the broad outlines of the interests in their constituencies and
that voters had a real choice among alternatives when casting their
ballots.
In our electoral system, uncompetitive elections render very
few ballots meaningful. Representation is not achieved as a result
of voters casting meaningful ballots. Instead, it is achieved through
the gerrymandering of district lines to enhance the likelihood of
particular candidates being elected.
By the Supreme Court’s own reasoning, our electoral system
now undermines the meaning of votes and militates against truly
fair and effective representation. Both of these challenges could
be resolved by switching to multimember districts—returning to
the historical roots of many elections in the United States. Such a
change would enhance competition for office and give voters truly
meaningful choices among candidates on Election Day. It is unlikely,
however, that incumbents who have achieved success in our current
electoral system would have any incentive to switch to one that would
enhance the uncertainty of electoral outcomes. As a result, the hope
of voters to regain the chance to cast a meaningful ballot lies only in
going to court. This is an arduous, slow process. But, it does offer the
possibility of truly meaningful electoral reform.
Mark Rush, Stanley D. and Nikki Waxberg Professor of Politics
and Lee University, writes and teaches extensively on voting rights
and elections around the world, constitutional issues, and religion.
His current research addresses the intersection of law, science and
religion, academic integrity, and statistical analysis of baseball.
The Gerrymandering Jackpot
from page 11
“We saw more lobbyists coming into Virginia,” continued
Hyland. “The number of lobbyists in Virginia doubled, and they
were mostly young, with no experience. Ethical problems began
occurring with lobbyists in Congress. Lobbying has a bad name,
but it had a particularly bad name in those years.”
It was during this time that Bailey suggested to Hyland that they
should form a professional association for lobbyists. They worked
to develop a code of conduct and set standards of personal conduct.
“No one wanted to hear of any professional standards,” Hyland
explained. “But we developed a code of conduct and set of personal
standards.”
That organization, the Virginia Association of Professional
Lobbyists, was recognized by the Virginia. General Assembly in
1999.
“In this regard, we are the co-founders of the Virginia
Association of Professional Lobbyists, a non-profit association
which has been formally commended several times by the Virginia
General Assembly for developing both a Code of Conduct and
Standards of Professional Practice for lobbyists working in
Virginia,” said David Bailey.
According to Hyland, it is difficult to work as a lobbyist and
Tom Hyland
continued from previous page
V
V