An editorial published in the Roanoke Times pointed out today's one-day special session of the Virginia General Assembly. Numerous bills prepared during February’s session have been passed or vetoed by the governor. Vetoes may or may not be overridden by legislators. One bill was not vetoed, rather was amended and brings a larger topic into focus: Basic democratic rights.
“If lawmakers want to pick a fight with the governor, there's a far better opportunity…He used an amendment to create a gaping loophole in legislation meant to protect Virginians who try to recall elected officials.
“Current law allows those officials to seek restitution for legal expenses and court costs if the recall fails. Lawmakers decided exercising a basic democratic right in the commonwealth shouldn't cost citizens.
“The governor would create an exception to their immunity for "malicious intent." Is there any other kind of intent for removing someone from office?”
Another basic democratic right is access to our judicial system, one of the three branches of our government. Unfortunately, this has become so cost prohibitive it makes catastrophic health care almost look affordable (even for many mundane legal matters).
Most people agree providing American’s with basic democratic rights is right.
Take this argument and apply it to another situation. What if you were hauled into court for stating an opinion? What if this statement was relative to how your government was interpreting existing law, zoning or writing local code, focusing on some issues while ignoring similar ones? If subsequently deemed by a court as being unfounded, should your defense cost you? Does feeding the system continue as you seek to recover those costs through the courts?
In both of these scenarios, legal expenses can mount exponentially depending on billable rates of the selected attorneys. Access to protecting one’s basic democratic rights becomes mired in with financial capacity while sorting out the intentions of all parties.
Malice, according to Webster, is active ill will, a desire to harm another. In legal terms it includes an evil intent. Evil is defined as being morally bad or wrong; wicked.
Intentions can run the gamut from positive to negative based on feelings and thoughts or wants and needs.
The situation spawning the legislation which our governor is trying to have amended may have arisen from a loving intent to protect democratic processes. It may have included some malicious intent, or fallen somewhere in between. The governor’s amendment may keep this in the courts longer, requiring actual malice to be proven.
Both of these examples underscore how anyone with the means can, in essence, financially attack individuals who are engaged in democratic processes. Anyone who participates in a public forum, outside of a voting booth, becomes vulnerable.
Both, therefore, are deserving of appropriate attention by our legislative branch of government. Redress, including the right to petition our government, should remain a basic democratic right without fear of financial retaliation. When a lawsuit is filed, alleging specific charges and subsequently fails, however; restitution of defense expenses and costs should be automatic.