General Assembly 2014

Medicaid – A Full and Fair Debate?

September 26, 2014 by David Toscano

As early as January 2014, House Republicans promised a plan to address the 400,000 Virginians who fall into the health insurance coverage gap because they make too little money to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. The Governor and Democrats have offered, over the last eight months, three separate proposals by which we could access several billion dollars in federal monies to provide coverage. As you may recall, present Medicaid spending is matched, dollar-for-dollar, with federal monies. With the proposed Medicaid expansion, however, the federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost for the first several years, eventually dropping to 90 percent. I believe that this is a good deal for the Commonwealth. We could take monies that we save in the first years and apply it to the later years in the event that the federal government does not live up to its responsibility, a fear cited by House Republicans as a reason not to expand Medicaid, but an unlikely event.

Democratic proposals since January 2014 have included a two-year pilot plan advanced by Gov. McAuliffe; straight Medicaid expansion; and “Marketplace Virginia,” a proposal offered by Senate Democrats and Republicans to use federal monies to buy private health insurance through private companies. All of these plans have been summarily rejected by the House Republicans.

During the budget dispute in the spring, the Republicans promised a “full and fair debate” over Medicaid so long as it was separated from the budget. That occurred, and the Republicans scheduled this so-called full and fair debate for last Thursday, September 18, 2014. The “full and fair debate” consisted of a 15-minute discussion in the Rules Committee about another compromise proposal on Medicaid expansion, and a short debate on the House floor with the result predetermined. The Republican answer was another “No.” If you want to see some of the debate on this issue, click here; for my floor speech on the issue, click here.

Our meeting last Thursday also brought a compromise on addressing our budget shortfall. If you want to see my comments on how we should try to close some tax preferences to make up our budget shortfall, you can click here.

Finally, three new judges were appointed for our district, and they will take their seats on December 1, 2014. Although I continue to believe that the selection of judges is overly-partisan, I offer my congratulations to the three that were appointed, Judge Richard Moore, Deborah Tinsley, and David Barredo. I am confident that they will be very effective judges and will serve this community admirably.

Please feel free to contact me with your concerns. It is an honor to represent you in the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

P.S.: I want to express my thanks and gratitude to the citizens of this community, the local and state police, City Police Chief Tim Longo, and Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran for all the work being done to bring Hannah Graham home. I was at JPJ Command Central last Saturday and Sunday and watched the volunteers stream in from around the Commonwealth and nation. I saw the line up of City School buses, UVA buses, and Jaunt buses at 7:30am on Sundayready to take the teams of volunteers out into the field to search for Hannah. The generosity and caring of this community is remarkable.

Judges Matter

July 25, 2014 by David Toscano

Updated Sept. 4, 2014
Whether you are a “strict constructionist” who believes the primary role of a judge is to serve as an umpire who calls “balls and strikes”, take the view that the Constitution is more a “living document” that should be interpreted within the context of the social and political forces of the time, or believe that a judge should simply serve the community by dispensing justice and helping resolve large and small problems in a thoughtful way, judges matter.

We have been fortunate that our community has been served by a series of very capable and committed judges. We have now been waiting for almost seven months for action from the General Assembly to appoint a successor to Judge Ted Hogshire. It now appears that we will wait longer still.

The waiting is a function of a number of factors. First, the budget fight distracted attention from a serious discussion of judges. We were told that judges could not be appointed until after the budget was approved, which did not occur until late June. At that time, Delegates and Senators simply did not have the energy to do any more than pass a budget. Second, since we have not technically adjourned, the Governor’s ability to make temporary appointments has been short-circuited. A cynic might think this is part of a plan by Republicans in the legislature to prevent a Democratic Governor from making appointments that they will not like; I will let you draw your own conclusions. It appears now that we will not reconvene until mid-September, so the vacancy here and those existing in other parts of the state will continue to remain unfilled. This is a tragedy, and is yet another example of the increasing partisanship in Richmond.

Whatever you may think is the reason for the failure to act on judges this year, one thing has become abundantly clear during my time in office – the selection process has become increasingly partisan, as a number of Republicans, primarily in the House but also in the Senate, are seeking to fill the judiciary with judges who tend to be more socially and politically conservative, especially in the area of criminal justice. For some, this is part of a conscious effort to impose their political will on the judiciary, and reshape the Commonwealth in their image. The long term implications, particularly as some of these judges move up to the appellate bench, are far from clear.

As I view it, we need greater diversity of thought and background in our judiciary, and should appoint people based on a variety of criteria, including their knowledge of, and experience with, different areas of the law. This is one reason why I give great deference to the recommendations of bar associations in the selection process, deference that is increasingly ignored in Richmond. Who knows the candidates better than their colleagues and while we should not set up our local bars as “mini star chambers” to select judges, we should accord them a greater role than we do at present in a selection process, which appears increasingly subject to the will of a small number of legislators.

Another part of this issue involves appointments to the bench when the legislature is in recess. Under normal circumstances, the Governor and the circuit courts are empowered to make temporary appointments to the appellate and trial benches (Governor) and the district courts (circuit court judges) during those months the Assembly is not in session. Our Constitution allows for orderly and expeditious transitions within the judicial branch. The Governor’s ability to make recess appointments is contained in the Virginia Constitution in Article VI, Section 7, which reads in part:

“During any vacancy which may exist while the General Assembly is not in session, the Governor may appoint a successor to serve until thirty days after the commencement of the next session of the General Assembly. Upon election by the General Assembly, a new justice or judge shall begin service of a full term.” [Emphasis added.]

During the budget process, language was inserted into the bill that would prevent judges appointed during a recess from being paid. The Governor vetoed this language, but the House, in a procedural move, ruled the Governor’s veto “out of order”. Clearly, House Republicans are attempting to prevent the Governor from making recess appointments by making it difficult for a lawyer to take a judgeship for which they might not be paid.

We return in mid-September, at which time I hope we can resolve this impasse. The Governor has proposed a solution in the form of a bill I filed (HB5005) that protects legislative prerogatives while allowing the Governor his Constitutional right to appoint during recesses. I hope my House colleagues will embrace it. So, we will be waiting until at least mid-September for a new judge.

Sincerely,
David Toscano

Update

Sept. 4, 2014

I am trying to keep you informed about the judicial selection process for the 16th Judicial Circuit. There is a good chance that a judge for our court will be chosen when we return to Richmond on September 18. A list of candidates has been prepared for interviews by the Courts of Justice Committees in the House and Senate. This list was advanced by Republicans in the House. Just so you are aware, neither Senator Deeds nor I have been involved in any discussions about who should be on this list; it is simply a list prepared by Republicans, primarily Delegate Bell.

As you know, David Franzen was the only person recommended by the Bar Association. For whatever reason, he was not included on the list. Judge Richard Moore is the only local person included on the list.

I think most of you now understand how political a process this is. Although I like and respect Judge Moore, and believe he has done a nice job as Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge, I favor a much less partisan selection process which respects the views of our colleagues and is conducted in a transparent fashion that involves our citizens.

If any of you wish to express your views about this decision-making process, I would encourage you to call the Republican members of our delegation and make them known.

P.S. As an update, some of you have asked for a list of the names of the potential candidates for our district. They are Judge Moore for Circuit Court, Deborah Tinsley for Judge Moore’s seat, and David Barredo for a new JDR seat.

New Laws Now in Effect

July 1, 2014 by David Toscano

July 1 brings new laws to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Here are some of the highlights:

With certain restrictions, you can hunt on Sundays in Virginia (HB1237)
No longer will owners of hybrid vehicles have to pay an annual “hybrid fee” tax of $64 (HB975)
The monthly maintenance fee on the E-Z Pass toll transponders will be eliminated effective September 1 (SB 156)
Persons assisting those experiencing a mental health crisis have more time under an emergency custody or temporary detention order to locate an appropriate facility for the individual to obtain proper care, and state facilities will need to provide a bed for them if no other placement can be found (SB260, Deeds)
A new crash prevention course will become available for mature drivers as an alternative to loss of license as a result of traffic infractions (HB771)
For the first time, a judge may now award attorney fees in cases where incapacitated vulnerable adults were defrauded by others in a position of trust. This was my bill, and it was developed after the local Legal Aid Justice Center’s forum on Elder Law in 2012 (HB312)

These represent a fraction of the 2,888 bills that were introduced during the 2014 General Assembly. The Division of Legislative Services is the office that drafts, tracks and compiles statistics on the legislation considered each session. In addition, they publish In Due Course and Session Highlights, two invaluable resources on legislation before the General Assembly.

As always, it is a pleasure representing you in the General Assembly and I hope that you will contact me with your views and comments about issues affecting the region and the Commonwealth either at my legislative office, 434.220.1660, or at my law office at Buck, Toscano and Tereskerz, 434.977.7977.

Sincerely,
David Toscano

The Veto Budget Session

June 27, 2014 by David Toscano

We met again on Monday, June 23, 2014, to consider the Governor’s eight vetoes to the signed 2014-15 budget. There was no discussion about a government “shutdown,” because the budget is signed and takes effect on July 1. The only issues remaining had to do with whether the eight vetoes would be sustained.

As usual, hot-button issues were vetoes that the Governor made involving Medicaid. In procedural moves that are not unlike what happens in Washington, DC, the House Republicans made it impossible to have votes on several of the Governor’s vetoes, including one which involved Medicaid expansion.

It was my view that we should vote on each one of the vetoes. The body could either vote to overrule (a 2/3 vote) or vote to sustain (a 1/3 vote), but I believe that the Governor has a right to veto and constituents have a right to know where their legislators stand on those vetoes. In taking their actions, the House Republicans denied constituents the ability to assess our votes on Medicaid expansion and hold us accountable for them. This is happening with increasing frequency in Virginia, and it is yet another example of how Washington politics is spreading across the Potomac.

By day’s end the House had overruled one of the Governor’s vetoes, which dealt with funding the Ethics Reform Commission and did not contest five other vetoes, which were relatively uncontroversial.

By the time the vetoes arrived at the Senate, there was only one to consider, the Ethics Advisory Council funding. The Senate sustained that veto, meaning that there is no funding for the Council in the coming year. The Governor has indicated that he will propose a stronger ethics bill and will support funding for the Council in January when we reconvene in regular session.

Technically, we remain in “Special Session” and will hopefully reconvene in Richmond soon to discuss the one remaining issue that we have, the filling of vacant judgeships, including one in our area. I have received many questions about this vacancy, and have told constituents that it would be filled after the budget has been finalized. Well, the budget has now been finalized and it is time for us to fill the vacancy. It will be up to the Republican House to determine when we are called back to discuss judges. Hopefully, it will be soon because the citizens in our region deserve to have a full-time permanent judge sitting in the Charlottesville Circuit Court.

Sincerely,
David Toscano

A Budget without Medicaid

June 13, 2014 by David Toscano

After seven hours of wrangling and a series of very close votes, the General Assembly passed and sent to the Governor a two-year budget. As has been the case for most of the session, the debates surrounding the budget were about Medicaid expansion and the extent to which conservative Republicans in the House would be able to threaten moderate Republican Senators into the passing a budget with language prohibiting any expansion in the near future.

When we arrived in Richmond on Thursday afternoon, we had been led to believe that the Senate would consider no further amendments to the proposed budget, which had been dramatically scaled back because of a $1.5 billion shortfall in tax revenues. That agreement quickly fell apart, however, under pressure from Tea Party Republicans in the House who threatened their counterparts in the Senate that they would reject the budget if their anti-Medicaid language amendment was not approved. By late evening, moderate Republicans in the Senate had capitulated and the budget, which included a further prohibition against Medicaid expansion, was adopted on a largely party line vote. This would not likely have happened had not Senator Phillip Puckett resigned his seat abruptly last week, handing Republicans a 20/19 majority in the Senate. On Thursday, I called for an investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding this resignation, including an exploration of the extent to which he was offered a position with the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission as an inducement for resigning his seat. You can read the speech I gave on the House floor here.

While I was not pleased with the original compromise budget, I initially planned to vote for it, largely because we needed a budget and I was concerned about how the failure to pass one might affect our Triple A bond rating. The Commonwealth’s financial situation had deteriorated over the last few months and we needed to have a budget so that our localities would have monies to fund the needs of their constituents. The Republicans’ efforts to prevent Medicaid expansion, however, changed all of that.

When the revised budget came to the House floor, I felt the need to oppose it for several reasons, not the least of which involved the language on the prohibition against Medicaid expansion. The budget plan eliminates pay raises that we had approved earlier for school teachers, college professors, and other state employees. While the money for schools reserved for educational “rebenchmarking” (i.e., inflation adjustments) remained, other discretionary K-12 spending was cut. Increases that we had previously approved for higher education were taken away. Monies for housing assistance were removed, as well as additional sums to create waiver slots to help those who are intellectually and developmentally disabled. Inflation adjustment for hospitals was stripped away. Monies previously approved for life sciences and research, as well as other economic development initiatives were also eliminated. While I understand how a revenue gap will prompt spending cuts, my view is that they did not need to be so draconian and that we could have found ways to enhance revenues by eliminating some of the tax preferences that are going to larger companies in Virginia. You can hear my argument here, but it fell on deaf ears.

At this point, the approved budget goes to the Governor, who has seven days within which to act. He could veto the budget, make certain line item amendments, or simply sign it. He has not yet indicated his position, but he will no doubt do that shortly.

General Assembly 2014

Update

Contact Me