Purple PAC TV Ad Supporting Robert Sarvis Goes Live

Robert Sarvis in Charlottesville

Two weeks ago, I scooped Virginia's political media by revealing that a newly-formed super PAC was going to run TV or radio ads in favor of Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis.

Last night, I saw the Purple PAC ad for Sarvis during the 11 o'clock news on WVIR-TV NBC29 in Charlottesville.

Writing on Virginia Politics on Demand, I said:

In July, the Center for Public Integrity reported on the formation of a new, libertarian political action committee that aims to support libertarian (and Libertarian) candidates around the country:

A super PAC quietly formed this spring by a prominent libertarian has rushed to a quick fundraising start thanks to a small network of wealthy, like-minded donors.

Purple PAC, a super PAC led by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith and Cato Institute founder Ed Crane, raised $575,000 from the time the group launched in early May through the end of June, new FEC filings show....

Smith, who currently serves as the chairman of the anti-campaign finance regulation group Center for Competitive Politics, said Purple PAC plans to make independent expenditures promoting “freedom-oriented” candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

These are viewpoints Smith says a large number of voters hold, although they have little influence in Washington.

“Swing voters don’t feel that either of the major parties is representing them,” Smith said, adding the group intends to focus much of its resources on battleground states, as its name suggests.

Now Virginia Politics on Demand has learned that Purple PAC is independently planning to purchase air time on radio (and perhaps television) in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis, the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

The proposed script of the ad reads in part:

Virginia, we have a rational choice for Governor.

Why choose between an ethically challenged, socially intolerant conservative and an ethically challenged, big government liberal?

Robert Sarvis, entrepreneur, libertarian.

Social tolerance and lower taxes: Virginia's future.

Send a message on November 5 and vote Sarvis for Governor.

(Paid for by the Purple PAC, Brad Smith, Treasurer.)

The Purple PAC's address of record is in Falls Church, Virginia, so it should come as no surprise that its first major expenditure should come on behalf of a candidate in the Commonwealth.

VPOD reached out to the Sarvis campaign, which had no knowledge of the potential Purple PAC ad buy.

The only major difference in the text that I reported from what ended up in the TV commercial is that it no longer lists Brad Smith as treasurer in the disclaimer. Instead, it somewhat mysteriously features a photograph of Joey Coon on top of the disclaimer, without naming him.

If I find the Purple PAC ad on YouTube, I will post it here in an update.

UPDATE: Purple PAC has put out a press release about the pro-Sarvis spot. It says, in part:

"Both the Republican and Democratic candidates are right about each other," said Ed Crane, President of the Purple PAC. "Ken Cuccinelli is a socially intolerant, hard-right conservative with little respect for civil liberties. Terry McAuliffe is a big government liberal with little respect for economic liberties. Both have been engulfed in scandal. Fortunately, Robert Sarvis offers an alternative, an agenda grounded in free markets and social tolerance."

He added that Virginia voters need to send a message to both political parties. "Pollster John Zogby has found that 59 percent of voters surveyed answered 'yes' to the question 'Would you define yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?'" said Crane. "It's time that the two major parties made room for those voters - a majority of the electorate - or risk losing them altogether."

The news release notes that the commercial can be seen on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/77629652. It has not yet shown up on YouTube -- where, I'll assert, more people would see it than they would on Vimeo.

UPDATE 2: Purple PAC has added an embeddable version of its Robert Sarvis TV ad to its own YouTube channel. (It's also the only video, so far, on that YouTube channel.) Here it is:

Practical effects of the Supreme Court's voting rights ruling

(This article appeared originally on Virginia Politics on Demand on June 25, 2013.)

Coby Dillard has already summarized what the U.S. Supreme Court did, and did not, do in its ruling Tuesday morning in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, in striking parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as reauthorized by Congress in 2006).

What I would like to explain is what practical effect this will have on voting in the Commonwealth of Virginia, one of the nine states covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice for virtually all legal and regulatory changes in voting procedures and elections.

With a few exceptions, all counties and cities in Virginia must seek permission from the federal government before making any changes in the way they conduct elections. The most recent exception is Hanover County, which was "bailed out" of the pre-clearance requirement, as explained in a news release posted by the Department of Justice on Monday:

The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with Hanover County, Va., that will allow for the county, a covered jurisdiction under the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, to bail out from coverage under these provisions. Bailout will exempt Hanover County, along with the town of Ashland, from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The agreement is in the form of a consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be approved by the court....

“In the department’s view, the county has met the requirements necessary for bailout. We reached this conclusion after thoroughly reviewing information provided by the county as well as information gathered during the Department’s independent investigation,” said Matthew Colangelo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We appreciate the county’s cooperation in the resolution of this matter.”

The bail-out process has always been an option for localities covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but it is expensive and time-consuming and requires the attention of numerous officials from the Electoral Board to the city or county attorney. The Electoral Board in Charlottesville (on which I serve) has considered applying for a bail-out several times over the past few years, but the expense -- the equivalent cost of a general election, or more -- plus the fact there was no guarantee of success deterred us from initiating the process.

That said, a Huffington Post headline today -- "The Last Voting Rights Act Bailout Ever Went To Hanover County, Va." -- suggests that the bail-out question is moot, unless Congress comes up with a formula that meets constitutional muster and restores Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, so that the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 can again be implemented.

On a practical level, ending the pre-clearance requirements will make it much easier for election officials in Virginia to do their jobs. While much attention has been paid to how the Supreme Court's ruling affects things like congressional and other legislative redistricting or statewide voter ID laws, the ripples of Shelby County v. Holder will be felt in countless tiny ways on topics that seldom make the headlines.

For instance, every time a polling place is moved from one location to another, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required us to seek permission from the Justice Department, a process that had to be approved at least 30 days prior to the move's taking effect. (In reality, permission had to be granted even earlier, because of the cascade of tasks that must be completed before election day, including the commencement of absentee voting, sending out voter registration cards with new information, posting advertisements in newspapers alerting voters about the changes, etc.)

To give you a sense of how detailed this pre-clearance process could be, consider this example. Some Charlottesville voters currently cast their ballots in the cafeteria of Johnson Elementary School. If we needed to move the voting location to the school's library down the hall, we would need Justice Department pre-clearance.

Buying new voting machines, making technical adjustments to precinct boundaries, moving the office of the General Registrar -- all these had required pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Each of those items required action by the Electoral Board, the General Registrar, the City Attorney, and (in most cases) City Council. They took time and energy away from other tasks that need to be done to assure fair, transparent, honest, and efficiently-run elections.

I will leave to others to debate the political implications of the Supreme Court's decision Tuesday. As for the practical effects, the Court has removed a tremendous burden -- some might even say nuisance -- from the shoulders of election officials across the country. For that we can be grateful.

How did Charlottesville untie its June 11 primary election?

(This article appeared originally on Virginia Politics on Demand on June 17, 2013.)

While last [June]'s primary elections were ho-hum throughout most of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- only 144,435 voters cast ballots in the Democratic contest for lieutenant governor, or 2.6 percent of possible registered voters -- the situation was different in Charlottesville, which had the most crowded ballot among Virginia's 134 counties and cities.

While a handful of localities had primary contests for the House of Delegates, Charlottesville was the only city with several local offices on the ballot. In addition to the top-of-the-ticket choices for lieutenant governor and attorney general, Charlottesville's Democratic voters also chose among candidates for commonwealth's attorney, commissioner of the revenue, and city council. (There were no Republican candidates on the ballot. The local GOP nominated two candidates for City Council, Mike Farruggio and Buddy Weber, in a late-April mass meeting.)

Charlottesville City Council candidate Wes Bellamy speaks to news media after his defeat

 Incumbent Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Chapman beat former Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Deaton in a landslide. (Chapman was first elected in 1993, when he defeated Deaton narrowly in a Democratic caucus. He has never faced a general-election opponent.)

Newcomer Todd Divers more narrowly defeated fellow newcomer Jonathan Stevens for the party nod for Commissioner of the Revenue. (They were both seeking to succeed retiring Lee Richards, another incumbent Democrat who never had a general election opponent.)

Chapman will again be unopposed in November but Divers will have two independent candidates running against him, Taneia Dowell and John Gunter.

The real fireworks came in the City Council race, which was not decided until Friday afternoon because of an exact tie between two candidates on election night.

There were five candidates seeking two nominations by the Democratic party. One was incumbent Kristin Szakos, who took first place handily.

When the results for Charlottesville's nine physical precincts were tabulated, it looked like the second-place finisher would be Bob Fenwick, who had 1,025 votes while third place was held by Wes Bellamy, with 1,006 votes.

City Council candidate Bob Fenwick speaks to news media after his narrow win was announced

All that was left to tally were the 201 ballots cast in the Central Absentee Precinct. Of those, 178 voters had cast their ballots in person on the eSlate electronic system and 24 paper ballots had been returned by mail. (One of those paper ballots was disqualified, so only 23 were counted.)

As the memory card with the machine totals was inserted into the tally computer, we knew the race would be close between Fenwick, who had twice before run as an independent candidate for City Council, and Bellamy, a first-time candidate. Little did we know how close it would be.

After the electronic absentee votes were added to the total, the count was Fenwick, 1,081, and Bellamy, 1,080. If nothing else, we knew a recount was a distinct possibility.

All that was left were the hand-counted paper absentee ballots. I watched over the shoulder of one of the election officials as she read the numbers off the statement of results so they could be added to the spreadsheet of all the other votes. Reading ahead, I exclaimed aloud, "Oh my god! There's going to be a tie."

Indeed, Fenwick received another 7 votes and Bellamy another 8 votes, so that they were tied: 1,088 to 1,088. What would happen next?

Well, there were still provisional ballots to be counted. There were five from Walker Precinct that we were fairly sure would qualify because they had been cast when there was a malfunction of the electronic pollbook early in the morning of election day. There were three others that we knew about, plus one or two "provisional ID" ballots that were issued because the voter failed to bring an acceptable identification document to the polls pursuant to the new voter ID law that took effect in 2012.

We learned at the canvass the next day that there were a total of 12 provisional ballots.

In the meantime, we were exploring the possibilities for what would happen if the election turned out to be an exact tie. It turns out Virginia election law is quite clear about this, which comes as a surprise because so much else about the code is rather muddy.
§ 24.2-674 says:

If two or more persons have an equal number of votes for any county, city, town, or district office, and a higher number than any other person, the electoral board shall proceed publicly to determine by lot which of the candidates shall be declared elected.

The term "by lot" is not specifically defined, but it is generally meant to be any game of chance, usually a coin toss but the category also includes drawing straws, a roll of dice, a hand of poker or blackjack, or even rock-paper-scissors.

When the canvass met on Wednesday morning, we had to move from our usual location in a small conference room in the voter registration office to a much larger room in the basement of City Hall. Observers from the Democratic party -- including local chair Jim Nix -- and both the Fenwick and Bellamy campaigns were there. The local news media were there in force: both TV stations, three local newspapers, and at least one radio station sent reporters and photographers.

They all had to sit through the tedium of the canvass -- which I described to Ed Sykes of NBC29 as akin to "watching paint dry" -- as we checked the paperwork from all the precincts. In the process, we found two discrepancies that had not been recorded on election night that had not affected the outcome of any race. It was not until 11:00 a.m. that we opened the main event, the provisional vote precinct. That is what everyone -- candidates, party officials, and journalists -- was waiting for.

In the event, we found seven regular provisional ballots and disqualified one of them because the voter was registered in Albemarle County. Six of them were accepted as valid and we counted the votes. Bob Fenwick picked up three more votes and Wes Bellamy received none. The count now stood at Fenwick, 1,091; Bellamy, 1,088.

At that point, it became necessary to discuss what we would do with the remaining four provisional ballots, which had been cast because the voters, whose names were properly on the pollbook, had shown up at their precincts on Tuesday without appropriate identification.

The law says that those voters have until noon on the Friday following the election to present their IDs to the electoral board. They can do so in person, by fax, by U.S. Postal Service, or by commercial delivery service but not by having it delivered by a third person (such as a family member.)

Wanting to speed up the process as much as possible, the Electoral Board readily agreed to the suggestion that the four voters be contacted by telephone or email to remind them that they had the opportunity to bring their IDs to the office.

Later in the day, a local talk-radio host complained that this was "coddling" the voters and that making those telephone calls might even be illegal, and wondered what the State Board of Elections would have to say about the Electoral Board's action.

The propriety of the Electoral Board's directing the general registrar to make these phone calls is unquestionable. There is a section of the administrative code of Virginia, 1VAC20-60-60, which states plainly:

The electoral board or general registrar may attempt to contact an individual who has voted a provisional ballot when required by § 24.2-643 of the Code of Virginia and remind the individual that he is permitted to provide a copy of a form of identification as specified in subsection B of § 24.2-643 of the Code of Virginia to arrive no later than noon on the Friday after election day. However, there shall be no requirement that the electoral board or general registrar contact such individual.

The statutory authority for this provision is found in § 24.2-103 of the Code of Virginia.

That said, it should be pointed out that this is all new territory for election officials. The voter ID law took effect on July 1, 2012. (A new one will supersede it on January 1, 2014.) There was never a need prior to the November 2012 election to even consider telephoning voters about their missing IDs. The form each voter fills out on the envelope containing a provisional ballot, however, includes a space for a telephone number, so even without the clear guidance set out in the administrative code, the implication by the design of the form is that the State Board of Elections intended that the phone number be available for use by Electoral Boards and registrars.

Even so, callers to that radio program were complaining as late as Monday afternoon about the "dubious" practice of the Electoral Board to request that phone calls be made to expedite the completion of the canvass and election process.

When the board reconvened on Friday afternoon at 1:30 p.m., the crowd of observers was slightly thinner than it had been on Wednesday, but there were still more people present than at a "normal" canvass. Three of the four voters had provided an ID, so their votes would be counted.

In the end, Bob Fenwick received two more votes while his nearly-equal opponent, Wes Bellamy, received none from the provisional precinct. Fenwick ended up the winner by five votes, 1,093 to 1,088, and Bellamy graciously conceded and said he would not seek a recount, which would be within his rights as a losing candidate when the difference between the two was less than 0.5 percent of the total. He explained that, having observed the Electoral Board's canvass, he trusted the accuracy of the results.

All in all, the 2013 Democratic primary election in Charlottesville brought a lot more tension and excitement than had ever been anticipated or wanted. (The election official's prayer: "Dear Lord, we don't care who wins, as long as it's by a big margin.") Still, having seen a precise tie on election night, observing the rare occasion of an election decided "by lot" would have been an unforgettable event, one that is unlikely to happen again in Charlottesville for a long, long time.

As for the rest of the Commonwealth, a tie is still a mathematical possibility. So watch out.

NOTE: Virginia Politics on Demand contributor Rick Sincere has served on the Electoral Board for the City of Charlottesville since March 2004.

Virginia gubernatorial candidates speak at Buena Vista

Delegate Lacey Putney, grand marshal of the Buena Vista Labor Day parade

(This article appeared originally, in slightly different form, on Virginia Politics on Demand on September 2, 2013.)

Over the past 43 years, the Labor Day parade and festival in Buena Vista has come to be viewed as the official launch of the political campaign season for Virginia politicians. Like its eastern counterpart, Shad Planking, it began as a Democratic Party event but has grown to encompass all parties, including Republicans and Libertarians.

This year's festivities, however, seemed to be thinner than in years past. Even Delegate Lacey Putney, who was honored as grand marshal of the parade, commented about the paucity of the crowd this year. Putney should know -- he's retiring after 52 years in the House of Delegates (a record) and he's had plenty of time to observe events like this.

Others noted the smaller crowd, too. Even compared to last year, when the headliners were U.S. Senate candidates (and former governors) George Allen and Tim Kaine, the number of people along the parade route and under the pavilion to listen to political speeches appeared fewer.

One explanation could be there is diminished interest in politics in 2013, a gubernatorial year, compared to 2012, a presidential year. Yet there was a standing-room-only crowd (as I recall) in 2009, when Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds ran against each other for governor.

Even though all seven candidates running for statewide office were there -- plus U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte and Delegates Ben Cline and Putney -- they did not seem to drag large numbers of their supporters along. Perhaps there were other Labor Day events around Virginia competing for interest.

Will the small turnout in Buena Vista today presage a small voter turnout on Election Day? We'll find out in just about two months.

The three candidates for governor -- Republican Ken Cuccinelli, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis -- all spoke. McAuliffe was called to speak first and quickly departed; he had later engagements in Covington and Newport News.

Cuccinelli was next. He was introduced by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6).

The third gubernatorial candidate to speak was Libertarian Party nominee Robert Sarvis.

Lieutenant governor candidates E.W. Jackson (R) and Ralph Northam (D) and attorney general candidates Mark Herring (D) and Mark Obenshain (R) also spoke. Click on their names to see their speeches on YouTube.

Calvin Coolidge and civility

(This article originally appeared on Virginia Politics on Demand on June 20, 2013.)

One day in 1905, while running for the school committee in Northampton, Massachusetts, future U.S. President Calvin Coolidge ran into his opponent on the street. Biographer Amity Shlaes relates the story like this:

The school committee campaign, she said,

would be a tight race: his Democratic opponent, John J. Kennedy, was someone he liked. "Calvin, I think I've got you beaten," teased Kennedy when they met. "Either way, they'll get a good man," Coolidge shot back. There was no point, he was learning, in making enemies.....

Within weeks, he did lose to Kennedy, albeit by less than a hundred votes. That was all right. A neighbor told him he had voted for Kennedy for the school post because Kennedy, at least, had children. Coolidge [then a newlywed] came back with good humor: "Might give me time."

That turned out to be the only election Calvin Coolidge lost as he made his way through the state legislature, lieutenant governor, governor, vice president, and president.

The anecdote about Coolidge and Kennedy struck me as so out of sorts with our own political times that I asked Shlaes about it when I interviewed her at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in March. What did that story say about civility in politics?

"That's the most important thing," she replied, "and I hope you write about that."

Coolidge, she explained, "was so civil."

Right now, with this book, a lot of people are trying to get me to attack other people. I don't want to attack people. We all should respect each other. One would hope all of us would hope to be like Coolidge and be fair to one another. He won without attacking and that's interesting. Coolidge won more than a dozen times but he was running for election every single year. In Massachusetts at that time, you had to run for governor [and virtually every elective office] every year.

... they had to run for office so often, that would be another way of testing their probity, wouldn't it? They got inspected by the customer -- the voter -- more often than we do [every] four years or something, right?

[Coolidge] just said, be civil, it'll pay off. It's in his autobiography, as well... He had a wicked tongue but it didn't behoove him to use it. He had a lot of kindness in his heart for all his opponents.

One could write off Coolidge's kindnesses for his opponents as mere political posing. Yet the encounter with John Kennedy was a private one; Coolidge had no points to score. He was genuinely amiable and civil with his rival, and he genuinely believed Kennedy could do just as a good a job on the school board as Coolidge could himself.

There are many adjectives used to describe Calvin Coolidge -- parsimonious, reticent, reflective -- but "obsequious" is not among them.

Twenty-first century Americans have a lot to learn from Coolidge and his era, which was just as rambunctious politically as our own, with real lines drawn on policies of public importance.

During the 1920s, there was a robust debate about the proper size and scope of government and another on the role of the United States in international affairs in the wake of the Great War. Policy differences were stark.

Yet Republicans and Democrats (and even Progressives) were able to discuss the issues of the day without devolving into the sort of tribalism we find ourselves in today. They may have had profound disagreements but nevertheless were able to conduct public business without demonizing each other.

As I said in the Richmond Times-Dispatch a few years ago, we could use a dose of Coolidge today.

Combating Drunk Driving Without Compromising Liberty and Safety

(This article originally appeared on Virginia Politics on Demand on May 28, 2013.)

This past Memorial Day weekend marked the start of the summer driving season, and with it came warnings about drunk driving and other traffic hazards.  As Hoai-Tran Bui reported for WTOP radio in Washington:

Memorial Day weekend is one of the most dangerous holidays of the year for drivers.

Kurt Erickson, with the Washington Regional Alcohol Program, says there's a significant increase in drunken driving deaths during Memorial Day weekend.

In 2011 (the latest year that data is available), 406 people lost their lives nationwide during the three-day weekend, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

"Forty percent of all traffic fatalities that happen in this country over Memorial Day were actually caused by drunk drivers," Erickson says. "That compares to 31 percent during the other parts of the year."

The good news in Virginia is that, overall, Memorial Day traffic accidents declined this year, according to Doris Taylor at WTKR-TV in Hampton Roads:

Officials say the state of Virginia had a major decline in fatalities on Memorial Day Weekend this year. They investigated about 620 crashes that resulted in 141 injuries and 7 deaths.

The number of deaths dropped into the single digits this year, the first time since 2009.

Preliminary reports show that seven people lost their lives this weekend in traffic accidents all over the state including one in Newport News, Carroll County and Southampton.

Police also stopped 11, 9900 [sic] speeders and 2,609 reckless drivers. Officers were able to arrest 137 drunk drivers.

These statistics arrive in the context of a recent call by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to revise the definition of drunkenness for purposes of arresting drivers who are "under the influence."

With the utopian goal of "reaching zero" drunk-driving fatalities, the NTSB recognizes in a report released May 14 that

the number of lives lost annually in alcohol-impaired-driver-related crashes declined 53 percent, from 21,113 in 1982 to 9,878 in 2011; and the percentage of highway fatalities resulting from alcohol-involved crashes is down from 48 percent in 1982 to about 31 percent today.

Despite this notable record of success over the past three decades, however, the NTSB recommends that, although "the majority of alcohol-impaired drivers in fatal crashes have BAC levels well over 0.08,"

the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia establish a per se BAC limit of 0.05 or lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits.

The Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman explains the practical effect of adopting this recommendation:

From the standpoint of individual behavior, that would be a significant change. A 180-lb. man could be legally impaired if he had three drinks in an hour (versus four drinks today) while a 140-lb. woman could earn a set of handcuffs with just two drinks in an hour (compared to three under the current rule).

Some 20 years ago, when the Virginia General Assembly was considering a bill to lower the blood alcohol concentration threshold for drunk driving from 0.10 to 0.08, I testified before the Senate Courts of Justice Committee (then chaired by Arlington Democrat Edward Holland) alongside Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

We both argued against a change in the law, pointing out that revising the technical definition of impairment downward would simply redistribute law enforcement resources without actually preventing any drunk-driving incidents. Lightner said that educational efforts and changes in the culture -- that is, changing people's attitudes about the acceptability of driving while intoxicated -- would be more effective.

Lightner also said:

Half of the drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes have a BAC of 0.17 or greater. Even among young people aged 16 to 24, the great majority of deaths involve drinkers with a BAC of at least 0.15 percent. Lowering the blood alcohol content won't make a difference to these offenders.

I drew on research that probably still holds true:

Minnesota Judge Dennis Challeen, who over the past 30 years has sentenced hundreds of people for DWI violations, agrees with Lightner. "Most drunk driver fatalities," he notes, "have BAC levels close to 0.20, twice the legal limit. If lawmakers reduce the limit to 0.08, they are simply catching more of the wrong people, the people who are not the problem."

Judge Challeen further argues that stricter laws will be ineffective because those who do not need to be sanctioned -- law-abiding citizens and responsible drinkers -- are most likely to be "self-correcting," while chronic drunks and scofflaws are least likely to respond to harsher penalties.

The fact is, by changing the definition of drunkenness, we enable the police to arrest more people. That may seem tough, but the effect is clogging the courts with people who are not really the problem, creating conditions whereby truly dangerous people are let off without punishment so that we can make room for the minor offender.

The author of Confronting Drunk Driving, Professor H. Laurence Ross, estimates a potential increase of 60 percent of DWI arrests under the new definition with the possibility of no decrease in fatalities. "Adoption of 0.08 percent BAC has not to date been accompanied by any comparable new investments in police resources," Dr. Ross reports, "thus diluting an already inadequate control system. The effect may well be to reduce the chances of any impaired drivers being arrested."

Candy Lightner argued then that

Rather than put our limited resources into laws that fail to address the real problem, we need better enforcement of existing laws and proven policies that have demonstrated a significant impact... If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road. Putting our trust in new laws and regulations that only address the tip of the iceberg will not make our highways safer.

That point is echoed by Steve Chapman in his reaction to the NTSB's most recent recommendations:

Under a tighter BAC, the same number of cops will be chasing a lot more offenders. An officer who is busy arresting someone with a .05 level, who poses a small danger, will not be able to arrest someone with a .10 or .15 level, who poses a huge danger....

It may come as a surprise to hear that the organization that deserves much of the credit for raising public awareness of the problem, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, has declined to endorse this proposal. It prefers to focus on greater efforts to enforce existing laws, while requiring ignition interlocks for every DUI offender.

NTSB acknowledges this last policy would save some 1,100 lives per year -- far more than a lower BAC would save. It also has the virtue of disabling the few guilty without inconveniencing the many innocent.

In a free society, trying to reach zero carries too high a cost. Better to settle for making progress.

Utah was the first state to change its BAC definition to 0.08 in 1983. Other states followed slowly on their own initiative, but it was federal carrot-and-stick incentives that eventually forced the rest of the country into uniformity, regardless of the effectiveness of the legislation on solving the problem it purported to address.

While we will hear protests from state capitals -- including Richmond -- against the NTSB's most recent recommendations, it won't be long before Congress acts and threatens to withhold federal highway funding from any state that does not go along with the proposal. It's only a matter of time, and it won't save any lives or property.

Robert Sarvis Buys Airtime During Cuccinelli-McAuliffe Debate

Robert Sarvis at Wright's Dairy Rite in Staunton

(This article originally appeared on Virginia Politics on Demand on September 25, 2013.)

Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Virginia, will not be participating in tonight's debate in Fairfax County between Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli and Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe, but he will insert himself into the fray anyway.

Sarvis is buying airtime on WRC-TV (NBC4) in Washington, which is broadcasting the debate, sponsored by the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce and moderated by NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd.

An advance copy of the 30-second Sarvis spot was provided to Virginia Politics on Demand.

In the TV ad, Sarvis tries to distinguish himself from both his rivals.

The spot begins with a voiceover and side-by-side photos of Cuccinelli and McAuliffe: "Can't vote for these guys?" The focus quickly switches to Sarvis, who says, "Well, I can't either. That's why I'm running for Governor of Virginia."

Introducing himself over footage of himself and his African-American wife and mixed-race kids, Sarvis says, "I joined this race to give you a better choice. Like you, I can't vote for Ken Cuccinelli's narrow-minded social agenda. I want a Virginia that's open-minded and welcoming to all."

He continues: "Like you, I don't want Terry McAuliffe's cronyism, either, where government picks winners and losers. Join me, and together we can build a Virginia that's open-minded and open for business."

The ad moves swiftly, and many viewers may miss it completely.

Two polls (Washington Post and Bearing Drift) released this week show Sarvis hovering at about 10 percent of likely voters; an NBC News poll shows him at 8 percent. The last independent candidate for governor, state Senator Russ Potts, received 2.22 percent of the vote in 2005. The last Libertarian candidate for governor, Bill Redpath, received 0.77 percent of the vote in 2001.

Update:  A Zogby poll released September 30 shows Sarvis with 12.7 percent of the vote.

Pew study finds Virginia absentee ballot rejections declined

The Pew Charitable Trusts elections initiative has been crunching the numbers across all 50 states to compare statistics on voter registration rates, voter turnout, and the numbers of absentee and provisional ballots that are accepted or rejected.

In its snapshot of Virginia (published September 19), Pew focused on the change in absentee ballot acceptance rates between 2008 and 2012:

The number of domestic absentee ballots rejected in Virginia declined from 2008 to 2012. Of the approximately 423,000 absentee ballots cast in 2012, 2,278, or 0.5 percent, were rejected. In 2008, the rejection rate among the nearly 550,000 absentee ballots cast was 1.3 percent.

What this suggests is that voters are being more conscientious when filling out their absentee ballots -- making sure that there is a witness signature, for instance, and providing a proper and current address -- and election officials are being more conscientious about examining ballot envelopes when they arrive.

By comparison, the 2012 absentee ballot rejection rate in West Virginia was 0.2 percent (26 out of 13,792 ballots); in Pennsylvania, it was 0.7 percent (1,845 out of 248,561); in North Carolina, it was 1.1 percent (2,237 out of 205,078); and in Michigan, it was 0.6 percent (8,049 out of 1,259,902 absentee ballots returned).

Pew's infographic of Virginia's 2012 voting statistics is here: Virginia-PewSnapshot

(This article was originally posted on Virginia Politics on Demand on October 1, 2013.)