VIRGINIA is unique as a state in a host of ways. It is one of only four "commonwealths" in the Union (sharing the title with Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Kentucky). It is home to the world's only oyster museum. And it is the single state that does not allow the governor to run for reelection. The perennial debate over whether to allow the state's executive to run again consecutively, which currently is illegal, remains a hot topic among legislators and pundits alike. Despite some advantages of a two-term executive, a better suggestion would be to extend Virginia's governor a single six-year term.
Imagine how the president of the United States functions: Once elected, it takes a period of time to adapt to the challenges of the office and escape from under the policy and budget decisions of his predecessor. After this acclimation period, the president then must begin to think about reelection. If reelected, the president then has a four-year "lame duck" term to attempt to govern by conscience and not by special interest. When he exits the office, he must then hope his successor does not immediately disassemble the policy decisions he made in the final term. While this system makes sense in the federal political sphere, it nearly is inconceivable in Virginia.
Within the Commonwealth, circumstances make this reality all the more undesirable. The budget is amended and adopted every two years. Upon entering office, the governor must operate under the budget provisions of his predecessor. Concurrently, the new governor writes and submits a budget to the Virginia General Assembly, which then is ratified halfway through the term. His second budget is written and submitted the month before his term ends, which guides the spending of his successor's first two years. The cycle then repeats itself.
This means that our one-term governor has both fiscal and policy control for only the last two years of his term. This does not allow nearly enough time for long-term policy and programs to be studied and implemented effectively. By the time the governor has the resources and means to make such decisions, his time has run out and he must yield the Capitol building's third floor office to a new administration.
In a six-year administration, the governor would have his hands tied the first two years, but would then have four years to develop his own budget with equal time for detailed study and implementation of long-term policies.
In a phone interview, former Virginia Gov. Gerald Baliles explained that this plan makes more sense than a two-term governor, because two years of campaign planning and implementation would follow the first two years of governing. Assuming the governor is reelected, he still only has four years of effective government out of a total eight in office.
Critics of this plan cite the rarity of quality governors who, given an extra two years of administration, would create policy that would benefit the state. Virginia politics professor Larry J. Sabato quips, "I can think of several administrations where four years was far too many." It is true that another two years of more car tax cuts or a repeat performance of last year's budget impasse may well have pushed the state into even worse financial conditions. However, the faults of a poor administration cannot possibly be rectified in the two short years that current governors have to make their own policy and fiscal decisions.
If the goal is to increase the effectiveness of long-term planning and quality of governance, a single four-year term is insufficient. Instead of eliminating the current term limits rule, the term should be extended to six years. The problem is that such a plan lies in the threat of two more years of a potentially incompetent or poorly run administration. Even more of a challenge is the act of changing the constitution. Such an amendment would require ratification by two consecutive assemblies (i.e. ratified once, laid on the table, and then reintroduced with duplicate language following the consecutive election). This feat is very unlikely.
In the current political environment, a single four-year term fails to offer Virginia's executive sufficient time to effectively study and implement new policies and programs. Yet a single term allows the governor to govern by conscience without concern as to special interest or future election. By extending the single term to six years, the governor has more time, autonomy, and flexibility to run the state's government. Though it is too late in the session this year, hopefully such debate will lead to future discussion in the Assembly. It is time to give Virginia's governor the time to govern.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
