A typical day’s schedule for the governor, when he doesn’t have any public appearances, looks like this one for Monday:
10 a.m.: Gov. Glenn Youngkin attends cabinet meeting
1:15 p.m.: Gov. Glenn Youngkin receives briefing from Secretary of Finance Stephen Cummings
3 p.m.: Gov. Glenn Youngkin receives briefing from Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources Travis Voyles
I’m surprised there wasn’t a fourth entry that might read something like this:
4:30 p.m.: Gov. Glenn Youngkin visits OfficeMax to stock up on veto pens
Youngkin has already vetoed more bills than his predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, did during his entire four years — and Youngkin still has more to work through, not just this year but next year, too.
McAuliffe, a Democrat, rejected 121 bills that a Republican legislature sent him. Youngkin, a Republican who now faces a Democratic legislature, has so far vetoed 128 bills.
Some of those were completely predictable: not even Democrats really expected him to sign their gun bills. They held out some faint, but ultimately unrealistic, hope that he might sign the bill legalizing retail cannabis. Of course, they also held out some faint hope that might have been part of a deal for the proposed arena in Alexandria, and we all know what happened to that. Youngkin was always unlikely to sign the bill raising the minimum wage, either; although I thought there might have been some chance with an arena deal that he’d send it back with amendments to create regional minimum wages.
With the gun bills, cannabis and minimum wage on the veto pile, here are the biggest bills before the governor where the outcome is in some doubt as his April 8 deadline approaches.
1. Should ‘skill’ games be allowed?
Or, as opponents prefer, “neighborhood slot machines.” When he was a candidate for governor, Youngkin indicated some general support for these games, but as spokesman Christian Martinez told Public Gaming Magazine, “now he has to look at the legislation presented to him.” Both sides have mounted a public lobbying campaign — you seemingly can’t pass a convenience store these days without seeing a sign that proclaims “Skill games support this business.”
One thing weighing in favor of Youngkin making some sort of accommodation for the games: When the games were previously legal (and taxed), they generated quite a bit of revenue in some rural localities — and rural voters were the key to Youngkin’s election. The legislation also picked up a fair amount of Republican support in the General Assembly. The Senate vote was 31-9 — the nine opposed included more Democrats (five), than Republicans (four). The House vote was closer — 51-45 — with both yeas and nays roughly divided between Democrats and Republicans. With a bill that passed on a party-line vote, it’s easier for a governor to ink a veto; here there’s some substantial Republican support.
One thing weighing against Youngkin accepting the bill as-is: some of the details.
The key philosophical question is how much the regulation of skill games should resemble the regulation of casinos. If these really are “neighborhood slot machines,” then that makes convenience stores mini-casinos, and shouldn’t they be regulated the same way that actual casinos are? For instance, casinos require a local referendum; should these games?
Likewise, casino operators have to undergo background checks; so do skill game operators in Georgia and Illinois. You have to be 21 to enter a casino; in Illinois, skill games are also supposed to be in some restricted “21 and older” area. The Virginia legislation doesn’t require that. In the two convenience stores nearest me in Botetourt County, they’ve been out in the rest of the store. Casinos also have a “voluntary exclusion” list where people who know they have a gambling problem can report themselves and be barred. Illinois has the same program for skill games. The bill before the governor doesn’t require this.
That’s why I would not be surprised to see the governor send the bill back to the legislature with a long list of amendments.
2. A right to contraception?
HB 609 by Del. Marcia “Cia” Price, D-Newport News, and SB 237 by state Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield County, both establish a “right to obtain contraceptives and to engage in contraception.” Thirteen states have created legal protections for contraception, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, with five of those coming after the Supreme Court overruled a national right to abortion in the Dobbs decision. Republicans in the General Assembly expressed skepticism of these bills on two grounds: the unknown implications of creating a new right, and concern that the legislation would automatically allow so-called “abortion pills” (although the sponsors said this was simply about contraception, not abortion). The Senate passed the bill on a party-line vote; the House passed it with just four Republican supporters.
3. A local sales tax for school construction?
Nine localities already have the right to hold a referendum to approve raising the local sales tax, with the proceeds going to school construction. Del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, and state Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-Prince William County, sponsored bills — HB 805 and SB 14 — to extend this right to all localities. The final legislation also incorporated versions from two Republicans: Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott County, and Del. Tommy Wright, R-Lunenburg County. Both bills also passed with bipartisan support — 71-26 in the House, 27-12 in the Senate. Notably, many of the Republicans who voted “yes” represent rural areas, who are often the most hard-pressed to find funds for school construction.
The argument against this bill is that it opens the door to tax increases (even if they are voter-approved), and a patchwork of tax rates across the state (which we already have). The argument for it is that this is one of the few ways for rural schools to come up with the money they need.
4. A Prescription Drug Affordability Board?
The General Assembly passed legislation — SB 274 by state Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, and HB 570 by Del. Karrie Delaney, D-Fairfax County — creating one. They say it will help bring down costs; opponents say it won’t. The bill passed the House on a near party-line vote but picked up five Republican votes in the Senate. Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, has been especially vocal in support of the measure. He authored a commentary in favor of the legislation that ran in Cardinal on Monday, along with a companion piece from a Richmond doctor in opposition.
5. The state budget
Ah, yes, the budget — the one that Youngkin calls the “backward budget” because it doesn’t include the tax cuts he wanted, and which Democrats call perfectly balanced. There’s no doubt that the governor will send down amendments for those tax cuts. The question is what happens after the slim Democratic majorities in both chambers reject those. The governor hasn’t ruled out a veto of the entire budget — something that’s never been done before — and I’ve seen some Republicans online enthusiastically chatting up a veto as a thing much to be desired. I’m not sure they’ve thought this through.
A veto would be viscerally satisfying for some Republicans, to be sure, but let’s look at what would happen next. Based on the votes the first time around (62-37 in the House, 24-14 in the Senate), there aren’t enough votes to override a budget veto. That’s good news for Youngkin. This isn’t: At that point, we’d have no budget whatsoever, and there’s nothing to stop an enraged Democratic General Assembly from passing another budget that looks exactly like the one the governor would have just vetoed. Where does that get us?
The more desirable outcome would be for the Republican governor and the Democratic General Assembly to work out their differences, understanding that neither side will get exactly all that it wants. However, that requires more interest in negotiating than we’ve seen so far, particularly from Democrats who have made it clear they have no interest in anything less than the budget they just passed. The key to any negotiation is having some give and take, but it’s hard to see what’s on the table here. Youngkin has already vetoed some of the Democrats’ top priorities, so it’s not as if there can be some grand bargain whereby Democrats acquiesce on tax cuts and Youngkin acquiesces on a minimum wage increase. The time for that kind of deal passed the moment the governor vetoed the minimum wage bill — or maybe it passed a long time before that. Democrats think they’re operating from a position of strength because they have a majority in the legislature and every Democratic senator knows they’ll be there after the governor is gone; the governor may think he is operating from a position of strength because he’s the governor and he has that veto pen. Right now, neither seems to be in a mood to compromise, at least in a way that the other side would consider a compromise. It’s hard to see an easy and happy outcome to this.