April 20, 2011

For this week's segment of Sargent Solutions, CBS19's Tiffani Sargent looks at two issues that could affect thousands of people across the Commonwealth of Virginia. A Lake Monticello woman discusses two very important concerns, one involves benefits to the surviving spouses of veterans, the other involves whether or not voters are truly informed when they go to the polls.

Joann Rawls, of Lake Monticello believes voters were misled last November when they voted to pass a military veterans amendment to the Constitution. The amendment called for a real estate property tax exemption for the surviving spouses of veterans who died with 100 percent disability. Rawls claims the summary of the amendment failed to contain the following key paragraph.

“That in the event of a surviving spouse of a veteran claiming an exemption, the surviving spouse shall also provide documentation that the veteran's death occurred on or after January 1, 2011.”

"The proposed Constitutional Amendment, as it was presented at the 2010 election, the wording on that is totally different from what the bill actually said as it went to Governor Bob McDonnell's office and for his signature," said Joann Rawls. Rawls said she found out about the additional information after writing to Republican Del. Rob Bell (R-58th) , one of the many authors of the bill. Rawl's husband, a retired army veteran, died in July 2010, meaning Rawls is not eligible for the tax exemption.

"Even if I would've known that it wasn't going to benefit me, I would still have voted on it, but it would've given me the opportunity to know that I would've been excluded," said Rawls. The passage of the bill forced Rawls to make tough decisions, after living in her home of 11 years, she may have to relocate.

Rawls now wants to know if the summary of the amendment gave voters the proper information, and if it will change the outcome of the law. Del. Rob Bell examined the summary that Rawls was given at the polls, and the final legislation.

“There are bills with very controversial summaries, and with those we go through line by line, word for word. Each side is arguing that somehow the other side is trying to cheat, but this bill went through unanimously in both Houses and we didn't go through it at that level because no one was arguing about it," explained Bell.

CBS19 asked Bell if the stipulation should have been present in the summary.

“A good summary wouldn't leave out something that would make a voter decide whether or not to vote for it,” said Bell. It may be that most of the voters would have voted for this either way, but you're trying to present the information in order for them to make an informed decision and if we left something out, then it's not a good summary then." While in his office, Bell called legislative services in Richmond to find out if an incomplete summary would have any impact on the legislation. He learned that a summary given to voters is only a summary, it is not legally binding.

“The whole bill is always available on line, you can always go look at the underlined text. You want the summary to be as accurate as possible. If it's something we haven't done properly we need to do better," said Bell.

However, Rawls claims the additional wording was added after the voters passed the amendment. At this time, Bell says the Constitution can still be changed but it would take a massive effort. An effort, that Rawls said she just might peruse in memory of her husband and all war veterans across the state of Virginia.