Thursday, October 20, 2016

The Case Against Voter Fraud

A few weeks ago, Virginia House Republicans held a press call in which they succeeded in getting newspapers to report on a two-week old incident where a single individual in Harrisonburg Virginia is alleged to have submitted voter registrations on behalf of people who are in fact dead. The State Police and FBI are investigating and, if the alleged activity is proven, the individual responsible should be prosecuted and punished under existing laws.

There is no evidence or allegation that this single student’s alleged activity was part of any larger effort or scheme to cast votes illegally on behalf of any candidate or any particular political party. According to the JMU student paper the Breeze, the student has spoken with the County registrar and investigators. Rather than speculate about the student’s motives, we could wait for the complete investigation, which would provide actual evidence and facts.

Instead, Republican leaders organized the call to highlight the most sensational aspects and then conclude that Virginians should believe that this isolated incident is indicative of a widespread problem with voter fraud. Taking cues from their presidential nominee, perhaps, they were undeterred by the absence of actual evidence of any widespread fraud or evidence that their recent legislative proposals, which have made voting more difficult, have done anything to prevent fraud.

In fact, the evidence we do have would indicate that the individual under scrutiny wasn’t terribly sophisticated. He used the last known address of one of the deceased, which caused a congratulatory letter to be sent to his family. He turned in a total of nineteen alleged fraudulent applications over nine months. Were he intending to influence the outcome of an election, he was either working an extremely long con or severely underestimated the number of votes that would be required to alter the outcome. He hadn't applied for any absentee ballots and, even if he had, newly registered voters who register by mail are required to provide ID with their initial absentee ballot.

On social media, I asked for anyone to explain to me how the alleged activity could result in fraudulent votes. A few folks sent me fewer than five examples with the stories of fraud from other states. And these were several years old.

So, voter fraud does sometimes happen. It's just that it's incredibly difficult to execute, even more difficult to get away with, and extremely rare.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and prevent all voter fraud. We should. It undermines confidence in an already suspect system in which the outcome is often predetermined by political gerrymandering and the absence of any campaign finance restrictions, which works to the tremendous advantage of incumbents.

So why don't we do more? We have to be careful that the remedy isn't worse than the ailment. If we restricted the right to vote to only white male landholders who could produce a deed to their property and a family bible dating back to the 18th century, we wouldn't have any voter fraud. We wouldn't have a representative democracy either, at least not the way we define it today.

The so-called remedies proposed would make it too difficult for many poor, elderly, and foreign born citizens to cast ballots, effectively disenfranchising them. As long as those are the only folks affected, Virginia house Republicans seem comfortable seeking greater and greater restrictions.

Some of the folks I have heard from are upset that I called the accusations of fraud disingenuous. If we were really genuinely concerned with ascertaining the true identity of voters rather than making voting more difficult, why not accept an expired driver’s license from an elderly voter who doesn't use it for driving any longer? Or give the elections officer the option to do so?

We have evidence given under oath that current Virginia House Republicans have deliberately drawn legislative districts to pack minority democrats into as few districts as mathematically possible. Why wouldn't we be suspicious of their real motives in crying Widespread Voter Fraud as well?

Friday, September 23, 2016

Are You Election Ready?

Get ready 'cause here I come
Get ready 'cause here I come
Get ready

~The Temptations, "Get Ready"

With about six weeks until the next election and in-person absentee voting beginning today, I wanted to share some information that may be useful this election cycle, including information about registering to vote and voting absentee.

Please be aware that the deadline to register to vote in this year's election is Tuesday, October 17th.

On Tuesday, November 8th, the polls will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
At the Virginia State Board of Elections website, you can check your registration status and confirm your polling place. In addition, voter ID laws are in effect. The list of accepted forms of ID and other related information can be found here.

City of Falls Church Guide to the 2016 Election

  • In-Person Absentee voting begins Friday, September 23rd at City Hall, weekdays 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
  • Closed Monday, October 10th for the holiday
  • Open Saturdays, October 29th and November 5th, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
  • Last Day to vote In-Person Absentee is Saturday, November 5th, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
  • Last Day to request an absentee ballot by mail is Tuesday, November 1st at 5:00 p.m

Fairfax County Guide to the 2016 Election

In-Person Absentee Voting - Fairfax County Government Center

  • Weekdays - September 23rd to October 14th
    • Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Thursday: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    • Monday, October 10th, Columbus Day - OFFICE CLOSED
  • Weekdays - October 17th to November 4th
    • Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

  • Saturdays - October 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, 29th and November 5th
    • 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
  • For information on Satellite Voting Locations, click here.     

Referenda & Constitutional Amendments

For Falls Church, there is a referendum on library bonds.

For Fairfax County, there are referenda involving bonds for our parks, human services, and transportation. In addition, you will also be able to vote on a Meals Tax, which would allow Fairfax County to enact a tax rate of up to 4%. If passed, the additional estimated revenue is $99 million per year. 70% of this would be earmarked for FCPS and the remaining 30% would go to other County programs and services. I support the meals tax.

Two constitutional amendments will be on ballots all over the state. One amendment attempts to codify the Right to Work provision, which I am against. The second one gives localities the option to exempt the surviving spouse of any law-enforcement officer, firefighter, search and rescue personnel, or emergency medical services personnel who is killed in the line of duty from real property taxes. I support this amendment.

Election Day Tips

  • Polls officially close at 7:00 p.m., but everyone waiting in line at that time must be given the opportunity to cast their ballots.
  • If the voting equipment malfunctions at your polling place, inform the election officials immediately. If the equipment cannot be repaired in a timely manner, you may then request an emergency paper ballot.
  • If you are elderly or disabled, or otherwise unable to enter the polling location without physical assistance, curbside voting will be made available to you at your assigned polling place.
  • If you previously requested and received an absentee ballot, but prefer to cast your vote in person on Election Day, be sure to return the unopened ballot to either the local Electoral Board or to the General Registrar before Election Day, or to the election official at your polling place.  This will enable you to cast a regular ballot on Election Day.


Questions: call 1--866-OUR-VOTE (687-8683)

Thursday, September 15, 2016

An End to the Hybrid Exemption

For over two years, the I-66 project has been a major topic of conversation in our community. Perhaps even longer than that if you consider previous concerns over traffic and commuting. After many community meetings and plan revisions, the Governor and senior VDOT officials unveiled the first phase of the project, the installation of tolling infrastructure on I-66 inside the beltway. While this is not how I might of chosen to kick-off the improvement project (I’d have preferred we break ground on the new lane from the Dulles Connector Road to Ballston first), the project is moving forward.

To many, the unveiling of the tolling infrastructure is an ominous signal that the end is near for the clean fuel plates exemption which has allowed single occupancy vehicles to use the HOV lanes inside the Beltway during rush hour.

This hybrid exception encouraged residents to purchase these innovative and exceptionally fuel efficient vehicles early on when the technology was new and relatively expensive. Given our high traffic area, I know many hybrid vehicle owners have enjoyed taking advantage of the HOV exception. I know this because many of them have asked me to help delay the sunset of the clean fuel plate exemption.

Some Background

The state entered into an agreement in 1994 with the FHWA that allows Clean Fuel Vehicles (Hybrids) to use the HOV lanes along I-66, inside and outside the Capital Beltway, as long as the state could demonstrate that allowing those cars on the HOV lanes wouldn’t cause the minimum average speed to decrease below 45mph at least ninety percent of the time.

Unfortunately, increased traffic and congestion has resulted in data to showing that the average speed cannot be maintained for ninety percent of the time. As an interim step, the state stopped issuing new clean fuel plates in 2011 but grandfathered in holders of the plates who got them before 2011. Traffic has continued to degrade, however, triggering a sunset clause to the hybrid car exemption.

In addition to traffic management, some have argued the program is a necessary incentive to encourage ownership of more fuel efficient cars, reducing carbon emissions and generally helping the environment.

I'm not convinced of the environmental benefits of continuing this particular program. Why should we allow someone driving a Camry hybrid, for instance, which gets 26 mpg, to take up capacity on the HOV/HOT lanes (more cars equal higher tolls for everyone else) while someone driving a less expense conventional drive vehicle like the Ford Focus, getting up to 35 mpg, can't use the lanes or has to pay the higher tolls? Why are we creating an incentive for this one particular technology? Simply giving hybrids a special exemption, while it may have been a good idea at the time, no longer makes sense to me.

Of course, if it didn't do anyone any harm, why not let the hybrids keep using the road like they always have? The problem is that It costs everyone else who uses the road higher tolls because toll pricing is based on the volume of traffic.

I am sure that it's disappointing to see this program, which has saved so much time and money over the years, go away. The truth is, I'm not a big fan of toll lanes and privatizing our roads at all. I'd love to see these roads remain free for everyone. We just haven't seen the political will to raise gas taxes to pay for infrastructure improvements we desperately need.

Unfortunately, the current hybrid exemption vehicle program is not compatible with the HOT lane concept which VDOT has adopted and is moving forward with. Given the new reality, I don't think it's fair to everyone else who uses these roads to have to pay higher tolls to benefit a savvy class of early adopters.

I haven't come to this position lightly. I've listened carefully to the arguments on both sides and done my best to keep an open mind. I understand that this is an issue on which intelligent and thoughtful people can disagree, and that some of my colleagues whom I almost always agree with are on the other side of this argument.

That said, if you’d like to share your concerns about this, please contact me either by phone (571) 327-0053 or email

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Combatting the Student Loan Debt Crisis

As we near the end of August, many Falls Church and Virginia families will engage in one of those rites of passage that some of us look forward to and others may dread: packing up their cars and making the road trip to drop off a child a college for the first time.

The trip is full of anxieties for children and parents alike. Will these very young adults make smart decisions about studying, alcohol, drugs, and relationships, with relatively little real adult supervision? Some of us may wonder why we didn’t set more aside for the spiraling increases in the cost of attending college.

Others will, after checking out the dorm, make a trip to the student aid office to beginning taking draws on their student loans, which is how they will pay for it all.

As of 2015, student loan debt topped $1.3 trillion nationally. This includes 1 million Virginians with over $30 billion of student loan debt. To put that in perspective, that's larger than credit card and auto loan debt. Only mortgage debt is greater, but with Student Loan debt, there are no assets securing repayment.

There is growing evidence that the burden of repaying all this debt is weighing down the economy and preventing younger Americans from more fully participating in the economy. This is why I hosted a series of roundtables last fall around the state, wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, and worked with advocacy groups to craft student loan debt legislation for this past General Assembly Session.

One thing that became clear during our roundtable discussions was that many student loan borrowers are not adequately counseled on the terms of the loans they are taking out or what their loan payments will be, and what it will take to make those payments, once they graduate. And for those that perhaps don’t finish their degree and, therefore don’t get the expected higher paying job, the numbers are even worse.

In response to these concerns, I co-sponsored legislation with State Senator Janet Howell last Session to create a Student Loan Borrower’s Bill of Rights. Among other things, the legislation would have required some basic consumer protections and required Virginia to license student loan servicers and originators just like similar financial providers.

Finally, we would create an office of the Student Loan Debt Ombudsman with the mission to:
  • Receive, review, and attempt to resolve any complaints from student loan borrowers, including attempts to resolve such complaints in collaboration with institutions of higher education, student loan servicers;  
  • Compile and analyze data on student loan borrower complaints;
  • Assist student loan borrowers to understand their rights and responsibilities as a borrower;
  • Provide information to the public, state agencies, legislators, and other persons regarding the problems and concerns of student loan borrowers and make recommendations for resolving those problems and concerns;
  • Analyze and monitor the development and implementation of federal and state laws and policies relating to student loan borrowers and recommend any changes the Office of the Student Loan Ombudsman deems necessary;
  • Establish and maintain a student loan borrower education course that shall include educational presentations and materials regarding student education loans. Topics covered by the program shall include key loan terms, documentation requirements, monthly payment obligations, income-based repayment options, loan forgiveness, and disclosure requirements.
Both my legislation to permit graduates to refinance student loan debt and the Student Loan Bill of Rights legislation received a lot of attention during the committee meetings and were subsequently referred to the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), Virginia 529, and the Virginia Department of the Treasury for further study. I have since met with SCHEV staff, who are taking the lead on this project, and plan to reintroduce the fine-tuned legislation during the 2017 Session.

We can’t break our word to the upcoming generation. We told them if they worked hard, went to school, and got a degree, they were punching their ticket to financial security. Offering lower interest rate refinancing and expanded consumer protections may not solve all the problems of social mobility and income inequality, but it's something we can do, here in Virginia, to make life better for everyone.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Making Our Community Safer

Earlier this week, prefiling of bills resumed for the 2017 House of Delegates Session. The House Majority Caucus decided to highlight the introduction of HB 1392, a duplicate version of a measure Governor McAuliffe vetoed in 2016, which would put guns in the hands of civilians inside our schools.

It's amazing to me that Virginia's GOP still hasn't gotten the message that the myth of the good-guy with a gun has been completely debunked. As so many across the country grieve and mourn those lost to gun violence, as police unions ask for action to restrict civilians from carrying firearms openly, for the Virginia House GOP to reintroduce a bill that will put more guns in close proximity to our school children shows just how out of touch they've become.

No one is more concerned about the safety of Virginia's children than I am. The fact is, this bill does nothing to improve the safety of children.

A study of mass shootings from 2009 to 2015 revealed that 96% of these tragedies occurred somewhere other than a school. In fact, accidental deaths involving firearms are the third leading cause of death for children.

I challenge my Republican colleagues in the House to show that they really are serious about protecting children by supporting legislation to require smart gun technology, to promote the use of trigger locks, and to fund a comprehensive study of gun violence as the public health scourge that it is.

At the same time, recent news stories involving lethal interactions between the police and men of color have been heartbreaking. Here in Northern Virginia and Fairfax we also have work to do with regard to the way police are trained and when and on whom they use physical force and how much is appropriate.

On Tuesday, the Fairfax County Police Chief released a report including data that showed 40% of use of force incidents involved African American suspects, even though African Americans are approximately eight percent of the overall county population.

These statistics were reported at the recommendation of the Fairfax County Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission on which I served. This week I wanted to highlight some of the recommendations of the Police Oversight and Use of Force Subcommittees.

Like the Mental Health and CIT Subcommittee I chaired, these subcommittees presented recommendations to the Board of Supervisors after months of stakeholder meetings. Each subcommittee comprised a group of individuals representing diverse backgrounds and experiences. The recommendations were only agreed upon after long discussions, presentations from several sources, and a comprehensive review of data.

For the past few months, the Board of Supervisors has been reviewing and implementing these recommendations. A regularly updated Progress Report can be found online -

One of the most important recommendations establishes a civilian oversight committee, which would go a long way in creating a transparent relationship between the police and the community. It is important to note that an oversight committee is not intended to be a punitive measure; it’s actually a pro-police position. Accountability and oversight builds trust and confidence which in turn makes policing our communities safer and easier for officers and residents alike. Further, making it a civilian oversight committee is integral to its success.

Specifically, the recommendations included:
  • Appointing an Independent Police Auditor who will report to the Board of Supervisors to participate in and monitor Internal Affairs Bureau investigations of use of force and other serious cases;
  • Establishing a Civilian Review Panel to respond to community concerns or complaints about alleged abuse of authority incidents by the Fairfax County Police Department;
  • In addition, the Commission recommends strengthening the independent investigative ability of the Commonwealth’s Attorney (CWA) in use of force and other serious cases. The various reporting and disclosure obligations contained in the recommendations will provide for the disclosure of the information necessary for the public to judge the thoroughness, completeness, accuracy, objectivity and impartiality of the FCPD investigations of use of force incidents and complaints concerning FCPD activities.
I am a huge fan and supporter of our state and local police officers. I believe that holding them to high standards, requiring transparency, and accountability are pro-police positions that will build a rapport with the community. This will make their jobs easier, make them more effective, and improve morale among officers and the communities they police.

So, while a strong commitment exists to further improve the relationship between the police and our community, we still have much to do to fully implement the subcommittees’ recommendations. And if HB 1392 is any indication, we also have much to do to ensure that some of my General Assembly colleagues have a better understanding of how we can effectively protect our children from gun violence.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

New Laws Taking Effect July 1st

As hard as it may be to believe, 2016 is nearly half over already.  July 1, 2016 is not only the mid-point of the year (and it’s not only my birthday) it’s also the day that all the new laws Virginia General Assembly passed and the Governor signed become law in Virginia.  I wanted to this opportunity to highlight some new laws that will take effect on July 1st that will have an impact on every day residents of the 53rd District.

Some of you may find yourselves thinking that nothing those politicians in Richmond do has anything to do with you, and you might be right.  On the other hand, you might not be.

For instance, if you are a sports fan and have seen ads for daily fantasy sports websites like FanDuel and DraftKings, you may have wondered whether it was safe and legal to logon and play.  You may be comforted to know that on July 1, 2016 Virginia will be the first state in the country to regulate these websites and put them under the supervision of Virginia’s consumer protection agency.

I was pleased to be a chief co-patron of this new law, which prohibits insiders and employees from playing for money and the sharing of confidential information that could affect fantasy contest play with third parties.  Operators must verify that any fantasy contest player is 18 years of age or older, allow individuals to restrict themselves from entering a fantasy contest upon request, segregate player funds from operational funds in separate accounts, and maintain a reserve in an amount sufficient to pay all prizes and awards offered to winning participants.

If your children ride a school bus to school, and you were concerned that Falls Church was forced to stop issuing tickets by mail to drivers who blew past the stop sign, you may feel a little safer knowing we corrected that legislation, to allow photo enforcement and ticketing by mail to deter dangerous driving behaviors like passing school buses when the stop arm is out.

If you have had to take out a permanent protective order against someone who has been abusive in a domestic relationship, you will now know that the subject of the protective order will have to surrender any firearms in his possession within 24 hours or be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

If you attend a gun show, you can expect to see State Police Officers there, and under a new law effective July 1, the State Police will finally be allowed to perform background checks for any transaction if requested to do so by the buyer and seller.

If you are a child under 8 years old, your parents won’t be allowed to smoke in a car while you are in it, strapped into your car seat.

If your spouse was made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country and was killed in action as determined by the US Department of Defense, you will qualify for an expanded property tax exemption to make it easier for you and your family to stay in your home.

And if you drive eastbound on I-66 toward DC during the evening rush, you will soon be getting a new lane to help ease the bottleneck that forms were the Dulles Connector road meets I-66.  The lane will continue all the way to Ballston where traffic generally begins to ease on your way to Nationals and Capitals games, so you can go watch your daily fantasy sports players, live and in person.

These are just a few of the laws that will come into effect on July 1st. For more highlights, the Division of Legislative Services produces In Due Course, which can found online at

Likewise, the full list of new laws can be assessed by visiting, selecting “Bills and Resolutions,” and then selecting “Approved or Enacted.”

Friday, May 27, 2016

What's in a name?

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. 
 ~Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

The Board of Visitors at George Mason University’s recently sold the naming rights to the University’s law school to Charles Koch and an anonymous friend in exchange for a series of annual donations totaling $30 million over 5 years. The donors chose the name the Antonin Scalia School of Law, then quickly changed that to the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

When the announcement was first revealed around April 1 of this year, I organized a petition drive and have been an outspoken critic of the University’s decision, along with a number of other local area legislators. I’ve written an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, co-authored a letter to State Council on Higher Education in Virginia, and made the trip to Lexington, Virginia for the Council’s May meetings to testify at the Academic Affairs Committee and the full Council about my concerns.

I did all this under the belief that SCHEV had the final say in the re-naming of the law school.

Although supporters of the name change have questioned my motives and called me a knee-jerk liberal, my motivation for championing this fight was and remains a genuine concern for the reputation of the law school, the university, and the Commonwealth.

I continue to be concerned that, in exchange for this $30 million purchase price, the school has done irreparable harm to its reputation that will result in declining enrollment, forcing them to become less selective, which will lead to declining school rankings which will only reinforce this downward spiral.

The grant agreement leaked online shows that, in addition to renaming the law school, GMU must hire twelve additional faculty members and create two new centers expanding its law and economic focus. They must reapply for the grant every year, and the Koch Foundation must be notified immediately if Dr. Henry Butler steps down or is removed as dean of the law school.
To SCHEV or Not to SCHEV?

In spite of all of this, SCHEV staff, based on advice they received from the Attorney General’s office, decided this week that the name change was honorific and therefore would not require their approval.

According to the SCHEV staff’s initial recommendation, they did have a role ensure that new instructional units are implemented appropriately relative to the inherent soundness of academic and fiscal commitments involved.

The law school industry, such as it is, is in a crisis. Applications to law school have decreased some 50% since their peak about a decade ago. The nation’s elite law schools are reducing class size, and not growing, in response to the shortage of applicants. In order to grow, the law school to the size it would need to be to sustain the new programs it is required to create under this contract to rename the school, particularly given the number of high quality students who are likely to be dissuaded from applying because of the name, GMU will have to accept students with lower LSATs and grades. This once again begs the questions of fiscal soundness of the University’s plan going forward.
Money & Influence

Virginia taxpayers contribute ten times more in each biennial budget than this gift would account for. These grant agreements would give the donors, or purchasers of the naming rights, outsized and inappropriate influence over the direction and decision making at the law school.

Dr. Cabrera has said at various times that the academic freedom of the law school and of the University is not at risk, as the purchaser price amounts to mere 0.6% of the Schools budget. At the same time, University and Law School officials would ask how such a large and significant investment in the law school could be refused.

Whether the gift is too big to come without strings that affect the Law School’s academic freedom, or so small that it really doesn’t make a difference, we should feel comfortable that it is in our best interest to say no to the offer to purchase the law school at George Mason University.
Moving Forward

At this point there don't seem to be many options under existing law to prevent the name change from going forward. However, there may be legislative options to clarify SCHEV's role in this process and make certain there is a process to prevent large donors from using our public colleges and universities as a platform for their personal agendas. So, while it may be too late to for this law school, there is an opportunity to take preventive action to protect the integrity, fiscal soundness, and overall perception of the rest of Virginia's higher education system.