2005 Virginia General Election Candidate Analysis

September 9, 2005

The Virginia Hunting Dog Owners’ Association (VHDOA) wasn’t able to endorse a candidate in the 2005 Governor’s race. Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Jerry Kilgore are skilled advocates and articulate spokesmen for their positions, but neither has a strong enough record on decisions affecting gun owners, sportsmen and animal owners to merit our endorsement. This was a very difficult determination in an extremely close race. Both men will make far better Virginia chief executives than their critics would lead you to believe.

The Lt. Governor’s race between Democrat Leslie Byrne and Republican Bill Bolling is interesting for their radically different belief systems and personal styles. Mrs. Byrne, a personable northern Virginian who has held numerous elective offices and was redistricted out of the state Senate in 2000, votes a bit left of center. Bill Bolling is without artifice. He’s a blunt spoken conservative with a VHDOA voting rating of "B" as a Virginia Senator. VHDOA Lt. Governor Endorsement: Bill Bolling

The Attorney General’s race pits Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, a State Senator from rural Bath County against Republican Bob McDonnell, a Delegate from Virginia Beach. Both men are attorneys; both have served in the General Assembly since 1992. The differences between the two of them are many, but what distinguishes Creigh Deeds most is that by background, instinct and birthright, he is a sportsman.

Creigh's General Assembly voting record on issues important to sportsmen and hunting dog owners is outstanding. He's been there for us from his first day in the House of Delegates, where he introduced Virginia's "Right to Hunt and Fish" constitutional amendment, through every meaningful environmental, hunting and gun control fight to his Senate leadership, including co-chairing the new Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus.

Creigh’s voting record has earned him VHDOA's and NRA’s highest “A+” rankings, as well as the highest rating by the Virginia League of Conservation Voters. In contrast, urbanite Bob McDonnell voted against the "Right to Hunt and Fish" constitutional amendment and also voted to limit firearm purchases. Creigh's leadership, legislative skills and trial experience as Bath County's Commonwealth Attorney make him the obvious sportsmen’s and animal owners’ choice for our next Attorney General.
VHDOA Attorney General Endorsement: Creigh Deeds

(Full disclosure: I so much admire Creigh Deeds' advocacy for Virginia sportsmen that I joined “Sportsmen for Deeds” in support of his election. BK)

Only thirty-eight of 100 November 8th races have two major party candidates competing. While the state is nearly balanced politically, legislators here, like others across the U.S., have redrawn the Commonwealth into "safe" Democratic and Republican voting districts. In some instances, only token opposition will be offered. As a result, some primary challenges and open seat contests are hard fought, but no more than 7-8 of the fall's House general elections will be competitive. Despite this, sportsmen’s votes could decide several key contests, including seats on the critically important House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Chesapeake Committee (ANRCC). Equally significant, we need to vote for supportive legislators and send others a message.

This candidate analysis combines our earlier primary election reviews of the open seat contests with those for incumbent legislators running for reelection and general election challenges. The open and challenger seat reviews were based on a set of hunting and animal ownership questionnaire responses. This fall’s incumbent candidates were largely judged on their votes over the 2002-2005 General Assembly sessions. This longer time period greatly increased our database from that used two years ago. Members of the ANRCC, with jurisdiction over hunting, wildlife and animal welfare issues, had more opportunities to show their support for our interests, or lack of it. Current legislator evaluations were divided into four support areas,

·         Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ (DGIF) budget and oversight,

·         Rational and effective animal welfare laws

·         2^nd amendment related measures

·         Voting and non-voting support of Virginia hunters and hunting dog owners.

These four areas were tested dozens of times during 2002-2005 in the General Assembbly. The 2004-2005 sessions contained numerous adverse dog owner and sportsmen bills, as well as the breaking DGIF management scandal. Thirty-eight House actions were identifed as important to hunting dog sportsmen. No legislator could have taken a position on every one of these items, since many bills never survived their assigned committee vote.
The area tested most frequently was support for rational and effective animal welfare laws. Rather than reproduce a 100 X 38+ matrix of individual results, the incumbents’ actions were converted to net + and – designations. The high/low House scores ranged from +13 (James Shuler, DVM) to  -6 (Jim Scott).

For example: Del. Nutter’s 2004 bill to mitigate criminal penalties for an owner protecting his dog from serious harm earned him a +1 credit. Opponents of his HB242 were given a -1 debit. Credits and debits weren’t awarded for “go along” votes; they’re earned by taking the less well traveled path, frequently for voting against bad bills that years ago might have become law. In the instance of a bad bill, its sponsors were debited and legislators who voted against it were credited. See this website's archives for legislative session recaps. The majority of House of Delegates members earned 0 to 4+ aggregated scores and were assigned “C” grades. Legislators with scores falling above this range (A & B) and below it (D & F) deserve your special consideration and attention. The majority of A & B grades were earned by members of Virginia Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, a group formed in early 2004. This caucus should have a major role in reviewing DGIF management structure and oversight proposals next year.

This analysis has a limited scope. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on taxes, education, medical care or social issues. To the degree that hunting and dog ownership are important to you, we offer this review to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote on November 8, 2005. The lack of an endorsement in an open seat contest indicates that the candidates either failed to return our questionnaire or that there was minimal difference in the responses.