Oppenhagen Column: An end to fear mongering

Elections are interesting monsters.

Another columnist has mentioned that in the previous election, then-candidate Paul Nichols misrepresented the position of his opponent Faisal Gill. Well, karma has come around. I received a political
flyer from Del. Nichols’ opponent, Rich Anderson. While three different pieces of legislation are mentioned, allowing convicted felons to work on school property with a waiver from the local school board
takes center stage.

On its face, this bill does seem to be a bad idea. Who in their right mind would allow a convicted felon to be in our school buildings? And especially pornographers and prostitutes and the infamous “other
felons?” After taking a look at this legislation, I noticed that there were specific exclusions — there are a lot of types of felons that are not permitted to get a waiver.

Citing this piece of legislation is meant to bring up negativity.

And, I guess to reinforce how “bad” Paul Nichols has been voting, Anderson’s campaign cites three specific votes on House Bill 1442. The flier states that Del. Nichols “voted three times to make it easier
for DUI offenders to get back behind the wheel.” It cites an engrossment vote, the passage vote, and a vote on the Governor’s Amendment Passage. This, in my opinion, is a gross misrepresentation of
the legislation. The legislation related to ignition interlock systems.

The section of the Code of Virginia that this legislation amends is 18.2-270.1. There were three changes suggested. First, the legislation had stated that a court could require a first time drunk driving
offender to have an ignition interlock system installed. The change stated that even a first time offender MUST have an ignition interlock system. In addition, the court fee relating to the system was
increased. Offenders would be required to pay $30 a month. And finally, the legislation changes the exceptions for allowing a person to have a work exception.

The bill’s impact statement says that there will be an increase in drivers needing to use the ignition interlock system.

First of all, citing an engrossment vote would mischaracterize a delegate’s support or opposition of the piece of legislation. In order to have a vote for passage, a bill must have a first reading and a second
reading. After the second reading, a motion is made for engrossment and third reading. If the bill is engrossed, it is allowed the third reading and then a vote of the full House. If the bill is not engrossed, it
is killed.

Yes, Del. Nichols voted against engrossing the bill and against its passage, but in the end he voted for it with a recommendation from the governor. His votes against the bill in no way make it EASIER for
DUI offenders to get back behind the wheel. It merely keeps the status quo. It would be more accurate, in my opinion, to characterize the votes as making it more difficult to require first time offenders to
get ignition interlock systems. But saying it would make it easier certainly drums up more emotion, albeit false.

The same is true of the final bill Anderson’s ad cites, HB 1203. Mr. Anderson states that Del. Nichols “voted to allow criminals convicted of assault and battery to work in our hospitals and mental health
institutions.” What the bill REALLY says is that persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor assault and battery may be employed IF the offenses were related to the person’s own substance
abuse or mental health difficulties AND the applicant has been rehabilitated AND is not a risk to the community. This bill sounds to me as though we are giving people a second chance — those who
were drug or alcohol users and abusers and those with a mental illness.

Before anyone angrily writes in complaining that I am a Paul Nichols supporter and that this is an endorsement, let me say that my issue here is not with Mr. Anderson personally; it is with trying to win
with innuendo and misinterpretation. This is not the way I want to see politics operate; it’s not a good lesson for our children to learn. And yet this is the way one campaign is being run. We need to
move away from sound bites that represent only a part of the story, from small quotes and votes that take important facts out of context, from using fear to win an election.

President Obama won his election on the promise of change. Instead of waiting for change to filter down, let’s encourage it to filter up — and let’s start with our local and state races. Gentlemen, please
spare us the fear mongering; put the gloves back on for the remaining time and let’s talk about real issues instead of creating fake ones.

What will you do about the budget deficit? How will you protect our children and their education in the face of shrinking resources?

Those are the questions I want to hear the answers to and the ideas I want to see in my mailbox.

Denise Oppenhagen is a longtime resident of Prince William County and can be reached at DenOp1@comcast.net.