BY CHELYEN DAVIS

RICHMOND—The House Privileges and Elections Committee has killed a bill that would require candidates for local office to be identified by party on the ballot if they are nominated by a political party.

The Fredericksburg City Council has taken a position against it, citing   potential ramifications the bill would have on local government and elections.

A Senate version of the bill has been approved by a committee and will be up for a vote by the full Senate next week.

“I think it would be really bad for the city of Fredericksburg if this came about,” said Councilman George Solley, after the bill was killed by the committee yesterday.

City Council members Fred Howe III and Mary Katherine Greenlaw—who are both running for mayor—agreed with him.

“I think the General Assembly heard from lots of people from local governments and recognized it was a bad idea,” Greenlaw said.

Del. Steve Landes, R–Augusta, said his bill would apply to local candidates the same rules that apply to candidates for other offices, such as those running for the House of Delegates.

“If it’s good enough for us to be identified on the ballot by party, why isn’t it good enough for other candidates nominated at the local level?” Landes asked.

He said his bill would clarify things for voters.

“The reason that’s necessary is voters get confused,” Landes said.

But other delegates say adding party identification to local ballots will encourage partisanship among local governing bodies.

Del. Rosalyn Dance, D–Petersburg, said she served as a local official and that she and others worked on issues as independents, regardless of party preference.

Adding a party identification to the ballot, she said, “might contaminate the waters” and encourage more division on local boards.

Del. Margaret Ransone, R–Westmoreland, said she’d been contacted by local officials in her district, concerned that party identification would harm their ability to run for political office because the Hatch Act bars federal employees from running for a partisan political office.

The committee voted down the bill, although Del. Mark Cole, R–Spotsylvania, a former county supervisor, said later that he voted for it.

“I think it’s good policy. I just don’t think it’s good policy to withhold information from the voters,” Cole said. “If someone does get the party nomination, voters ought to know that.”

Primary changes backed

The committee also voted to make changes in primary ballot access rules, in the wake of a lawsuit filed by presidential candidates who failed to get on the ballot for Virginia’s presidential primary coming up in March.

It passed two Cole bills dealing with primaries. One will let parties, if they choose, allow write-in candidates in their nominating primaries.

The other will slightly loosen Virginia’s requirements for getting on a primary ballot.

Virginia requires statewide candidates to gather signatures from 10,000 qualified state voters, with at least 400 coming from each of the state’s 11 congressional districts.

Only two Republican presidential candidates successfully did that to get on the party’s ballot for the March primary.

Others, led by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, sued, saying that Virginia’s requirements were too stringent and that the rule requiring that petitions be circulated by a registered Virginia voter was unconstitutional.

A judge said he felt the issue of constitutionality had merit but that the unsuccessful candidates should have filed suit when they released what the regulations were.

Cole’s bill originally would have eliminated most of the signature requirements and allowed political parties to set their own requirements for getting on party primary ballots, something Cole said he still wants to do.

But on the recommendation of the attorney general’s office the bill was amended, and now addresses only  the question of who can circulate petitions.

The bill would require that  qualified Virginia voters—not necessarily  registered ones—gather the signatures. It doesn’t require that those voters live in any particular district, as long as they live in Virginia.

Del. Dave Albo, R–Fairfax, said he didn’t like the idea of letting people from other areas of the state come into his district to gather petitions for a House seat.

“Is this another example of us being forced to do something ridiculous by a court?” he asked.” I don’t understand what’s unconstitutional about requiring the voter to at least live in the congressional district.”

Josh Lief, representing the attorney general’s office, said several courts had ruled that circulating petitions is protected political speech.

The bill has an emergency clause because it will apply to this year’s races for U.S. Senate and congressional seats.

Voter ID bill advances

The committee also passed another bill from Cole, to require voters who have no identification with them at the polls to vote a provisional ballot instead of a regular ballot.

Provisional ballots are tallied after the election is over.

Opponents on the committee objected to the bill, saying it was unnecessary and would make it harder for some people to vote.

The bill “looks like it attempts to suppress certain people or groups of people from voting,” said Del. Kenneth Alexander, D–Norfolk. He included in those groups students, the elderly and racial minorities.

Supporters said they didn’t see what was controversial, given that provisional ballots are still counted.

Chelyen Davis:  804/343-2245

cdavis@freelancestar.com