The Virginia Legislative Process and Public Comment Time Management: Balancing the Need for Efficiency and Public Input

The Virginia legislative process is known for its efficiency and quick turnaround, with sessions generally lasting no more than 60 days in even-numbered years and less in odd-numbered years. However, this compressed timeline has led to debates over the management of public comment time during hearings. The recent incident involving victims of violent crime being cut off or prevented from speaking altogether during a hearing on a criminal justice reform bill drew sharp criticism from state officials and the public.

The Virginia legislature’s part-time lawmakers are expected to move quickly through the vast number of bills considered during each session. With most legislators earning around $18,000 a year and many traveling long distances to Richmond, the need for efficiency is understandable. However, critics argue that the way the General Assembly structures its work means important deliberations take place privately, and citizens’ concerns are given short shrift.

One particular exchange during a recent hearing on a so-called “second look” bill, which would allow individuals serving long prison terms to petition a court for a potential reduction to their sentence, highlighted the issue. After the subcommittee heard an explanation of the bill, Chair Del. Vivian Watts, a Democrat, told lobbyists and members of the public that she would allow six minutes of testimony for supporters and six minutes for opponents. When the opponents’ six minutes ran out after only three speakers, Watts attempted to cut the group off. The wife of a murder victim, who insisted on being heard, reported that her microphone was silenced.

Michael Grey, whose son was fatally shot while trying to sell an iPhone in 2018, stepped up to the microphone next. Watts asked him to stop speaking and then chided him when he persisted, saying, “I am not happy with the performance. However, I’ll let you go forward.” Melinda Wallin, who appeared shaken, followed and simply introduced herself before Spotsylvania County commonwealth’s attorney Ryan Mehaffey, whose office prosecuted the 2019 fatal shooting of Wallin’s son, asked for one minute for Wallin. “Respectfully, I’d ask for one minute for Ms. Wallin. … Her son died in her arms and she just wants one minute. We’ve been here all day. Please,” Mehaffey said.

“Next speaker, please,” Watts said after a long pause. Wallin felt railroaded and disrespected by the experience. Watts attempted to be clear and fair about the expectations she laid out and gave some leeway to the speakers. However, she acknowledged that the tightly compressed session means at some point, lawmakers have to move on.

While the exchange was striking, it represented a common back-and-forth and underscored the time crunch faced by lawmakers. The General Assembly legislates for a politically divided state of some 8.7 million people and considers thousands of bills during each session. Lawmakers typically don’t meet over the weekends and structure the weeks so work can conclude more quickly on Fridays.

Nationally, state legislatures have varying policies on handling public input. Some offer visitors more time and latitude than others. Members of the public who visit capitols to petition their government also face varying regulations that limit the display of signs, political messaging on clothing, and even where people can gather.

Virginia legislators cannot plod through discussion on every single issue or they would run out of time. However, the public broadly deserves more time, especially on sensitive topics like the second look bill. House GOP Leader Todd Gilbert suggested that the limited public comment could have been by design in this instance. Last year, the measure passed the Senate unanimously but died on a unanimous, bipartisan vote in a House of Delegates subcommittee after a public hearing that featured over an hour of testimony, including emotional pleas from victims who said the measure would add to their trauma.

The Assembly’s time limits for speakers vary from panel to panel. Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, also questioned why the Senate is not taking online public comment in subcommittees or allowing the submission of written comments. Joan Porte, president of the League of Women Voters of Virginia, expressed similar concerns about the Senate’s virtual testimony policies and the lack of an option to submit written comments.

However, other Assembly observers have noted how much access and transparency have improved since the pre-pandemic days when not all meetings were recorded, and there was no ability to testify online. The current session has been replete with other examples of visitors and even legislators being told to keep their remarks or questions brief. One instance happened in a House subcommittee discussing the closure of several state prisons, and another in a Senate committee debating collective bargaining and other employment-related measures.

“Please, make it quick!” Democratic committee chairman Sen. Creigh Deeds said, adding about a later bill with a chuckle, “You might speak too much, and we’ll kill it.” In an interview, Deeds sought to allow as much public input as possible but acknowledged the need to move on due to the vast number of bills considered during each session.

The Virginia legislative process and public comment time management present a delicate balance between the need for efficiency and public input. While the compressed timeline necessitates quick decision-making, it is essential to provide opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns and be heard. The recent incident involving victims of violent crime being cut off or prevented from speaking altogether during a hearing on a criminal justice reform bill underscores the need for a more balanced approach to public comment time management in the Virginia legislature.

In conclusion, the Virginia legislative process and public comment time management require a delicate balance between efficiency and public input. While the compressed timeline necessitates quick decision-making, it is essential to provide opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns and be heard. The recent incident involving victims of violent crime being cut off or prevented from speaking altogether during a hearing on a criminal justice reform bill underscores the need for a more balanced approach to public comment time management in the Virginia legislature. By finding a balance between the need for efficiency and public input, the Virginia legislature can continue to effectively represent the interests of its diverse population while ensuring that all voices are heard.