Virginia's failling grade on government integrity not so shocking

Katherine Johnson Columnist

Our state government’s voting record is rather suspect.

A recent study called the State Integrity Investigation found that Virginia’s government is “highly vulnerable to corruption,” based on a failing grade in state government integrity. The Richmond TimesDispatch reported that Virginia failed in nine of the 14 categories, such as public access to information, political financing, lobbying disclosure and ethics enforcement agencies.

This may not come as much as a surprise to those that have been keeping a watch on the actions of the General Assembly over the past few weeks. In particular, a few controversial voting bills have received special attention from national media.

As of last Thursday, a petition with 6,000 signatures to veto the voting bills was delivered to Gov. Bob McDonnell. The voter ID bill states that all voters must have a valid ID when they vote. If they don’t have an ID, they must cast a provisional ballot and provide identification within six days for their vote to count. Previously voters were allowed to vote without an ID as long as they signed a sworn statement.

The second bill up for debate restricts who can be in the room when provisional ballots are counted, including the media. Under the bill only authorized representatives would be able to observe the count.

Opponents to these bills suggest that they’d only be implemented in order to prevent minorities from voting, which may not sound so outlandish after Virginia’s poor integrity rating. Unfortunately many citizens are reluctant to vote and view it as a hassle. If these bills were signed into law, the numbers at the polls would only decrease.

Why now? Why are things getting switched up after Virginia has had the same policy for the last decade?

The answer to that may be the high stakes presidential election in November, which Republicans couldn’t bear to lose. It’s hard to deny that many minorities vote Democratic, meaning that if the bills were signed, massive numbers of Democratic voters would be disenfranchised, and Obama and other Democrats would lose countless votes.

Although the bill’s creators may have viewed the six days to provide identification as a grace period, it’s nothing of the sort. If minorities, the poor and the elderly are the most likely to not have ID, is it very likely that they’ll have the transportation or technology to turn in proper identification?

If the true intent of the bill is to prevent voter fraud and have secure elections, the only shady aspect is it’s timing. The presidential election in November may be one of the most crucial to Americans. If the Republicans do truly have good intentions with their proposed bill, it shouldn’t be implemented months before a major election. Instead, a law like this should go into effect well before an election.

The bill’s supporters make it seems as if Virginia has had fraudulent elections constantly for the past decade. But that’s not true and there’s no proof of that.

Let’s keep our politicians honest and make sure they deal with the issues that matter. CT

Opinions expressed are those of individual writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Commonwealth Times or Virginia Commonwealth University. Unsigned editorials represent the institutional opinion of The CT.

Add Your Voice

The opinion pages of The Commonwealth Times are a forum open to the public. Clear, concise and compelling contributions are welcome online at our Web site, by e-mail at opinion@ commonwealthtimes.org, or by mail and in person at 817 W. Broad St., Richmond, Va. 23220-3806.

Letters must be sent from a valid VCU e-mail address or signed with daytime and evening telphone contact. We reserve the right to edit for grammar, style and space. Letters to the editor can be sent to editor@commonwealthtimes.org