FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Here’s a reminder about a great event we’re co-sponsoring tomorrow night in Centerville explaining how to investigate and prevent voter fraud. We we hope you can attend if you live or will be in the area.

The King Street Patriots from Houston is a group that was shocked to uncover several voting irregularities in its hometown elections, so it created an initiative called True the Vote, which is becoming a model for groups to fight voter fraud across the country (see video and read background, here). With General Assembly elections this November — normally very low turnout campaigns where a few votes can mean the difference between a conservative or liberal Senate — eliminating voter fraud is more important than ever. If elections are not fair they are not free. So, please attend Centreville Baptist Church tomorrow night at 7:00. to learn more. Catherine Engelbrecht, President of The King Street Patriots (see Breitbart.tv), will share the shocking experiences she encountered with the Houston True the Vote organization.

The video below is a Fox News Channel interview of Ms. Engelbrecht and Family Foundation friend Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute. (Kelly was a key partner of us developing strategy during the Marriage Amendment campaign and LI has successfully argued religious liberty cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.) In it, they explain the outrageous and scary voter fraud discovered in Texas during recent elections.

Ms. Engelbrecht, herself, has a remarkable story and worth the time to see. She is a successful entrepreneur in the oil services industry, a mom and someone who was motivated in recent times to get involved in the political process after seeing the direction of our country. She founded The King Street Patriots and her work for it is entirely volunteer.

At the meeting you will also receive updates from American Majority, a Virginia-based national training organization whose mission is to train leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market. In addition, The Family Foundation will provide an update on the latest General Assembly and November election news. If you are in Northern Virginia, will be in the area, or want to make the trip, we encourage you to attend. For more information, contact Roger Pogge at 804-343-0010 or roger@familyfoundation.org.

The event is free and open to the public. Click here to register, for directions or for more information.

True The Vote Informational Meeting

Centreville Baptist Church

15100 Lee Highway, Centreville

Tuesday, May 17

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Much is at stake this November: “If elections are not fair they are not free.”

As if the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals isn’t busy enough this week. Not only will it decide on ObamaCare, it got the above question, too, in a case in which The Family Foundation filed an amicus brief last year. Now asked, another three judge panel will decide the constitutionality of the prayer policy of the Forsyth County, N.C. — but with national implications.

The policy, drafted by the Alliance Defense Fund, allows for anyone of any faith to pray before county government meetings on a first come, first serve basis. The content of the prayers are not reviewed by government officials. Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU contend that, because most of the “prayers” at the meetings over an eighteen month period were “sectarian,” the policy is unconstitutional. According to ADF attorneys, plaintiffs have argued in briefs that any prayer before public meetings is unconstitutional.

Judges Harvie Wilkinson, Paul Niemeyer and Barbara Keenan comprise the panel. If their questioning of attorneys arguing the case is any indication of where they stand on the issue, Judge Keenan is clearly in the ACLU camp. Appointed to the court by President Obama, she was particularly hostile toward ADF’s arguments and clearly favored the idea of “inclusive” prayers if there were going to be any prayers at all. Judge Niemeyer appeared much more favorable toward public prayer, stating that prayers without mentioning a specific deity are “just words.” Judge Wilkinson seemed like the swing vote, questioning both sides on multiple issues throughout the hour and ten minute hearing.

The details of this case date back to March 2007 when the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit against North Carolina’s Forsyth County Board of Supervisors, stating:

[the Board] does not have a policy which discourages or prohibits those whom [the Board] has invited to deliver prayers from including references to Jesus Christ, or any other sectarian deity, as part of their prayers.

As ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson, who argued in favor of the policy, aptly pointed out, “An invocation according to the dictates of the giver’s conscience is not an establishment of religion. If it was, you’d have to argue that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution were violating the Constitution in the prayers and invocations that they themselves offered.” (Mike Johnson testified, at Family Foundation request during the 2009 General Assembly, on behalf of the rights of state police chaplains to pray in Jesus’ name. See video.)

A primary issue in the case is whether or not a voluntary prayer before a government meeting is “government” or private speech. If private, it is clearly protected by the First Amendment. But by the ACLU’s logic, anything said at a government meeting by a private individual is government speech just by virtue of saying at that meeting.

Several Virginia legislators also signed on to an amicus brief in support of religious liberty in Joyner v. Forsyth County. They include Delegates Kathy Byron (R-22, Lynchburg), Bill Carrico (R-5, Galax), Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas), and Brenda Pogge (R-96, Yorktown); and Senators Mark Obenshain (R-26, Harrisonburg) and Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-27, Winchester).

Our friends at Virginia Virtucon this morning relayed what appears to be an e-mail update to friends from former delegate and Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jeff Frederick in which he announces that he is “actively considering” a run for the 36th district Virginia Senate seat currently held by liberal Democrat Toddy Puller. In the note, Mr. Frederick also announces the launch of his new web site and blog and plugs his new political action committee — Virginia’s Future PAC — dedicated to funding conservative Virginia legislative candidates. But the thrust of it is about his potential run for the General Assembly’s upper chamber:

Second, I have a bit of an announcement. Sort of.

To perhaps reduce some of the phone calls I’m getting from a number of folks, I wanted to let you know that I am actively considering running for the state Senate. Specifically, in the 36th district (current incumbent: Toddy Puller).

You know me as someone “who does what he says” and “says what he means”, so when I say we’re considering running, I mean it. Nothing more and nothing less; this is not some coy politician way of saying I’m running but I don’t want it public yet. The honest truth is that I’m on the fence (which is unusual for me). The fact is, as you might imagine, there are both pros and cons of such an undertaking of attempting to unseat an incumbent in a marginal (or just flat out tough gerrymandered) district; doing so in such a short timeframe; and reentering public life with three children under the age of 5.

But, for me it’s always been about serving and if God is lighting the path for me to contribute in this way, we’ll charge full speed ahead at the opportunity — and the challenge.

It would certainly be interesting campaign if Mr. Frederick enters it and quite a contrast in candidates’ philosophies. But despite the Democrat leanings of the district, no one should count out the former delegate should he run. After all, he won three terms in the House from a Democrat leaning district that went to the Dems in 2009 — a landslide Republican year and the year he did not seek re-election. So, he does know how to campaign. If he does run and win, the Virginia Senate most definitely will be a different place. Stay tuned.

The Sunday before Election Day 2006, a Richmond Times-Dispatch headline screamed that polling showed the Marriage Amendment campaign had tightened. The poll said that the amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman was supported by a slim 49-45 percent margin. That was the closest poll we had ever seen on the issue.

Two days later, the amendment passed by a 14 point margin, 57-43 percent. How could the T-D poll have been so wrong just two days prior to the vote?

Polls taken over the years on the definition of marriage have wavered more than Tim Kaine on gay adoption (remember, running for governor in 2005 he opposed homosexual couples adopting, but now he’s in favor of it). For example, Gallup polling on the issue of homosexual marriage went from 46 percent support in 2007, down to 40 percent in 2008 and 2009, but back up to 44 percent in 2010. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that a Washington Post media poll of 1,000 people has found that, according to the Post, “Virginians are closely split on gay marriage” — and that the rest of the state’s mainstream media ran with it.

But are they really?

The truth is that polls have been overwhelmingly disconnected from reality when it comes to the issue of homosexual marriage. One need look only as far as the 31 states that have had the issue put to the voters, and in every case the traditional definition of marriage has won, including California.

The longer I am involved in politics, the more dismissive I have become of most media polling. Many experts believe that, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, a lot of people tell a pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear. On the issue of same-sex marriage, while a few media polls indicate that people support it, in the 31 states where it has gone to the ballot the people have overwhelmingly rejected it. One might tell their neighbor they are open to homosexual marriage, but when the reality is in front of them in the voting booth, traditional marriage still resonates instinctively, intuitively, justly . . . morally.

Social issues such as abortion and homosexuality have dynamics at play that I don’t think can be measured with simple media polling. Asking 1,000 people a simple question doesn’t generally get to the core of complex issues. It makes for interesting editorial page fodder, but I doubt too many people take it seriously, except for the so-called “progressives” who will no doubt champion the media poll and bring the issue before the next General Assembly. I suspect some will even attempt to make it a campaign issue (funny, I thought it was all about the economy).

But I also find it interesting that the same “progressives” reject professional (not media) polling that shows an overwhelming number of Virginians support school choice. You see, polling can work both ways, which is why no one should base their beliefs or agenda on it. Sure, professionally done, in depth issue polling can provide insight, but hastily done media polls done over a weekend for the mainstream media isn’t something I want to base any policy decision on. I certainly wouldn’t want to base the future of our children on it.

One of the most unsightly of all the sausage making that is the legislative process is redistricting. Every 10 years, all 140 General Assembly districts, as well as Virginia’s Congressional districts, must be redrawn to reflect population shifts as accounted for in the census. The districts can get pretty contorted, to say the least, with compactness and communities of interest giving way to snake-like shapes that slither from one end of the state to another (not that Virginia is an exception, either).

Complicating matters is that whatever the General Assembly and governor agree to must be approved by the Justice Department because Virginia falls under the Voting Rights Act. But there are several rare dynamics at play this year. For one, it’s the first time since Reconstruction that opposite parties control the two chambers during a redistricting year. As each chamber has prerogative over its districts, traditionally they don’t interfere with each other’s plan. However, with Governor Bob McDonnell as a GOP backstop to Senate Democrat mischief, Senate Dems laid down the law: Instead of two bills this year, anything coming from the House would be attached to the Senate’s bill as a way of safeguarding its new districts from the governor’s veto or amendments. If not, Senate Dems promised stalemate on the House plan. Interestingly, in this interview (read transcript) on The Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU-FM in March, Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield) was asked what the governor’s role was in redistricting and he replied, “sign or amend” the bill. No mention of the veto option.

Here’s more from the senator that day (hear audio), starting partisan, then trying to soften:

Well, if I lose a few seats as a result of redistricting, and I’m in the majority, I’m not doing a very good job. … And I would simply say, well, you know, our goal is to make the Democratic districts, particularly the marginal ones, a little bit better than they are now. I’m not greedy. I’m not trying to put all the Republicans out of business by any stretch. They didn’t do that to us 10 years ago. And we’re not gonna do that to them.

So much for that. Governor McDonnell vetoed the bill sent to him last week anyway, primarily because of the dysfunctional and obscenely drawn Senate districts that drew fire from groups as varied as Prince William County to the NAACP (see Jenifer Buske at the Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog). While the House plan passed with all but 10 Democrat votes, the Senate plan — which could add up to three Democrat seats per the Richmond Times-Dispatch — was divided on party lines, 22-18. No wonder. None of this was a surprise.

More dynamics: While there is time to settle the Congressional districts because those elections are not until next year, all 140 General Assembly seats are up this year. Already, primaries have been pushed back to August to accommodate the readjusted districts. Candidates filing to run still don’t know where they are running. Even if the parties and governor come to an agreement, there’s this: This is the first redistricting since the Voting Rights Act with a Democrat president. Who knows what changes his Justice Department might demand. If all of this can’t be wrapped up by a time certain, the entire process for both chambers gets transferred to judges.

But today there is hope. After he bragged that he wouldn’t change “a dot or a comma,” declared with bravado he wouldn’t “surrender” and dared the governor to issue a second veto (Ros Helderman at the Post) for fear of sending it to the unelected judiciary, Senator Saslaw backed down. Now, Senators Janet Howell (D-32, Fairfax) and Jill Vogel (R-27, Winchester) are leading a bipartisan working group to come up with a new plan (the Post). But is it false hope? Senator Howell echoed Senator Saslaw’s original sentiments: “We won’t negotiate away our majority.” But then Senator Saslaw told the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, “There are some of us who are going to try to . . . get things worked out in an amicable fashion. We’re determined to try to make the process work right.” The whiplash changes in attitude are enough to require psychological testing. More on that in a second.

Senator Howell needs to understand that she doesn’t determine the majority. If she did, there would be no need for elections. Voters determine majorities. One wonders what she and Senator Saslaw fear. Only three years ago, liberals heralded Virginia as blue. The existing Senate districts were good enough to flip a one-time 24-16 GOP majority to 22-18 Democrat. If Senate Democrats are so confident in their ideas and performance the last four years as the majority, what’s with the gerrymandering that has split some localities into as many as eight districts?

Grossed out yet by the sausage making? Then you may or may not want to take this little test based on Senator Howell’s vetoed plan. The districts’ shapes are so contorted one might think they are ink blots on a Rorschach test. Click here to take the Is It Howell Or Rorschach? test. Disclaimer: Score does not correlate to actual state of mental health, but may indicate the insecurity of some Senate Democrats.

Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb will appear on the Score Radio Network Saturday (or, perhaps, another time in your market, check local listings as they say), with host Scott Lee. Score is a new statewide conservative media company headed by three of Virginia’s most experienced conservative new media commentators. It provides online and over-the-air media services and content. Score’s affiliates are WLEE-AM/990 in Richmond (8:00 a.m. Saturday), WLNI-105.9FM in Lynchburg, and WMBG-AM740 in Williamsburg. For those not in those markets, it also can be heard on those stations’ web sites as well as on Internet radio sites NetTalkWorld.com, the CB Media Network and Ghost Fighting Network as well as on SRN itself as an archive (see affiliate information here). We hope to have the download here next week as well. Victoria will discuss this past session of the General Assembly and other issues involving the conservative movement.

Just two months before leaving office, former Governor Tim Kaine left Virginians an unwanted present in the form of proposed changes to adoption guidelines for private agencies (see the Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog). These proposed regulations — by a Social Services Board still dominated by Mr.Kaine’s appointees — slowly working their way through the process, seek to force private adoption agencies to place children in foster care or for adoption with parents irrespective of faith or sexual orientation. It would force faith-based adoption agencies to either abandon their principles or cease providing adoption services (as did Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, after more than 100 years, when that state’s Supreme Court imposed such regulations by judicial fiat).

The proposal under discussion here goes far beyond any policy currently in Virginia law. The Virginia Code clearly details who is eligible to adopt. In § 63.2-1201.1, it plainly states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit any child to have more than two living parents by birth or adoption, who have legal rights and obligations in respect to the child, in the form of one father and one mother.

There is no mistaking Virginia’s intent. The current regulatory proposal, which includes prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, contradicts the intent of the General Assembly.

Nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation, whether enshrined in law or implemented through internal constructs, and regardless of their legal weight, highlight the inevitable and unavoidable clash between the unalienable fundamental right of religious liberty and the postmodern era of sexual freedom. While one may agree or disagree with the actions of individuals or private organizations that express their faith in these ways, their fundamental right to do so is at risk with these proposed regulations. Faith-based family organizations have assisted children for decades without unnecessary intervention by government entities. It is very clear that homosexual special interest groups have no concern with preserving religious liberty in pursuit of their political agenda.

Upon learning about these proposed regulations weeks ago, The Family Foundation immediately contacted the governor’s office. At that time, we were assured that Governor McDonnell does not support the current non-discrimination proposal and the current proposal would not stand. To ensure our voice was known where it needed to be, we submitted our official public comment and encouraged pastors to do so as well. After the public comment period closed, Governor Bob McDonnell publicly weighed in, telling the Washington Post:

I know I had said during the campaign that I would essentially keep our adoption laws — which I think are good — the way they are now. … I don’t think we ought to force Catholic Charities to make [the proposed regulations] part of their policy or other similar situated groups. Many of our adoption agencies are faith-based groups that ought to be able to establish what their own policies are. Current regulations that say you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin I think are proper.

Since then, concern has mounted based on the circulation of incorrect information stating Governor McDonnell must act by April 15. However, this is an incorrect interpretation of a section of the Code (§ 2.2-4013) that details the time frame for the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action stage, not the proposed stage. The public comment website shows that the adoption regulations are completing the proposed stage, not the NOIRA stage.

A chart published by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget is extremely helpful in understanding how the circuitous regulatory process works: The proposed adoption regulations currently are in the bottom box of the middle column (not the second box of the first column). Correct reading of Virginia Code and regulatory process shows that the Board of Social Services has no less than 15 and no more than 180 days from April 1 (April 16 through September 28) to adopt the proposed regulations and submit them for full executive branch review. As displayed in column three of DPB’s chart, the proposed regulations must then pass several more reviews prior to final acceptance, including reviews by DPB, the corresponding cabinet secretary, possibly by the attorney general (see Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s stated disapproval in the Washington Post) and the governor, then go through at least one more public comment period. The Department of Social Services already has amended the regulations and will present these changes to the Board of Social Services at an upcoming meeting. During any of these stages, the governor can reject or make changes to the proposal.

This adoption proposal, which tramples religious liberty, is a significant overreach through regulation into uncharted waters prohibited by Virginia Code and Virginia Constitution and will not be tolerated. The Family Foundation has been actively involved in seeing that these proposed regulations are not adopted and will continue to monitor the issue very closely.

It was a pro-life, pro-family sweep today at the reconvened “Veto” session of the General Assembly tonight. In addition to a dramatic abortion limiting 21-20 vote within the last hour, the Virginia Senate earlier voted by the same margin to concur with Governor McDonnell and the House of Delegates to restore abstinence education funding that former Governor Tim Kaine cut out of the state budget. As with the vote to ban taxpayer dollars from use in elective abortions in the ObamaCare state run health insurance exchanges, all 18 Republicans were joined by pro-life Democrats Phillip Puckett and Chuck Colgan to get to the magic number of 20 votes and a tie in the chamber allowing pro-life Lt. Governor Bill Bolling to break the tie in favor of the amendment.

The funding, match money corresponding to a federal grant, was initially presented in the House budget but, in the final days of session, Senate conferees stripped it out in budget negotiations. But today, the House reiterated its position by a 69-29 vote, which sent it to the Senate. Senator Colgan (D-29, Manassas), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced the amendment and urged its passage. Pro-abortion Senator Mary Margaret Whipple (D-31, Arlington) rebutted the argument, parroting Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League, which claim abstinence education is ineffective (despite an Obama administration study that says otherwise).

The Family Foundation thanks Governor McDonnell, Lt. Governor Bolling, and the members of the House and Senate who ensured the success of these two important pieces of legislation that soon will become law, as well as all committed pro-life, pro-family Virginians who answered our call to contact their state legislators this week. More to come tomorrow about today’s exciting developments.

Within the last few minutes, in a reprise of its stunning vote to regulate abortion centers in the waning days of the General Assembly’s regular session, the Virginia Senate approved by a vote of 21-20 Governor McDonnell’s amendment to HB 2434 that bans taxpayer funding of elective abortion coverage when (or if) the state run health care insurance exchanges begin in 2014 as mandated by the federal health care law. Throughout the day it looked like the amendments would die in the Senate, perhaps by a 21-19 margin. But, in a vote that came up in the latter stages of an all day and night annual “Veto Session,” all 18 Republican senators and pro-life Democrats Chuck Colgan and Phillip Puckett voted to add the amendments. The other 20 Democrats voted to reject them leaving the tie-breaking vote with Lt. Governor Bill Bolling who, as he did in February, voted in the affirmative. Early on in the intense debate, pro-abortion Senator John Edwards tried to have the amendments ruled non-germane, but Lt. Governor Bolling, who presides over the Senate, ruled that they were. His ruling was upheld on a 21-19 vote. Earlier in the day, the House of Delegates concurred with Governor McDonnell with about 60 votes.

Thanks to all who contacted their senators for this incredible win for Life. Because of your dedication and commitment, we have won significant pro-life legislative victories in Virginia during the past three months. More on this story to come.

The pro-abortion forces in Virginia are nothing if not masters at hyperbole. That, or downright Orwellian. Today, they held a news conference at the General Assembly Building to reinforce their message of choice since their stunning defeat on the abortion center regulation bill: That limiting abortions, and thus saving the most innocent among us, is “an attack on women’s health.” Among attendees were a who’s who of the General Assembly pro-abortion crowd: Senators Donald McEachin and Mary Margaret Whipple; and Delegates Patrick Hope, David Englin, Jennier McClellan, Scott Surovell, Adam Ebbin, Onzlee Ware, Vivian Watts and Charniele Herring — the so-called “Reproductive Health Caucus.”

They were joined not only by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, but by the ACLU and the League of Women’s Voters, whose representative enthusiastically gave herself a shout-out when Delegate Herring failed to recognize her. What abortion “rights” has to do with registering women to vote is anyone’s guess, but that moment was the most exciting thing at what had to be the most uneventful news conference in General Assembly history — nothing more than introductions, a statement by Delegate Herring, and a story by a woman whose situation was not relevant to the exchanges. Not even a question by one of the two or three members of the press who attended. Even the distributed prepared press statements were boring. Sorry, but no video, excerpted quotes, nor links worth citing. Even Planned Parenthood’s e-mail alert left a lot to be desired. An indication that the tide is turning? We’ll find out tomorrow when our electeds vote to sustain or reject two pro-life amendments passed down by Governor Bob McDonnell: One, to HB 2434, to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion in the new state health insurance exchanges mandated by the federal healthcare law; and another, a budget amendment, restoring abstinence education funding that former Governor Tim Kaine eliminated.

These votes promise to be very close in the Senate tomorrow during the “Veto Session.” Please contact your senator Wednesday morning and ask him or her to vote for each.

Click here if you know your senator and need his or her phone number.

Click here if you don’t know who your senator is.

Meanwhile, here’s more coverage on the health insurance exchange amendment, from the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (here) and below, from WTVR-TV/CBS6 in Richmond. Both feature comments from Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb.