/ The #MonumentalJustice rally in front of the Capitol Building in Richmond, advocating for local authority for war memorials in Virginia, took place just a few weeks ago (streamed via Facebook Live and posted, here).

/ Since the event on January 8, Del. Sally Hudson (D, District 57) filed HB 1625, related to local authority over “war memorials for veterans” in Virginia. Like a bill offered by former Del. Toscano in 2019, Del. Hudson’s filing is made up of substitutions and additions to § 15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia and addresses language related to a locality’s current inability to “disturb or interfere” with a monument or memorial in any way.

5 LOCAL AUTHORITY BILLS IN 2020

/ The bill from Del. Hudson is one of five local authority bills offered in the 2020 VA GA legislative session. In numerical order, they are: SB 183, introduced by Sen. Mamie Locke (D, District 2); SB 560, introduced by Sen. Lionell Spruill, Sr. (D, District 5); SB 620, introduced by Sen. Creigh Deeds (D, District 25); HB 1537, introduced by Del. Delores McQuinn (D, District 70); and Del. Hudson’s HB 1625.

/ The proposed bills from Sen. Locke (reproduced above in mobile view and to the left on your desktop), Sen. Spruill, and Del. McQuinn are identical in cancelling “disturb or interfere” language. In its place, each bill “provides that a locality may remove, relocate, or alter any monument or memorial for war veterans located in its public space, regardless of when erected.”

SEN. DEEDS' SB 620

/ The bills are similar to a filing from Sen. Creigh Deeds (SB 620), though the description of his bill differs in how it “removes a prohibition on (i) disturbing or interfering with any war monument or memorial erected by a locality” and addresses the limits established by the current law in “(ii) preventing citizens from maintaining such [a] monument or memorial.”

/ The second item, related to maintenance, offers more detail in being explicit about a locality’s right to make changes to a war memorial. While not stated, explicitly, maintenance could presumably include the addition of plaques or other educative materials to a monument or memorial on the locality's public property, permission that isn't clearly stated in the current law and something that may have given localities pause for fear of litigation.

/ The summary of SB 620 available on LIS is also specific in noting what war memorials would be affected by the proposed amendment, namely those on the “locality's public property.”

/ In amending aspects of § 15.2-1812.1, related to actions (penalties) for damaging memorials for war veterans, SB 620 also protects a “locality or its officers or officials” from being accused of defacing a monument or memorial, themselves, after taking some action related to contextualization, removal, relocation, or alteration. The proposed amendment says that “such action”—including, one would guess, suits against the city—"may be commenced against a person other than [emphasis added] a locality or its officers or officials, either by the attorney for the locality in which it is located with the consent of the governing body or public official having control of the monument or memorial.”

/ As a whole, SB 620 is more substantive than the bills offered by Sens. Locke and Spruill and Del. McQuinn, which strike "disturb or interfere" language in favor of local authority but go no further. However, at the time of writing Sen. Deeds' bill has no co-patrons.

AN INTRODUCTION TO DEL. HUDSON'S HB 1625

/ Del. Hudson’s HB 1625 is the most developed of any local authority bill offered in 2020, both in terms of its language and the work that has been done behind the scenes to gather support.

/ There are currently 21 co-patrons for HB 1625, in contrast to Del. McQuinn’s HB 1537, which has 6 patrons in the House and 2 in the Senate; SB 560, which has Sen. Spruill, Sr. as the chief patron, plus 6 patrons in the House; and Sen. Mamie Lock’s SB 183, for which she is currently the only patron.

THE CONTENTS OF HB 1625

/ [1] The first contribution of Del. Hudon's bill is to replace the un-Reconstructed notion of the “War Between the States” with the “Civil War.”

/ [2] Like other bills, it also cancels the paragraph around “disturb or interfere” and replaces it with: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, a locality may remove, relocate, or alter any such monument or memorial on the locality’s public property upon the affirmative vote of its government body, regardless of when the monument or memorial was erected.”

/ [3] The proposed amendment would also make any decision related to removal, relocation, or alteration up to "the affirmative vote of its government body," likely to be a City Council or City Planning Commission.

/ [4] The last bit—"regardless of when the monument or memorial was erected”—is also important, since it differs from Del. Toscano’s local authority bill from 2019 (HB 2377), which was eventually limited to Confederate and Union monuments, specifically.

/ As I wrote in November 2019, changes to the version of Del. Toscano's bill that was ultimately reviewed by the subcommittee of Counties, Cities, and Towns were likely made to acknowledge an issue that was at the forefront of everyone's minds, at the time. However, the modification dealt a significant blow to advocates who oppose war memorials that include racist depictions of Indigenous peoples.

/ Del. Hudson’s willingness to stand up for local authority "regardless of when the monument or memorial was erected" is thus a welcome change in 2020.

/ [5] HB 1625 also introduces clarifying language, above and beyond SB 620, related to the “contextualization, removal, relocation, or alteration” of war memorials. Rather than framing the discussion in terms of “maintenance" -- which can feel nebulous in suggesting a locality's ability to contextualize without saying it, outright -- the authors of Del. Hudson's bill are more direct.

/ [6] HB 1625 also takes steps to protect “a locality or its duly authorized officers” from reprisal following a decision to contextualize, remove, relocate, or alter a war memorial.

/ [7] After addressing a locality’s power to make changes to a publicly owned monument or memorial on public land, the bill also lays out protections following actions related to a privately owned monument or memorial on public land. This is key, once again, because it makes who owns the land—not who owns, say, the statue—the most important factor when it comes to potential changes.

/ [8] The second half of the bill, beginning on page two, contains line edits related to § 18.2-137, which deals with “Injuring, etc., any property, monument, etc.”

/ For the most part, these changes reinforce existing language related to the ability to collect fines and/or assign misdemeanors for damages to monuments that “mark the site of any engagement fought during the Civil War” as well as “any memorial to designate the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose.”

/ However, there is a new emphasis on collecting damages from a person "who is not the owner of such property" and related to war memorials "not his own." While it's not exactly clear, this could be another protection for what is referred to, earlier, as “a locality or its duly authorized officers.”

/ [9] Finally, the authors of the HB 1625 write “That Chapter 119 of the Acts of Assembly of 1890 is repealed.”

/ The reference is to a bill passed by the Virginia House of Delegates on January 9, 1890, soon after a statue honoring Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War was dedicated at the intersection of Washington and Prince Streets in Old Town, Alexandria (for more information on the Appomattox sculpture, see its listing in the Art Inventories Catalog of the Smithsonian American Art Museum).

/ At the opening of the legislative session in January 1890, members of the Robert E. Lee Camp, United Confederate Veterans (UCV) succeeded in their advocacy for a bill that would ensure the monument was never removed.

/ As quoted in an Office of Historic Alexandria (OHA) brochure, the bill stated “And whereas it is the desire of the said Robert E. Lee Camp of Confederate Veterans and also the citizens and inhabitants of said City of Alexandria that such monument shall remain in its present position as a perpetual and lasting testimonial to the courage, fidelity, and patriotism of the heroes in whose memory it was erected… the permission so given by the said City Council of Alexandria for its erection shall not be repealed, revoked, altered, modified, or changed by any future Council or other municipal power or authority.”

WHAT COMES NEXT

/ At this point, HB 1625 has been referred to the full committee of Counties, Cities, and Towns (CCT), which meets on Fridays at 9:00 A.M. in the Shared Committee Room, Pocahontas Building, Richmond, VA.

/ The first scheduled meeting of the full committee was adjourned on 1/17/2020, meaning it will gather for the first time on Friday, January 24 and again on Friday, January 31 (click here for the VA House of Delegates meeting schedule).

/ However, there is currently no docket posted for the next meeting of the full committee of CCT, so it isn't clear when HB 1625 will be taken up. Anyone with an interest can continue to monitor their agendas, here. The makeup of CCT is 13 Democrats and 9 Republicans.

/ Similarly, if you want to follow the progress of SB 620, keep an eye on the full committee for Local Government (LG). They meet on Mondays at 9:00 A.M. in Senate Room 3 in the Capitol Building, Richmond, VA.

/ Their next meeting isn't until Monday, February 13 (click here for the complete LIS meeting schedule). The bill hasn't been assigned to that meeting, yet, but you can find dockets here. The makeup of LG is 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans.